I’m sure you’ve seen the news … it’s hard to miss if you’ve turned on a TV in the last two days. The New Yorker magazine has featured Barack Obama and his wife Michelle on the cover of its latest issue with a "satirical" cartoon. And it's no ordinary cover (check it out for yourself).

Obama is dressed like Osama bin Laden. And his wife is dressed in military gear with an exaggerated Afro – toting an assault rifle to boot. The two are congratulating each other with a “fist bump” in the Oval Office. And let’s not forget the American flag burning in the fireplace, or the portrait of Osama himself hanging on the wall.

Continue Reading...

SHRM and the Ethics Resource Center (ERC) just released The Ethics Landscape in American Business Survey Report (membership required). The most interesting component, in my opinion, is the list of most commonly observed misconduct in the workplace. For fifty-seven percent of HR professionals, abusive or intimidating behavior toward employees (excluding sexual harassment) tops the list.

While we’ve seen this issue percolating for years (check out Workplace Bullying, which has an extensive amount of information and resources on the subject), this is the first time I’ve seen bullying tied to a survey on ethics.

Continue Reading...

No, Gina’s not a person – it’s a new law that every HR, legal and ethics professional should know about. GINA stands for the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and was just passed into law by Congress on May 21, 2008. Sponsors of the bill called it “groundbreaking” and lauded it as a critical civil rights bill.

GINA is designed to balance the benefits of obtaining and using genetic information for things like research and managing personal health and wellness, with the harm that results when employers and health insurance companies misuse the sensitive data.

Continue Reading...

You’ve probably heard the news by now. (And if you haven't, you’re far too wrapped up in the race for the Democratic nomination.) The California Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling about same-sex marriage – holding that it’s against the state constitution to deny the benefits of marriage to people based on sexual orientation. (The decision is based in part on a 1948 state case striking down California’s anti-miscegenation laws, which essentially banned the mixing of different racial groups – in marriage, cohabitation, sexual relations, etc.)

So California and Massachusetts are leading the way on recognizing same-sex marriage. And where they go, others will follow – notably New York state, which just last week pronounced that it will recognize same-sex marriages performed in jurisdictions such as California and Massachusetts. (New York To Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere).

Continue Reading...

Can a workplace bully create true legal liability for an employer? Based on a recent decision of the Indiana Supreme Court, it would seem that the plain answer is 'yes.'

This April, the Indiana Supreme Court decided what appears to be the first workplace bullying litigation of its kind. The Court reinstated a verdict of $325,000 in favor of an employee who was assaulted by a surgeon during a verbal altercation at the hospital. While the surgeon attempted to argue that the damages were excessive and that the ultimate finding of assault was based on insufficient evidence, the high court rejected these arguments, and also allowed into evidence the surgeon’s prior aggressive acts in order to prove that he was a workplace bully. As importantly, the supreme court supported the trial court’s refusal to give jury instructions that there was no basis in law for a “workplace bullying” claim. (See Raess v Doescher, IndSupCt, April 8, 2008).

The Raess case is a reminder to employers to get a handle on their workplace bullies. Just because behavior does not appear to involve serious physical harm, or to rise to the level of unlawful harassment and discrimination, does not mean that a workplace bully is not causing irreparable damage to the workplace, as well as creating serious legal liability.

Continue Reading...

No two people are alike – and that holds true for our prejudices. But there are some interesting trends that have found certain prejudices expressed more clearly among defined gender and ethnic groups.

Several studies have found that men are more tolerant of discrimination than women, but a study released this month goes one step further to find that both genders tend to more readily accept prejudice against some immigrants and Arab-Americans.

The study also found that:

• Men and women differed the least in regard to discriminating against Arab-American airplane passengers, and most in regard to African-American motorists.
• The highest percentage of respondents accepted discrimination against "poorly educated immigrants," followed second by acceptance of discrimination against Arab-Americans.
• Respondents were least likely to accept discrimination against the genetically disadvantaged, or people who are genetically at high risk for diseases that require expensive medical care.
• Men were 19.6 percent more likely than women to tolerate discrimination against obese people and 17.4 percent more likely to accept racial profiling.

The results, just released this month, come from surveys of more than 3,300 people conducted in 2002 by University of Southern California researchers.

It appears as though implicit bias (often subconscious) is driving the bulk of the problem. Edward J. McCaffery, a USC law professor, who co-authored the study, concludes that an individual who sees nothing wrong with certain kinds of biases will often find others objectionable.

Continue Reading...

Whether the economy is … dare I say it … in a recession or not, employers and employees are feeling the pinch. Bad news in the housing market and the financial sector has made us all a bit skittish. And rest assured, you can count your employees among the nervous masses. What’s on their minds? A heady mix of stress that includes job security, threatened retirement savings, personal debt load, and future career prospects.

If your organization is tightening its belt or considering how to weather this period, it’s critical to steer senior leaders away from making one big mistake – cutting back on essential employment law training. Employment law training budgets should never be considered “discretionary spending,” especially in a downturn.

Employment law claims don’t dwindle along with a poor economy – they actually increase. This isn’t just speculative theory – it’s supported by a formal analysis of case filings.

Continue Reading...

Thirty percent of employee learning in 2007 occurred online, a significant jump from 7 percent in 2005, according to two independent reports on the U.S. training market by the American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) and Bersin & Associates. As importantly, the reports find that “one of every three hours of training is now being delivered via some form of technology, and that ratio is expected to climb in coming years.”

The reason for the switch is that e-learning is more “flexible and efficient…[and] a more fluid model of training delivery” than the traditional classroom model, according to the reports. Instructor-led classes are also generally more expensive per learner, and organizations are growing reluctant to pull employees from their work in order to attend training sessions – not to mention tighter budgets during our slowing economy.

“It’s become pretty clear that companies simply cannot do corporate training without using technology,” said company president Josh Bersin. Even companies that were late adopting virtual training, such as St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch Cos., have “reached a point where they [have] no choice.”

Continue Reading...

There’s never a dull moment in the life of an HR or corporate legal professional. Just when you survived landmines for bad behavior at the holiday party and Valentine’s Day shenanigans, there is a new and hazardous workplace situation brewing – the 2008 presidential election.

The contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is one of the most talked about elections in years. And as the first female and first African American candidates engage in a highly televised debate season, the number of debates among coworkers is on the rise as well. And in a lot of cases, these discussions can center on topics not appropriate for the workplace, including ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and even morality.

And while it’s exciting to see our nation so engaged in the race for our next president, the current frenzy can also create challenges for organizations when it comes to maintaining a discrimination-free workplace. The very topics of the debates – healthcare, abortion, the environment, economics, immigration, and the war on terror, are ones that people are passionate about, and may cause resentment and tense working relationships among employees.

Continue Reading...

The U.S. Supreme Court has been busy this week, passing down two major employment law decisions. A brief summary of each case is below, along with its compliance training impact:

Admissibility of "Me Too" Evidence, is a Case-by-Case Analysis

A closely watched Supreme Court case, Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn was decided yesterday. Mendelsohn was a laid-off older worker who sued her employer for age bias. At trial Mendelsohn attempted to rely on the testimony of other older workers who also were fired from the same company. The district court refused to allow the testimony indicating that the facts of these co-workers were not relevant, because they had been fired by other supervisors, not the supervisor who laid off Mendelsohn.

Continue Reading...