Case 2 - EEOC- Hostile Harassment- Sexual Harassment

Background of Case

The ABC technologies, microchips manufacturing firm hires Miss Red as a quality control engineer trainee in March 2004 and she was assigned to work with four male quality control engineers.  During the training period Miss Red continuously ask the assistance from the male engineers even for a simple tasks and four male engineer felt she was taking too much of their time and were bothered by her queries. So the four male engineers ask her to refer the manual for instructions rather than asking questions. Miss Red felt uncomfortable working in QA department and went to Engineer Marvin Cruz, the head of quality assurance department for help. But there as well she was told to follow manual of operations. At this point she felt she was discriminated and decided to file a case of discrimination, sexual harassment and hostile work environment against the four engineers and the company. HR manager tried to solve the case by appointing Miss Red a junior process engineer on a permanent basis,  she instead filed another case of harassment against Engineer Cruz stating the position was given to her to downplay her initial case.

What is hostile work environment and What does EEOC says about it?

Hostile work environment is a form of harassment. It is demonstrated by such severe and pervasive conduct that permeates the work environment interferes with an employee’s ability to perform his/her job.

According to Equal Employment Opportunity Committee, “Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy,) national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information”. Harassment becomes unlawful where:

1)      Enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment

2)      The conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile or abusive.

Violation committed or Not?

Before coming to any decision let’s look the case in depth, how much Miss Red was affected and how severe was harassment or is the amount of harassment she experienced is sufficient to be actionable in court.  According to EEOC, Petty slights, annoyances and isolated incidents will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile or offensive to reasonable people.

I do not think Miss Red was severely harassed. The four engineer were uncooperative with her because she was taking too much of their work time for even a simple tasks. And after all, at the end of day there is a task to be finished. They just cannot give their most of the time to assist Miss Red. I think Miss Red should have put more effort to learn the work rather than ask the assistance from the Engineers for simple tasks.

I do not think there was a violation committed in this case.

If I were Engineer Marvin Cruz, I would have assigned her to work under my supervision for at least one month and evaluate her performance over that period. For one month of period I would assist her and help her to understand the procedure and all. It is ultimately my responsible as a head of quality assurance department to help the employee and trainee if they experienced any difficulty at work.

Employer Liability for Harassment

According to EEOC, the employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure or hire and loss of wages. If the supervisor’s harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that:

1)      It reasonably  tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior

2)      The employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.

Here in this case, HR manager of ABC technologies try to avoid the liability by offering Miss Red a permanent job offer as the position of junior process engineer.

If I was HR manger I would have investigate the case. I think the issues and potential liability related to claims of hostile environment is complex and shouldn’t be ignored. To minimize the misapplication of the allegation and the risk for actual liability, employers should implement clear policies against harassment and discrimination, establish, follow and enforce protocols and procedures for reporting and investigating complaints and make a good faith effort to swiftly and adequately respond to and resolve any substantiated complaints.

Preventing the occurrences

1)      Implement an effective anti-harassment policy: The first and most important step is to establish, disseminate and enforce an anti harassment policy to provide a means to address alleged misconduct.

2)      Adequately train all employees on harassment: A very simple way for an employer to protect the company from liability is to provide training on the various forms of harassment. The training should be very detailed and complete with role-playing and other ways to provide real life examples of situations that may be considered harassment to employees.

3)      Establish accessible reporting mechanisms for employee complaints.

4)      Take prompt remedial action to address concerns of harassment.

  

References

EEOC rules stating Harassment, Retrieved from

  http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm (9/15/2015)

Practical suggestions for preventing a Hostile Work Environment Based on Profane

http://www.troutmansanders.com/lespring2010-03/ (9/15/2015)

English Only Rule- Case Study

Case Study - English Only Rule

Background of Case

The following is a case study of Hispanic workers, suffering from English only Rule. English only rule is the rule requiring employees to speak only English in the work place at all times including breaks and lunch time. In this case 18 Hispanic workers were hired as housekeepers in a Catholic University and Director of housekeeping has implied English only rule in the workplace at all times. Here these workers are constantly reprimanded for not complying with this directive which leads them to encounter repeated verbal and physical abuse, as well as ethnic slurs.

Pros and Cons of the English only rule

Pros of English only rule

1)      Learning to speak English empowers immigrants. Here in this case with this rule Hispanic workers could be motivated to learn the English language which is essential and is 1^st step to succeed in U.S.

2)      Speaking English in the workplace where English is first language will bring positive impact on team dynamics.

3)      Speaking English in the workplace enables good consumer relationships.

Cons of English only rule

1)      English only rule disables the people to express them in a most appropriate manner as they would have express in their native languages.  

2)      English only rule may discourage additional language learning, which would have negative implications for international trade and diplomacy in an increasingly globalized world.

3)      English only rule limits diplomatic benefits of linguistic diversity.

4)      English only rule can operate as a barrier to employment which may result qualified workers from being hired or resulting in their discipline and termination.

EEOC Rules

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC) guidelines on English only rule states that English only rules violates the law unless they are reasonable necessary to the operation of the business.

Section 1606.7(b) Speaking –English –only rules

·         A rule requiring English to be spoken at all the times disadvantages an individual’s employment opportunities on the basis of national origin, which could result in a discriminatory working environment

·         An English only policy that applies at certain times for which an employer can demonstrate a business necessity, i.e., for customer/consumer satisfaction conversations with co-workers, and safety sensitive types of work is appropriate (this would include health care).

Business necessity includes:

1)      For communication with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English.

2)      In emergencies or other situations in which the English only rule is needed to promote efficiently.

3)      For cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency.

4)      To enable supervisor who only speaks English to monitor the performance of an employee whose job duties require communication in English with coworkers or customers.

Violation Committed or Not

Yes, there was a violation that was committed in this case.

Violation made under business necessity rule:

The EEOC rules clearly states that workers are complied to speak English if there is business necessity. In this case these workers are hired as housekeepers in Catholic University. And as a housekeeper they have to interact with students who might not understand other languages than English. These situations may lead to misunderstanding between university students and workers.

Violation under work efficiency:

Using their native languages may lessen the workplace harmony which may reduce the work efficiency and could make the negative impact on team dynamics. Team dynamics is very necessary to work efficiently and effectively in any organizations.

Analysis

Laws are laws and everyone should follow the law whether you like it or not. Here we found that Hispanic workers had violated the law but using the ethnic slurs and verbal and physical abuse as a punishment is neither the law nor the solution of the problem. So in this case these Hispanic workers can file the case with the EEOC under National Origin Discrimination under Title VII

According to the EEOC, Section 1606.7(c) Speaking –English –only rules states that

As with all workplace policies, English –only rule must be adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons only. An English only rule would be unlawful if it were adopted with the intent to discriminate on the basis of national origin.

Recommendations:

To resolve this case our recommendations are:

1   The employer should consider whether there are any alternatives that would be equally effective in promoting safety and efficiency.

2    An effective English speaking course can be implemented which will help the workers to learn and improve their English.

3.   Employer can give permission to employees to speak their native language during lunch and employee breaks as this does not have any negative impact on business efficiency.

4.    Employees must administer the policy consistently with all the workers.

References

EEOC rules stating National origin discrimination, Retrieved from

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/index.cfm (9/1/2015)

Pros and cons of English only rule, Retrieved from

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php (31/8/2015)

Violation of English only rule, Retrieved from

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/20120321-FINALEnglish-Only-Rules (9/1/2015)