A Year Without Bias

A friend recently referred to a mutual acquaintance as “that crazy cat lady.” Being a crazy dog lady myself (we only have one at the moment, but I aspire to a small pack, to take care of the as-yet-fictional farm I also aspire to), I was not as offended as I should have been.

And that got me thinking.

There are those who harbor a bias against people who have a houseful of cats. And people who have cat-sized dogs that wear sweaters. And people who wear tweed jackets with elbow-patches, or who ride unicycles downtown, or who sport a PhD but drive a Tri-Met bus.



These are the same folks—including friends, family, and clients—who are completely on board with the idea that people should not be judged by the color of their skin, their age, their accent, their disabilities, etc.

But do we harbor less obvious biases that are or can be just as insidious?

Consider:

1. Do you assume (without realizing it) that older employees won’t be able to pick up on new technology?

2. Do you expect younger employees to be impatient, job-hopping, and lacking in company loyalty?

3. Do you hold off on promoting married women in their twenties and thirties, subconsciously expecting them to become less reliable when they start a family?

4. (Here’s a terrible bias I’ve observed, that many don’t even realize they’re acting on): Do you have lower standards for your employees for whom English is a second language, assuming that because they don’t speak English well they don’t understand complex concepts?

Even stereotypes that seem harmless can be problematic, so here’s my advice for the new year: Review your hiring and promotional decisions in the last few years with an objective eye. Do you see a pattern of rejecting a certain class of people? Even if that class of people is not protected by law, you may be cheating yourself of valuable talent by acting on assumptions and biases.

And just in case you’re wondering: No, redheads do not have fiery temperaments! (You can check out the grievously insulting prejudices against us through the ages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair)

The Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries is proposing new rules, summarized below. The proposed language can be found on BOLI's website: http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/LEGAL/H_Notices.shtml

The comment period ends January 3, 2011, so if you have an opinion, let them know!

Some of the rules simply confirm legislatively the judicial interpretation of various laws. Others bring state law into conformity with federal law. Some actually impose new obligations or restrictions (by fleshing out new statutes). In other words, it's worth your time to review these proposed rules.

The proposed rules and amendments would:

(1) Clarify the individuals protected by prohibitions against use of credit history in employment

(2) Clarify that service animals may be a reasonable accommodation in housing for an individual with a disability

(3) Implement statutes prohibiting discrimination based on disability in public accommodation consistent with federal law

(4) Conform implementation of statutes prohibiting discrimination based on military service with federal law and make such statutes internally consistent

(5) Conform definition of “in loco parentis” as used in the Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA) with federal definition

(6)Clarify that statutes require costs of completing OFLA verification forms to be paid by the employer

(7) Clarify that the period of time for an employer to ask for more information about a request for OFLA leave and the period of time the employee has to respond is more than a total of 5 days

(8) Clarify application of leave year for employees using pregnancy disability leave and parental leave

(9) Clarify the amount of time employers have to provide notice that an employee using unforeseeable OFLA leave must use accrued paid leave

(10) Clarify acceptable means of notice that employees taking OFLA must use paid leave

(11) Clarify amount of time employer has to notify employees they are eligible for OFLA leave

(12) Clarify how a discrimination complaint is verified

(13) Clarify that reports of violations of law to administrative agencies are protected under ORS 659A.199

(14) Implement statutes applying to use of physical force regarding health care employees.

JOIN

Whatever holiday you celebrate—or even if you don’t celebrate holidays—December is a good time to remember those less fortunate. Northwest Employment Law is launching a fund-raising campaign in partnership with JOIN: “Connecting the Street to a Home.” The goal is to raise enough money to put a family into a home, and help them stay there.

If you are interested, please click on this link: https://joinpdx.ejoinme.org/MyPages/ShariFundraisingPage/tabid/256901/Default.aspx

Read the Paper

The Sunday Oregonian included advice about financial planning, an evaluation of the reasons for a local web-design company's success, an analysis of various mutual funds, a "fact check" on a politician's recent claims about the economy, and a story about a wrongful termination lawsuit brought by an employee fired for burning the Quran.

When I logged onto Comcast to check my personal email, the headlines read: "Matador's Pants Split," "Best New Games," and "Heidi Klumm's too-tight dress."

This is a shameless plug for newsprint media. We have access to a wealth of information--and misinformation--on the web, but that is not why most of us use it. Internet news focuses on the sensational, the bizarre, and the merely interesting. Even serious news gets nothing more than a misleading headline limited to the space available after accounting for the advertisements. When real issues press upon our personal and business lives - such as our voting options, economic trends, and legislative changes - we need in-depth, investigative journalism, and intellectually challenging editorials (yes, even those with which we disagree).

And so I make this public plea: Read the Paper. Only by reading the paper can we get the information most useful to this ongoing experiment called Democracy, keep up with the trends that affect our businesses, and ensure continued employment (you knew there'd be a tie-in to employment, didn't you?) for the journalists who provide such a valuable service.

Crash Course in Employment Law - Free Seminar

The Not-So-Friendly Skies

A female Executive Jet employee complained about inappropriate behavior ("lewd," "raunchy," "sexualized banter," "pornographic emails," and at least one pinching incident) by male employees, which turned out to be (a) fabricated to a large degree (b) motivated by her desire for a transfer, and (c) a complaint about behavior she herself often initiated.

The airline investigated, discovered the misconduct was widespread among employees of both genders and - perhaps feeling it needed to do something - fired the male employees.

The men promptly filed a claim of gender discrimination with the EEOC, and later in court, alleging they were fired for behavior female employees engaged in with impunity.

The lower court dismissed the case, finding the female employees were not "similarly situated" (that is, comparing the male employees to the female employees was like comparing apples to oranges), because they had different supervisors.

The Ninth Circuit rejected that reasoning (pointing out the termination decision was made by the president of the company, not by one of the two supervisors), but accepted the district court's other basis for dismissing the case: No one complained about the female employees' behavior.

Anyone care to comment?

Reminder: September Deadlines

If you are a private employer with at least 100 employees (or are affiliated with a company that has at least 100 employees, other than a private club), and/or you hold government contracts or subcontracts over the threshold amount, your EEO-1 forms, VETS-100 and/or VETS -100A forms, are due by September 30.

Caveat (you knew there'd have to be a lawyerly caveat, right?): The statement above is a signficant oversimplification of the criteria. If you're not sure whether these requirements apply, please contact your lawyer!

Also, some of the healthcare reform changes went into effect on September 23, 2010. If you are unsure whether or which changes apply to you, contact your insurer.