United States: Fostering A Fair Workplace Environment: Employee Training Is A Necessity

Last Updated: January 27 2014

Article by Colleen C. Karpinsky and Charla Bizios Stevens

"I don't tolerate gender discrimination in my company. I treat every employee equally and would promote a qualified woman just as soon as I would promote a qualified man."

30-SECOND SUMMARY: Every employee should be trained on appropriate workplace behavior. This training should be repeated periodically and should be administered in an interactive, group setting. Web-based training has many limitations and should not be a substitute for in-person communication. As part of the training, make sure employees know what behavior is expected of them, and that racial slurs, ethnic jokes and unwelcome touching will not be tolerated. Ensure that all employees are informed of where and how to complain about inappropriate workplace behavior, and remind them that everyone has an obligation to report illegal or inappropriate behavior.

"No one has ever complained to me about harassment or bullying in this company. We don't need training; everyone is happy here.

"Why would I do harassment training in my company? Won't that just teach my employees how to sue me?"

I asked them, and they said everything is fine." "It's going to cost HOW MUCH to train my supervisors and leads? And they are going to be off the manufacturing floor for HOW LONG? I can't afford that!"

Four different business executives in varying industries and company sizes made these statements. Each of these businesses found themselves in legal trouble due to the actions of middle managers and supervisors who never received comprehensive workplace training. Would training have made a difference? The answer is probably yes in each of these cases, and it is likely that frontline managers take actions every day that expose employers to potential liability. For a number of reasons, training is an excellent way to reduce risk.

When litigation ensues, a business needs to be able, at a minimum, to show that it has adopted policies against discrimination and retaliation, and that it has in place a clear and effective process for reporting and investigating complaints. Most companies have at least these measures in place. They hang the mandatory posters in conspicuous places and have sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation policies in their employee handbooks, along with a protocol for reporting allegations. Is that enough? Hundreds of state, federal and United States Supreme Court cases and decades of EEOC guidance say it is not.

A review of recent statistics from the EEOC demonstrates increases in enforcement efforts by federal regulators and in the number of filed discrimination charges. In fiscal year 2012, which ended on Sept. 30, 2012, almost 100,000 private sector claims were filed. Areas that saw increases included retaliation, disability, sex and equal pay. Retaliation claims under all statutes (37,836) again topped the list of claims followed by race (33,512), sex (30,356) and disability (26,379).

In order to manage risk and to reduce liability, it is critical to make sure that all workers, supervisors, managers and senior management, in particular, receive training designed to educate them on their rights and responsibilities as employees. Perhaps more important, training helps to create and maintain a workplace where employees are treated fairly. This no doubt leads to improved morale, better production, less distraction, and the ability to recruit and retain the best talent. What more could leadership of the 21st century workplace ask?

The alternative leads to distracted and unhappy employees and managers at all levels. Rather than focusing on hiring new talent and providing services to current employees, human resources (HR) will be conducting workplace investigations into allegations of harassment, and executives will be answering questions at depositions. These types of activities have a big impact, draining HR's budget and resources and negatively affecting employee morale. In a market where culture has proved to be a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining the best and the brightest, taking the wrong approach to managing this risk could have major implications to the growth or sustainability of any business.

What does training look like?

Everyone should be trained on what is and is not appropriate workplace behavior. This includes a review of the most basic rules against harassment, discrimination and retaliation. This training should be repeated periodically and should be live, in a group setting, with an opportunity for questions and interaction among participants and with the trainer. Web-based or video training might be a stopgap for new employees, but it is no substitute for a comprehensive training module that engages all employee levels in a discussion about company culture and expectations. See more on this below, where we discuss one unique approach to this type of training to further promote a great company culture.

Managers should understand how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) intersect, as well as the rights of their employees. A company is not protected from liability simply because HR understands and knows how to implement these laws. Supervisors need to know when these laws are implicated and when matters need to be referred to HR. Consider a case from the Central District of Illinois where the EEOC was successful in winning significant damages for an employee with a disability claiming that the employer discriminated against him by forcing him to perform work that was outside of his medical restrictions and causing an exacerbation of his medical problems. In that case, it was the employee's direct supervisor who took the action that resulted in the claim by pressuring him to perform tasks his physician recommended against.

Managers must be aware of and understand a company's policy on hiring, and how to properly interview and screen job applicants, and assess qualifications. The EEOC recently filed suit against a national retail auto parts company chain alleging that the company systematically rejected all female applicants for a variety of positions that were traditionally considered for males. The complaint alleged that there was only one female employee out of 800 in these roles, although a review of the existing employment applications showed many females with objectively better qualifications than the men who were hired. Was this apparent discrimination the result of a top-down policy against hiring women, or were individual store managers responsible for perpetuating longstanding stereotypes?

There is no question that a supervisor who does not know and understand basic employment laws — from wage and hour and discrimination to whistleblower and retaliation — can lead his company down the path to litigation. The Supreme Court stated unequivocally in 1998 that employers are liable under Title VII for the actions of their agents, and cases which have followed have emphasized that point repeatedly and expanded that to liability under other workplace laws.

But he's only a foreman? What harm can he do?

In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), the Court held that an employer is vicariously liable under Title VII for severe or pervasive harassment of an employee by a supervisor. Liability exists regardless of whether the employer is aware of the discrimination. A company is strictly liable for the actions of a supervisor that result in a "tangible employment action." Such actions include hiring, firing, failing to promote, discipline, demotion, or effecting significant changes in working conditions or benefits. Companies can also be held liable for harassment by a supervisor when a tangible employment action does not result after the supervisor has created a hostile work environment and the employer is unable to establish an affirmative defense. An employer establishes such a defense by showing: 1) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior; or 2) that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the company. Reasonable care has been held to include training.

Even if the alleged harasser is only a co-employee and not a supervisor, the company may be held liable if it was negligent in allowing the conduct. If, for example, an employer failed to respond appropriately to a claim of harassment by a co-worker, liability might result.

More recent cases have expanded the scope of actions for which companies might be held liable. For example, in the case of Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S.Ct. 1186 (2011), the Supreme Court held under the so-called "cat's paw" theory that employers could be held liable for discrimination by employees who played no part in the ultimate employment decision but influenced the decision in some way. Staub sued his employer under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), alleging that his local supervisors who were demonstrably hostile to his military obligations influenced the vice president of HR to terminate his employment. There was no evidence that the VP had any discriminatory animus toward Staub, but the allegation was that the hostile supervisors manufactured allegations about Staub. The VP did not independently corroborate these allegations before deciding to terminate. Clearly, the message of this case is that decision-makers should avoid rubberstamping the recommendations of line supervisors; employers should also keep in mind that training those supervisors about Staub's rights under USERRA and the impact of disregarding them might have saved Proctor Hospital from facing the litigation in the first place.

And then there's retaliation

In the case Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006), the Supreme Court held that actions taken against an employee asserting rights under Title VII amount to unlawful retaliation if the employer's action "could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination." An adverse action need not be termination, refusal to hire or denial of promotion to be unlawful retaliation. An action could constitute unlawful retaliation if the "adverse treatment ... is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging in protected activity." Examples, according to the EEOC, include threats, unjustified negative evaluations, unjustified negative references or increased surveillance. For Sheila White, that adverse action was reassignment to a less desirable job that was still within her job description.

As most employers are aware, the individuals who are most likely to engage in the type of behavior that could constitute retaliation are immediate supervisors or co-workers. A higher level manager makes a decision about an employee's future with the company based on her performance record documented through evaluations conducted by her immediate supervisor. Co-workers suspect that an employee has complained of a hostile work environment in a department, and suddenly, that employee finds he gets no assistance or information on projects he has been assigned. This causes him to be late in completing assignments, ultimately losing the confidence of his managers. A poorly trained supervisor with a retaliatory motive can subject a business to significant liability. In evaluating an employee with discrimination or retaliation in mind, a manager is the voice of the company, and liability may result.

In more recent years, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of individuals protected against retaliation. In 2009, in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, the Court extended the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII to employees who disclose harassing or discriminatory conduct when answering questions during an employer's internal investigation, even though those individuals had not brought claims themselves. The 2010 case of Thompson v. North American Stainless further extended the protection to third parties. In this case, protection was given to the fiancé of the employee who complained of discrimination, on the theory that adverse action taken against individuals in a "zone of interests" with an employee might well dissuade any employee from availing himself of his right to complain.

The prudent employer will want to do the following:

  • Make certain that all managers and supervisors are aware of what protections employees have and how they should go about managing employees within the limitations of the law.
  • Be certain that employees know what behavior is expected of them, and that racial slurs, ethnic jokes and unwelcome touching will not be tolerated.
  • Ensure that all employees are informed of where and how to complain about inappropriate workplace behavior. Give them alternatives for reporting. If they are not comfortable speaking with a supervisor, they should be able to go to human resources, a hotline or a company executive with their concerns. An appropriate investigation and remedial action needs to be taken if the complaint is founded.
  • Remind employees that everyone has an obligation to report illegal or inappropriate behavior and that anyone who steps forward will be protected from retaliation.
  • Act swiftly and decisively to weed out discrimination, harassment and other illegal behavior, and treat retaliation as seriously as you would treat harassment.

Back to the cases at the beginning of this article

Employer Number One, over a number of years, expressed continued concern that conducting comprehensive harassment training would lead employees to become overly sensitive to the behavior of co-workers and to file frivolous claims against the company. What the employer learned during the course of an internal investigation of an allegation of employee theft was that inappropriate behavior was running rampant in the company with no one stepping forward to complain because of the concern that the company would do nothing. The company learned that it had lost several employees due to harassment not only by co-workers but also by customers.

An executive at Employer Two received an anonymous note suggesting that the company was a terrible place to work with rampant offensive behavior. She brought the complaint to the attention of the company's CEO who chose not to engage an independent investigator. Instead, the CEO asked employees whether they thought the allegation was true. Of course, all who were asked responded in the negative. Later, a resigned employee publicly criticized the company, especially the CEO, to whom he attributed some of the most troubling behavior.

Employer Three voiced some of the most typical concerns about workplace training: that it is expensive and logistically difficult to arrange. When a charge of discrimination was filed against the employer, the company could not avail itself of the affirmative defenses available under Farragher and Ellerth. There had been no training and no information disseminated to employees about how to go about reporting discrimination. When the employee filed, the employer was unable to argue that she had failed to avail herself of remedies available to her through the employer, or that it had made reasonable and prudent efforts to weed out illegal behavior. What the employer should have realized is that the training would have paid for itself one hundred times over given the cost of defense before the EEOC.

Employer Number Four is the owner of a relatively small business who had no intention of discriminating against anyone. However, he spent most of his time at the corporate office and was rarely in the field where employees interacted almost exclusively with their direct supervisors. These untrained supervisors were alleged to have had an overwhelming preference for male workers and to have made decisions concerning work assignments based on gender. Upper management relied on the information from these supervisors in making pay and promotion decisions. When supervisors discriminated, the owner had no way of knowing. Even when they didn't discriminate, they did such a terrible job documenting performance that there was a lack of credible evidence to support the company's decisions.

Can training be used to support great workplace culture?

Absolutely. Using cookie-cutter training videos deprives employers of a fantastic opportunity to engage with their employee base and reinforce a great workplace culture. For example, at Dyn, a New Hampshire-based company with an award-winning culture built on trust, passion and persistence — exemplified by the rock climbing wall, hidden scotch room, and putting greens and kegs in the kitchen — the training provided is called "Keep Dyn Awesome." While the training would meet all standards set forth in this article and found in applicable regulations and case law, the training was certainly adapted to fit Dyn's unique culture. In fact, tailoring training has created additional benefits in that it has given employees an easy avenue to provide feedback if/when a co-worker makes an inappropriate comment. Instead of an official report to HR (which is known as the Talent Team), employees can be heard reminding coworkers in a more informal way to "Keep Dyn Awesome."

This has been an approach that protects the company, while at the same time, reinforcing the message that all employees take part in promoting a harassment/discrimination free workplace environment. By placing the focus on "Keep Dyn Awesome," employees understand that remaining harassment/discrimination-free is part of the overall goal of keeping the company a great place to work. This approach addresses the concerns that the employers discussed above raised. The harassment/discrimination training is important to Dyn because it supports the overall culture they aim to promote on a daily basis, which continues to allow the company to attract and retain a diverse group of talented professionals.

Not only do clear policies, comprehensive training, a meaningful procedure for reporting complaints, impartial investigation and appropriate remedial action serve as a business's best defense against claims and lawsuits by employees, they can also serve as excellent vehicles for promoting a healthy work environment and culture.

Originally published in ACC Docket (Jan/Feb 2014).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.