Allowing your employees to celebrate Halloween can be a fun experience and a great way to promote motivation and engagement. If you don’t plan ahead, however, you could be in for some scary results.

Probably the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Halloween is costumes, and many offices allow employees to dress up for the holiday. Some even encourage it with costume contests. Unfortunately, there’s always the possibility that someone’s poor judgment in costume choice will offend a coworker or customer.

read more…

According to a study led by University of Arizona sociologist Alexandra Kalev, mandatory diversity training may do more harm than good while voluntary training designed to advance the company’s business goals pays off in increased diversity in management.

The study examined 31 years of data from 830 midsize to large U.S. workplaces and found that the kind of diversity training used at most organizations was followed by a 7.5 percent drop in the number of women in management, a 10 percent drop in the number of black female managers, and a 12 percent drop in the number of black men in top positions.

read more…

By Robert P. Tinnin, Jr.

Q: This morning I interviewed an applicant for a clerical position in our company. She appeared to be an attractive, personable young woman and was very engaging during the interview. However, I soon learned that “she” is really a “he,” at least anatomically. She told me she is preparing to undergo a sex-change operation but hasn’t yet done so, although she has adopted a female identity. She asked whether, if she were hired, she would be permitted to use the women’s restroom. Frankly, I was a bit taken aback and didn’t know how to respond. I told her I would have to check into the matter. If I hire her, would I have to let her use the women’s restroom? Couldn’t I avoid the issue altogether by simply not hiring her?

A: I would strongly suggest you not attempt to avoid the issue by refusing to hire her. Not hiring her would very likely expose your company to a charge of discrimination — and, potentially, a lawsuit with exposure to damages for emotional distress as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

read more…

By Natalie Ramsey

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected the mixed-motive framework for disparate treatment claims filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In reaching this pivotal decision, the Court made it clear that the analysis for age discrimination isn’t subject to the one-size-fits-all mixed-motive analysis applied in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cases.

Rather, the ADEA’s statutory language calls for a showing that age was “the” motivating factor rather than “a” motivating factor in proving disparate treatment. The ruling is a victory for employers because it requires employees to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that age was the reason for the adverse employment decision, as opposed to simply a reason.

read more…