All the Money in the World: Mark Wahlberg, Michelle Williams, and wage disparity issues

January 22, 2018 - by: Kristin Starnes Gray 0 COMMENTS
Kristin Starnes Gray

In the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the ongoing Hollywood reckoning, Kevin Spacey’s downfall was swift following accusations from Anthony Rapp that Spacey sexually assaulted him at the age of 14.  Since Rapp came forward, several others have joined him in accusing Spacey of sexual misconduct and predatory behavior.  Netflix suspended production of House of Cards, and director Ridley Scott began pursuing rapid reshoots to recast Spacey’s role in the true crime thriller All the Money in the World.  Ironically, efforts to eradicate Spacey’s shadow of sexual harassment allegations inadvertently led to a highly publicized discussion about sex-based pay disparities.

Regarding the reshoots necessary to replace Spacey with Christopher Plummer, Scott stated in interviews that all cast members (with the exception of Plummer) completed the reshoots free of charge.    Michelle Williams, one of the film’s stars, confirmed that she agreed to do the reshoots for free and that “it is our little act of trying to right a wrong.  And it sends a message to predators–you can’t get away with this anymore.  Something will be done.”

However, earlier this month, USA Today reported that another one of the film’s stars, Mark Wahlberg was paid $1.5 million for the reshoots while Williams received an $80 per diem totaling less than $1,000.  The fact both actors were represented by the William Morris Endeavor Agency (WME) added even greater fuel to the ensuing fire.  A social media storm erupted with many condemning the pay disparity between Williams and Wahlberg as yet another example of gender inequality in the workplace.  Just two days earlier, male and female stars (including Williams) had worn black to the Golden Globes as a showing of support for Time’s Up, an anti-harassment and gender equality initiative launched by Hollywood power players like Reece Witherspoon, Eva Longoria, Shonda Rhimes, Ashley Judd, Natalie Portman, and many more.

Mark Wahlberg responded to the film controversy by promising to donate $1.5 million in Williams’ honor to the Time’s Up initiative.  WME promised to donate an additional $500,000 to Time’s Up.  Williams released a statement saying, “If we truly envision an equal world, it takes equal effort and sacrifice.  Today is one of the most indelible days of my life because of Mark Wahlberg, WME, and a community of men and women who share in this accomplishment.  Anthony Rapp, for all the shoulders you stood on, now we stand on yours.”

However, the controversy has not ended there.  The Hollywood Reporter released a story that Williams reportedly was paid $625,000 for her work on All the Money in the World while Wahlberg took home $500 million, despite the fact they had nearly equal screen time in the film.  Renewed public outcry has called for transparency in pay discussions and equality in the workplace.  News outlets and social media are likely to bring us similarly high-profile stories raising pay disparity issues, and it seems that a growing number of actors have been emboldened to discuss pay and alleged inequalities.  Indeed, the National Labor Relations Board has repeatedly reiterated employees’ right to discuss pay, and an executive order issued by then-president Barack Obama extends a similar standard to federal contractors who are not covered by the NLRA.

While so many of these headlines involve Hollywood stars, employers in all industries should take note and embrace the opportunity to evaluate and continue to re-evaluate their own practices to ensure legal compliance and a healthy work environment for employees.  My colleague, Rachel E. Kelly wrote a great piece last week offering employer tips on the importance of transparency and establishing an appropriate workplace culture where qualified diverse candidates can thrive.  As Rhimes stated about the Time’s Up initiative, “It’s very hard for us to speak righteously about the rest of anything if we haven’t cleaned our own house.”  It seems that time is indeed up for those who put off necessary house cleaning.

 

Daddy’s Home 2—fisticuffs in the workplace

November 28, 2017 - by: Kristin Starnes Gray 0 COMMENTS
Kristin Starnes Gray

While the holiday season can be a time of great joy and celebration, it also can be loaded with stress. Indeed, the pressures of preparing for the holiday and spending an inordinate amount of time in close quarters with friends and familyBusinessman trying to resist huge male fist and move it can bring long-simmering feuds and frustrations to the surface. This concept is handled with humor and heart in Daddy’s Home 2. Unfortunately, as the film illustrates, such private squabbles can sometimes spill over into public places including the workplace, which is yet another reason for employers to be well-versed on conflict resolution tactics and workplace violence issues.

The second film picks up where the first left offwith our characters navigating the sometimes tricky terrain of forming a modern, blended family. Brad and Dusty (Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg) seem to have figured out how to work together in their respective roles of stepfather and father to raise the kids they both love dearly. However, when Brad’s hyper-affectionate, beloved father (played by John Lithgow) and Dusty’s estranged, hyper-masculine and emotionally distant father (played by Mel Gibson) come to town to celebrate Christmas, it’s a recipe for jealousies and conflicts.

When severe winter weather leaves our characters stranded in a movie theater with countless others, the tensions come to a head with theater employees looking on as certain family members attempt to duke out their differences. While the scene makes for an amusing holiday spectacle on the big screen, it also illustrates how quickly tensions can escalate and  employers (particularly those regularly dealing with the public in their day-to-day operations) may find themselves dealing with the unexpected. Indeed, nearly two million Americans each year report having been victims of workplace violence. Here are five employer tips for dealing with workplace conflicts:

1. Establish policies and complaint procedures for dealing with conflicts between employees and those involving any members of the public who may come into the workplace.

2. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) strongly recommends that employers establish a zero-tolerance policy regarding workplace violence. This policy should cover all workers, patients, clients, visitors, contractors, and anyone else who may come in contact with company personnel. Employees should know the policy and understand that any workplace violence complaints will be investigated and remedied promptly.

3. Early intervention is key. Train employees on the policies and advise them to report potential issues to management and/or human resources early and before any conflicts have an opportunity to escalate.

4. Assess the workplace to identify methods for reducing the likelihood of an incident occurring, and establish a plan in the event that an emergency situation arises. Consider OSHA-recognized risk factors such as whether employees exchange money with the public, work with potentially unstable individuals, work alone or in isolated areas, work where alcohol is served, or work late at night or in high-crime areas.

5.  Establish a workplace violence prevention program. OSHA provides guidance on establishing such a program as well as various online training and other resources.

The bottom line is that employers have a duty to provide a workplace free from serious recognized hazards. It’s important to have the necessary policies and procedures in place to deal with potential emergencies, including workplace violence issues. With that said, we wish all of you a safe and joyous holiday season.

Harvey Weinstein: beauty and the beastly mogul

October 12, 2017 - by: Kristin Starnes Gray 0 COMMENTS
Kristin Starnes Gray

Over the last week, the fallout from a New York Times article regarding Harvey Weinstein has been swift and significant. On October 5, the Times published an explosive story about Hollywood producer and media mogul Weinstein’s alleged sexual harassment spanning decades. More and more women have been coming forward since the story broke to accuse Weinstein of unwelcome sexual advances and sexual assault during his time at Miramax and the Weinstein Company. The Times quoted Weinstein as stating, “I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it. Though I’m trying to do better, I know that I have a long way to go.”  Stop Sexual Harassment red stop sign held by a female

According to the Times, Weinstein has reached settlements with at least eight women over the years, and his former attorney, Lisa Bloom, has described him as “an old dinosaur learning new ways.” The growing list of allegations stands in stark contrast against Weinstein’s public image as a liberal, humanitarian, and champion of women. The Times quoted Ashley Judd as saying, “Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time, and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly.”

Since the story first broke, the Weinstein Company has terminated Weinstein’s employment, board members and legal advisers have resigned, and Weinstein’s wife has announced she is leaving him. Meanwhile, the accusations have continued to mount. Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, and Cara Delevingne have come forward with additional allegations of sexual harassment. The New Yorker also published a story alleging that Weinstein has raped several women over the years.

Weinstein is reportedly entering a treatment program for sex addiction and has denied any accusations of nonconsensual sex. From former temporary employees to Hollywood A-listers, the accusers’ accounts have a similar narrative: young women hoping to find success in the industry but instead facing unwanted sexual advances from a top power player promoting a culture of fear. It sounds like a Hollywood film plot in the vein of 9 to 5, but this is far more serious and with real-life consequences.

Best practices for employers

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the federal law that prohibits sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace, though there are many state and local laws prohibiting the same. To maintain a sexual harassment claim, the plaintiff must generally establish that he/she was harassed based on sex, the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment, and there is some basis for holding the employer liable.

If the harassment is perpetrated by a supervisor but does not culminate in a tangible employment action, a defending employer may avoid liability if it proves the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities.

Best practices for employers to maintain healthy working environments and prevent harassment and discrimination from invading the workplace include:

  • Implementing strong policies prohibiting discrimination, outlining various avenues for employees to complain (taking into account the possibility that complaints may be against the person at the top of the chain of command), and prohibiting retaliation;
  • Training employees on the available avenues for complaints;
  • Training supervisors and managers on how to respond to a complaint;
  • Immediately investigating complaints; and
  • Taking prompt corrective action when complaints are substantiated.

Bottom line. Employers must practice commitment, communication, and credibility. It is their responsibility to ensure that potential complainants understand they will not be subjected to retaliation, the complaints will be taken seriously and investigated appropriately (regardless of the position of the accused harasser), and they have nothing to fear from using the complaint procedure. Let us know your thoughts on this developing story in the comments below.

If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen—best practices from Top Chef

August 14, 2017 - by: Rachel E. Kelly 0 COMMENTS
Rachel E. Kelly

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!” That’s essentially what a group of Teamsters told Top Chef host personality Padma Lakshmi back in June 2014 outside of Steel & Rye restaurant in Milton, Massachusetts. This “episode” is now at the center of a lawsuit brought by the federal government against four Boston-area Teamsters accused of threatening Top Chef production into providing them with positions already held by nonunion employees.  On Strike Sign

The incident occurred in June 2014, when Lakshmi arrived at the restaurant for the filming of a Top Chef episode. Her van was met with a group of Teamsters, one of whom allegedly approached Lakshmi’s vehicle, reached in the passenger side window where she was sitting, and said, “Lookee here, what a pretty face.” Naturally, Lakshmi understood this to be a threat—or at least this is the theory of the attorneys prosecuting the case.

The Teamsters on the other hand contend that the incident outside of the restaurant was for the purpose of a legitimate union objective, i.e., picketing to obtain jobs driving Top Chef’s trucks for their fellow out-of-work Teamsters. Prosecutors argue that the Teamsters were attempting to strong-arm the Bravo show’s crew into paying them for unneeded work, for which there is no legal protection. See United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973), (Holding that federal law does not protect union violence in furtherance of the union’s objectives).

So, what are some best practices for employers facing a labor picket?

1) First, an employer needs to know that strikes and picketing are protected conduct under the National Labor Relations Act, under certain circumstances. A union, however cannot strike or picket an employer to force it to stop doing business with another employer that is the primary target of a labor dispute. At work sites with more than one employer, such as a construction site, picketing is permitted only if the protest is clearly directed exclusively at the primary employer.

2) Picketing should be confined to public places surrounding the employer’s premises. As a general rule, there should be no picketing in private places or on the street.

3) While picketers can be enthusiastic in support of their picket, the chants should not include threats, slurs, or other forms of harassment based on race, nationality, or gender/sexual orientation.

4) Picketers should avoid confrontation and not make physical contact with anyone under any circumstances. This includes throwing items, brandishing weapons, following individuals to and from the picket site, and making threats.

5) Generally, employers subject to a picket cannot obtain a legal injunction to prohibit or stop a picket. Both state and federal law prohibit a court from intervening by issuing an injunction to prohibit a peaceful picketing protest. But employers should be mindful, as pickets are not without some constraint. In the event a picket results in the blockade of entrances, violence, and/or the destruction of property, courts may issue an injunction.

6) Protesters can picket only employers that are subject to the actual labor dispute. Therefore, it’s vitally important for employers to know whether they are considered the actual employer. For instance, contractors that subcontract the work are not considered employers of the trade being picketed by the union. As an example, if the project has a two-gate system and the carpentry union is picketing a particular project, the union may picket only at or near the gate that the carpentry subcontractor uses, i.e., the picketers cannot picket at the electricians’ gate. If a union fails to honor this two-gate system, the employer can raise the issue before the National Labor Relations Board.

7) Finally, employers cannot terminate employees for participating in a strike or picket, or their feet will be held to the fire!

Stuntman’s death on ‘The Walking Dead’ set a sad reminder of common workplace hazards

July 18, 2017 - by: Marilyn Moran 0 COMMENTS
Marilyn Moran

Tragically, stuntman John Bernecker died last week in Atlanta after falling 30 feet to a concrete floor while working on a fight scene for AMC’s zombie-apocalypse series “The Walking Dead.” In response, the show temporarily halted production of its eighth season, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) opened an investigation.  Safety Always

According to OSHA, more than 4,500 workers are killed on the job every year, and approximately 3 million are injured.  While all accidents cannot be avoided, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, every employer is responsible for the safety and health of its employees while on the job.

Last October, OSHA released its annual list of the 10 most frequently cited safety and health violations, based on data compiled from nearly 32,000 workplace inspections:

  1. Fall protection
  2. Hazard communication
  3. Scaffolds
  4. Respiratory protection
  5. Lockout/tagout
  6. Powered industrial trucks
  7. Ladders
  8. Machine guarding
  9. Electrical wiring
  10. Electrical, general requirements

This list rarely changes from year to year, and OSHA contends that the number of workplace deaths and injuries would dramatically decline if employers focused on correcting these hazards.

The stuntman’s death on the set of “The Walking Dead,” which resulted from injuries associated with a fall, is believed to be the first stunt-related death reported in the United States in the last 17 years. Injuries from falls, however, especially in the construction industry, remain among the most common workplace hazards and continue to dominate OSHA’s list, with fall protection, scaffolds, and ladder issues among the top 10.

Of course, OSHA regulations are the bare-minimum standards employers must meet to be in compliance with the law, but employers should strive to go above and beyond the minimal requirements to ensure a safe workplace for their employees. Not only is it the right thing to do, but studies have shown that providing a safe workplace reduces costs, raises productivity, and improves morale, and that’s just good business.

For more information and OSHA’s recommendations for creating a safety and health program, go to www.osha.gov/shpguidelines. Finally, if your business is facing an OSHA investigation or needs advice about OSHA compliance, you should consult your employment counsel.

May you rest in peace, Mr. Bernecker.

Tesla’s CEO makes personal pledge for employee safety

Kristin Starnes Gray

Tesla, an electric-automobile manufacturer, made headlines last month after Worksafe, a California-based worker advocacy group, released a report indicating that the injury rates at Tesla’s Fremont manufacturing facility were higher than the industry aNissan Mechanicverage in 2014 and 2015. For example, the report indicated that the rate of serious injuries at Tesla’s Fremont plant (i.e., those resulting in days away from work, restricted duty, or transfer) was approximately double the industry rate for 2015. The report further questioned Tesla’s claim that injury rates had fallen between 2016 and 2017, with Worksafe arguing that the injury data Tesla had recorded at that time was too preliminary to be considered accurate.

In an effort to improve safety, Tesla has recently made a number of changes, such as: adding a third shift to reduce overtime and improve safety; hiring an ergonomics team to focus exclusively on improving health and safety and reducing ergonomic risks; and adding a safety team to each department. Most recently, Tesla CEO Elon Musk took the additional step of sending this e-mail to employees to demonstrate just how serious he is about employee safety:

No words can express how much I care about your safety and well-being. It breaks my heart when someone is injured building cars and trying their best to make Tesla successful.

Going forward, I’ve asked that every injury be reported directly to me, without exception. I’m meeting with the safety team every week and would like to meet every injured person as soon as they are well, so that I can understand from them exactly what we need to do to make it better.  I will then go down to the production line and perform the same task that they perform.

This is what all managers at Tesla should do as a matter of course. At Tesla, we lead from the front line, not from a safe and comfortable ivory tower. Managers must always put their team’s safety above their own.

It will be interesting to see what comes from this personal pledge by Musk. In the meantime, all employers should be continually evaluating and reevaluating their safety efforts in the workplace. To drive home its mission of workplace safety, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) currently lists on its website the names of workers across the country who have lost their lives on the job in various industries, along with the dates, locations by state, and manners of their deaths. According to OSHA’s figures, “[m]ore than 4,500 workers lose their lives on the job every year” across the country and across industries. Planning, training, and supervision are keys for prevention.

Howard Stern’s day off : the danger of digging for details when employees call in sick

May 23, 2017 - by: Marilyn Moran 0 COMMENTS
Marilyn Moran

Shock Jock Howard Stern took an unexpected day off from his radio show last week which prompted a firestorm of speculation on social media as to the underlying reason for his absence.  Although Stern’s absence was initially attributed to a “personal day,” many fans speculated that Stern’s sick father was the real reason he missed work.  Sickness absence

To quell the speculation, workaholic Stern revealed to listeners that he took a rare day off because he was, in fact, sick and his voice was not strong enough to do his radio show.  Even after Stern’s announcement, however, some fans continued to sense a conspiracy and wanted more details, with one fan questioning, “If [Stern] taking a sick day is no big deal, why keep it a secret?”

Obviously irritated by the intrusion into his personal life, Stern asked, “Why was it such a big deal that I took a f**king day off?”

This incident brings up an important lesson for employers who may be speculating about the real reason an employee called in sick from work.  Generally, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from asking whether an employee is an individual with a disability or about the nature or severity of a disability, unless the questions are job-related and consistent with business necessity.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and some courts, asking an employee to explain the underlying reason for a sick day may violate the ADA.  Thus, employers should refrain from asking intrusive questions that tend to reveal information regarding an actual or perceived disability.

Also, if your business has a sick leave policy that requires employees to provide a doctor’s note, you can steer clear of making an unlawful medical inquiry under the ADA by clarifying that the doctor’s note need only state:  (1) the date on which the employee was seen; (2) that the absence from work was medically necessary; and (3) the date on which the employee will be able to return to work.

Lastly, you should train supervisors and HR personnel not to pry into the underlying reason for an employee’s use of sick leave unless the questions are indeed job-related and consistent with business necessity.

 

 

 

Standing ovation for Adam Jones at Fenway

Kristin Starnes Gray

Last Monday, the Orioles made headlines for more than just their 5-2 win over the Red Sox at Fenway Park.  Orioles player Adam Jones reported that Red Sox fans called him a racial slur several times and threw a bag of peanuts at him as he was entering the dugout. Police reportedly ejected 34 people, including the person who threw the bag of peanuts. The Red Sox, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, and MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred all condemned the fans’ behavior.  Fenway park at sunset

The following day, fans welcomed Jones with a standing ovation at Fenway Park before his first at-bat. Despite recent hostility that has arisen between the two teams after Manny Machado injured Boston’s Dustin Pedroia, Red Sox starter Chris Sale stepped off the mound on Tuesday to allow more time for Jones’ ovation. In addition, Jones thanked two Boston players, Mookie Betts and David Price, for their supportive text messages. African-American players for other teams also have come forward about their experiences with being called racial slurs by fans during games.

While we typically think of harassment in the workplace as occurring between two employees, Jones’ experience is an example of how important it is to be vigilant about the reprehensible behavior of non-employees. Title VII  of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the federal law that prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on various protected categories, including race.  As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has explained, “Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances . . . . The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee . . . . The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees and non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.”

Some important steps employers can take to prevent harassment in the workplace include, but are not limited to:

  • Establishing anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies with complaint procedures;
  • Communicating those policies and procedures to all employees;
  • Training supervisors on what to do when an employee complains; and
  • Taking prompt and appropriate corrective action to address employee concerns.

In the meantime, let us take to heart these two teams’ classy showing of solidarity and mutual respect. Let this be an example to us of, not only good sportsmanship, but also the importance of treating each other with dignity and following the Golden Rule.

Tragedies on and off the silver screen: How to avoid costly workplace injuries

April 10, 2017 - by: Angela Cummings 0 COMMENTS
Angela Cummings

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter is the title of a science fiction horror film that was recently released worldwide. The horror that occurred behind the scenes in the making of the movie rivaled the fictional onscreen terror. First, the leading actress’ stuntwoman, Olivia Jackson, sustained life-threatening injuries, including cerebral trauma, a crushed face, a severed neWork Injury Claim Formck artery, a paralyzed arm that had to be amputated, spinal cord damage, and multiple broken bones, all from a motorcycle collision with a camera crane. Then, later in filming, another crew member, Richard Cornelius, was killed when one of the movie’s props, an Army Hummer, crushed him.

In addition to such stunt and crew film personnel, actors themselves often suffer serious workplace injuries while filming movies. For example, while filming “Syriana,” A-list actor George Clooney broke his spine during a stunt scene gone awry. His injury was so serious that he was bedridden for a month with severe migraines, during which time he also suffered from depression.

Like the Hollywood employees just mentioned, everyday workers also suffer workplace injuries. These injuries can prove costly to their employers in the form of workers’ compensation claims, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) penalties, and loss of productivity and morale. Private employers reported approximately 2.9 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses to OSHA in 2015. Moreover, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that approximately 4,500 employees suffer workplace injuries each year that result in their deaths. Such recorded workplace injuries and illnesses range in severity and include wounds, amputations, back injuries, as well as fatal accidents from crushing and falling.

Almost one-half of the recorded workplace injuries were serious enough to result in direct or indirect financial loss to the employer, including the injured employee missing a day or more from work, requiring a transfer to a different position, or needing to limit some duties of his or her position due to a doctor-imposed work restriction. In addition, these are just the reported injuries. It’s safe to say that many thousands more injuries are either not reported by the employee and/or the employer.

Let’s take a quick look at the most common workplace injuries reported by employers and some tips for how to limit exposure to such accidents and injuries:

Overexertion

This tends to be the most common–and costly–type of injury for employers, resulting in a high number of workers’ compensation claims. How can employers limit injuries related to physical exertion?

  • Be sure employees take a sufficient number of breaks, especially in jobs that require strenuous physical movement. Many workplace injuries occur when a worker is tired.
  • Schedule the most difficult and labor-intensive tasks for employees at the beginning of their shifts, when they are fresh and able to concentrate more with respect to proper technique and safety.
  • Also, be sure that the workers have sufficient training to do their job tasks using proper methods and that supervisory personnel provide adequate oversight.

Slipping/falling

Another common cause of workplace injuries is slipping/falling. Such accidents are often preventable. Injuries sustained by employees who slip or fall in the workplace can be minor, such as bruises, or major, such as death due to a head injury. Here’s how employers can limit injuries related to slipping/falling:

  • Clean up spills as soon as they occur. Also, employers should ensure that the washing and cleaning of floors and stairs is limited to low-occupancy times of the day and that the areas being cleaned are marked sufficiently to put the employees on alert.
  • Be sure that all guardrails are properly maintained and that no debris or slippery trash (think: banana peels) causes hazardous conditions.
  • Finally, you can limit accidents with respect to falling from heights (such as ladders, rooftops, and stairs) by ensuring that employees always use safety harnesses and are trained about specific processes related to working from heights.

Vehicle accidents

Some employees must drive motorized vehicles for a living (cars, buses, trucks, tractors, etc.). Driving a vehicle as part of one’s job creates inherent safety risks and exposes both employers and employees to costly accidents and injuries. OSHA reports that workplace-driving accidents cost employers an average of $60 billion per year. How can employers limit injuries related to vehicle accidents?

  • Ensure that all drivers have proper training and licensing.
  • Conduct inspections of company-owned vehicles at regular intervals and make necessary repairs immediately afterwards.
  • Also, mandate that the employees who operate such vehicles be drug- and alcohol-free. Obviously, when an employee operates a vehicle under the influence, it results in compromised coordination, judgment, and concentration.

Companies must take active steps to keep their workplaces safe for employees, customers, vendors, and, in some cases, the general public. You, as human resources professionals, should work with both managers and employees to implement safety programs and provide thorough and regular training. With such practices, your workplace is less likely to resemble a horror film.

Will and Grace reunited

March 20, 2017 - by: Kristin Starnes Gray 0 COMMENTS
Kristin Starnes Gray

Ever since the cast of Will and Grace reunited for a mini episode encouraging all of us to vote in 2016, the Internet has been in a frenzy about the possibility of a revival 18 years after the show first aired. In January, the news broke that NBC has ordered a 10-episode limited revival series reuniting the original stars. The show is known for making us laugh while breaking significant ground during its eight-season run in terms of LGBT representation on TV.  LGBT grungy heart

The news of a revival comes in the midst of uncertainty about whether sexual orientation is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has repeatedly taken the position that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation qualifies as sex discrimination “because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorable because of the employee’s sex.”  The 11th Circuit, however, recently upheld a district court’s dismissal of a complaint alleging harassment based on sexual orientation under Title VII.

The 11th Circuit found that sexual orientation isn’t covered by Title VII.  The court, however, vacated the portion of the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims that she was discriminated against for failure to conform to gender stereotypes. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet directly decided whether sexual orientation falls within the scope of Title VII, though it has recognized that discrimination based on sex stereotypes and same-sex harassment are prohibited under the statute.

The 2nd Circuit is currently considering the issue, while the 7th Circuit is reconsidering its prior decision finding that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Multiple district courts have reached the opposite conclusion, finding that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes prohibited sex discrimination. With this latest 11th Circuit decision and expected decisions from other circuits, the issue may soon be ripe for clarification by Congress or the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it’s important to keep your employment policies updated and bear in mind that certain local and state laws, such as the Illinois Human Rights Act, have expressly prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including gender identity.

While we wait for this issue to wind its way through the judicial system, be sure to have your blankets and popcorn (and/or Karen-worthy martinis) ready for some of our favorite characters to return to the small screen. I’m sure we can all look forward to more of Karen’s one-liners because, as she taught us, “Honey, tact is for people who aren’t witty enough to be sarcastic.”

 

 Page 1 of 5  1  2  3  4  5 »