KPA Blog

Posts Tagged ‘employment discrimination’

« Older Entries

Imbibing Idiots and Job Interviews

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

 Most managers and HR professional think they are good at objective interviewing- when in fact they are influenced by all sorts of subconscious bias.  A recent study (with the wonderful title of “The Imbibing Idiot”) highlights this by reporting that applicants who order an alcoholic beverage when taken to dinner or lunch during the interviewing process are perceived as less intelligent- even by those interviewers who ordered an alcoholic beverage themselves.  The study authors, Scott Rick of the University of Michigan and Maurice E. Schweitzer of the University of Pennsylvania, also reported the job candidates fail to anticipate that ordering an alcoholic beverage will reduce their perceived intelligence. 

What can we learn from this as interviewers? Recognize that we all bring some degree of bias to an interview.  Use scorecards, assessment testing, and third party reviews to make the selection process as objective as possible.  As applicants and employees we should consider how we want to be perceived before we order that glass of wine- even if the interviewer or boss just ordered one for themselves. Don’t forget your social media sites- no pictures of alcoholic beverages allowed for general viewing.

Join the conversation:  Should you order an alcoholic beverage during interview? What if the interviewer is ordering one? Wouldn’t the Imbibing Idiots be a great name for a band?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in HR | 1 Comment »

Approach with caution- using the internet in recruiting

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

Since 75% of HR professionals admit to Googling, Twittering and Facebooking in their quest to find out the dirt on a candidate let’s consider what that really means.

  • Who did you really find? There are several Kathryn Carlsons out there working in HR, you  are going to have to dig a bit to make sure you really have found me.  All the other Kathryns seem very nice by the way but they aren’t me. Plus what you do find on me is nothing I wouldn’t have told you if you asked because I monitor my online profile very, very carefully and I never accept an inviation  to any site unless I know I can count on the person to provide truthful information about me.  Facebook- nothing there I’m ashamed of and you will have to hack in anyway because I only share my Facebook page with family and very good friends.   Want some  insight on who I am- the OPUS assessment I took before being hired at KPA provided more information that then any web search.  A web search only confirms that I have worked in various area of HR for a number of years, published a bit, write a blog on HR issues, and been quoted in some articles.
  • Did your candidate really post that information? I did a Google search yesterday and lo and behold there was a new link with my name – it was me, it was from a article that used some information I had published and it was all good, but I didn’t put it out there.  If it hadn’t been good or truthful I would have taken steps to remove it.
  • Texts, pictures, and videos may have been manipulated before posting or after posting. Not convinced? Call the Department of Agriculture and let them explain how they fired Shirley Sherrod because of a doctored clip and then they had to apologize and offer her a new job  and the President appologized personally and the NAACP apologized and on and on…just because nobody took 10 minutes to research if this was the full text of a speech or a clip used by a blogger for his own purposes.

By the way those Internet searches you are doing in your effort to be a good recruiter/hiring manager? They are bound to reveal information you wish you didn’t have and go to great pains to not collect on an employment application or during the interview…  if you really want to know information about race, religion, disability, sexual preference and where they take vacations and what their pet’s name is…go for it… and then explain why that information never factored in the hiring decision when you are sued for discrimination.

Bottom line- If you use the internet to research information consider it part of the background check and do it after you get a release from the applicant.  Publish a social media policy so employees understand the ground rules and know that you will be checking up.  Stop and think before you use any information you find.

Join the conversation:  Have you Googled yourself lately?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in HR | Leave a Comment »

Happy Birthday ADA (Americans With Disablities Act)

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Happy 20th  Birthday to the ADA (Americans with Disability Act)!   Since becoming the law on July 26, 1990 the ADA has protected the rights of the disabled including access to public places, enforcing non-discrimination and requiring “reasonable accomodation” in the workplace.  Further protections for the disabled were provided by the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA).  This law made clear that courts needed to focus their attention on the illegal discrimination – not on whether the victim was disabled within the meaning of the law.    So how effective has the ADA been in the past 20 years? Unfortunately discrimination against those with disabilities continues in the workplace. Consider the following statistics from the EEOC website:

  • 1993: 15,274 charges of discrimination filed with EEOC, which obtained $15,496,811 in relief for 1,851 people though its administrative process;
  • 2009: 21,451 charges of discrimination filed, roughly a 30% increase.  EEOC got $67,826,112 in relief for 3,238 people;
  • From 1993 to 2009, ADA charges rose from 17.4% of all charges filed with the EEOC to 23% of all charges filed as ADA charges became a greater part of the EEOC’s workload;
  • During the same period, the EEOC filed 874 lawsuits claiming violations of the ADA, collecting a total of $86,633,804 for victims of disability discrimination.

    • Join the conversation: What is your experience hiring a disabled person or as a disabled person applying for work?

    Tags: , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Department of Labor, Employee Relations, HR | Leave a Comment »

    Yet another discrimation lawsuit and settlement in the transportation industry

    Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

    Because KPA offers HR compliance consulting and HR software we monitor all of the lawsuits and settlements brought by the EEOC.   Frankly it is rather depressing to me (as an HR professional and as a person)  that 45 years after the EEOC was established there are still so many claims and settlements for discrimination, harassment and retaliation.    My friends who are  employment attorneys could not be more pleased that there seems to be a never ending source of revenue from employers who can’t be bothered with good HR practices UNTIL the lawsuit lands on their desk.

    The latest discrimination and retaliation claim settled by a company involved in the transportation industry involves McGriff Industries. McGriff Industries settled the suit for $100,000 along with required activities involving implementing effective anti-discrimination policies and procedures, and training its employees, supervisors and managers on the prohibitions against racial misconduct in the workplace. The company will also be required to develop a system for reporting, investigating and addressing complaints of workplace racial misconduct; hold all employees accountable for engaging in it; and hold supervisors and managers accountable for tolerating or failing to address such misconduct.  

      Let’s review the 4 things employees really must do to ensure they are not next in the list of companies the EEOC has settled with in 2010. 

    1) When in doubt on the right thing to do - don’t do anything (don’t fire, don’t hire,) without consulting the experts (your attorney, a certified HR professional) and then listen to what they tell you.

    2) Automate processes for hiring, performance management, training and termination with software so you have complete records, and forced compliance to best practices for essential HR process. With the multitude of HR software programs out there at every price point,  some even specialized by industry, there is no excuse not to automate process and force compliance. 

    3) Establish policies and procedures for employees to report issues and concern- and respond to them (ethically, humanely and legally).

    4) Train, train, train- never assume your managers and employees know what to do and more importantly what not to do to avoid harrassment, discrimination or retaliation.

     Join the conversation: Are you sure your company would survive an EEOC audit?

    Tags: , , , ,
    Posted in Department of Labor, HR | Leave a Comment »

    Employer Alert- New Rules on Background Checking

    Monday, June 21st, 2010

    Oregon employers need to review and update their policy on background checks  involving credits checks before July 1st, 2010.   A new law makes it an unlawful employment practice, except in very limited circumstances, for an Oregon employer to use credit history in making hiring decisions or any decision affecting current employees.  Employers in Oregon should also consider reviewing and updating their handbooks to ensure there is appropriate language indicating the employer does not discriminate toward applicants or employees on the basis of information obtained in a credit check.  Hawaii and Washington have recently enacted similar laws.

    There are also bills pending in the following states: Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Legislation also is pending in the United States House of Representatives to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to prohibit use of consumer credit checks in employment decisions.  See my earlier blog at http://blog.kpaonline.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=307 for discussion on best practices in background checking and how much a background check can actually reduce your risks.

    The new Oregon law provides for credit reports as part of of a background investigation in extremely limited circumstances – where required by law (for example bank employees or law enforcement) or for “substantially job-related reasons”.  The reason must be defined and disclosed in writing to the job applicant. I would encourage any employer who does wish to conduct a credit check under the substantially job-related reason clause to consult with their attorney before proceeding.  As an HR professional, who also worked for a leading background checking company, my recommendation is that unless required by state or federal law credit reports will add little value in the hiring decision. 

    Join the conversation: Do you check credit reports before hiring and if so why?

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Employee Relations, HR | Leave a Comment »

    What is the cost of not allowing women mechanics at your dealership? $55K based on latest EEOC settlement

    Thursday, June 10th, 2010

    Is there any reason why women should not work as motorcycle mechanics? The obvious answer of course not-and the Dudley Perkins Company probably wishes that had been their reasoning in the past after paying out $55,000 to settle a lawsuit accusing them of not allow a women to work as a mechanic. 

     The The Dudley Perkins Company, the country’s oldest Harley Davidson motorcycle dealership, will pay $55,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on June 7, 2010.

    The EEOC’s suit had charged that the San Francisco-based company refused to let a female employee, Bowen Dean, work as a mechanic, while hiring less qualified men. Further, the EEOC said, Dudley Perkins fired her after she filed an EEOC sex discrimination charge.  Through the consent decree settling the suit, the court ordered that Dudley Perkins revise its equal employment policy and complaint procedure; train its staff every year about sex discrimination and retaliation; post a notice stating the terms of the decree and how to complain about discrimination; include in its advertising a statement affirming its commitment not to discriminate based on sex; and report its hiring decisions to the EEOC for the decree’s two-year term. In addition, the company will pay Dean $55,000 as monetary damages.  The cost of the bad press is hard to calculate.

    “Breaking into jobs in non-traditional fields continues to be a challenge for women, and despite the prohibitions on sex discrimination written into federal law in 1964, some sex segregation in employment continues,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo. “This settlement will help the motorcycle industry take a step forward.”

    The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov

    Tags: , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Department of Labor, HR | Leave a Comment »

    The Platinum Rule for Workforce Management and Human Resources

    Friday, April 9th, 2010

    As I look the list of recent EEOC settlements for both small businesses and large international companies, law firms (they really should have known better) to manufacturing companies, I am struck by one simple fact.  ALL of these lawsuits and settlements could have been avoided if managers, supervisors and executives followed one simple rule, aka the platinum rule, first coined by Tony Alessandra and Scott Zimmerman. 

    Every major religion has a tradition of the golden rule, “treat others as you would be treated”, and it’s a great starting point for moral and ethical decisions. But in the workplace (and frequently in life) not everyone wants to be treated just like you do.  Instead think about treating people how they want to be treated (the platinum rule), not how you want to be treated (the golden rule).   The platinum rule should also be applied when designing reward programs and development and training plans.   Dan  McCarthy uses the platinum rule as the T in his RESPECT overview and how leadership needs to show it.   Check out Dan’s thoughtful and practical advice on leadership at http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/

     Join the conversation-golden or platinum rule best for workforce management?

    Tags: , , , ,
    Posted in HR | Leave a Comment »

    Yet another discrimination settlement with a dealership, but this time for disability discrimination.

    Monday, March 8th, 2010

    The number of lawsuits, claims and settlements’ involving dealerships and the EEOC continues to grow in 2010.  Beyond gender and age discrimination employees must also ensure that they do not discriminate against individuals with real or perceived disabilities.   Just this month a dealership in Hawaii settled a claim that included a $32,500 payment to a job applicant and a three year consent decree to remedy alleged disability discrimination.   The consent decree requires that the dealership implement an internal policy, procedures and staff training to safeguard against disability discrimination. The car dealership must also submit annual reports to the EEOC to track future complaints of disability bias and requests for disability-related accommodations during the hiring process.

    In its lawsuit (EEOC v. Valley Isle Motors, Ltd., Case No. CV09-0053 HG KSC), the EEOC asserted that the car dealership reneged on an offer to hire a job applicant as a salesperson only after a urine test revealed he was taking prescribed medication. Valley Isle Motors then erroneously perceived the applicant as too disabled to do the job despite normal medical test results and medical authorization to the contrary, the EEOC said.    The EEOC press release quoted Anna Y. Parks, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Employers cannot make assumptions about a prospective employee’s ability to work… the ADA expressly prohibits that stereotypes of this nature weigh into the decision to hire or deny hire to an individual.” Timothy Riera, director of the EEOC’s Honolulu Local Office, added “Employers should heed the lesson learned by Valley Isle Motors and be mindful to judge a candidate by his or her qualifications, not some ill-informed presumption. Communication with prospective employees is the key in determining whether one’s actual or perceived condition will interfere with work. Businesses should take advantage of appropriate training opportunities that are available to learn how to appropriately engage in that interactive process.”

    The bottom line is that employers cannot make an assumption about the candidate’s ability to perform the work and must make certain that all hiring practices are in  accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Here are five simple steps that will help toward ensuring that you are not discriminatory toward individuals with real or perceived disabilities.

    1) Have a clear, complete and detailed job description for every position so that you can objectively judge a candidate’s ability to do the job against the actual requirements.

    2) Confirm with a medical expert that the applicant can do the job with reasonable accommodations or that the perceived disability is even real.  A medical exam may be necessary and your expert should have experience in Occupational or Workplace Health.

    3) Consider that individuals with disabilities often make high quality and loyal employees.  Tax credits may be available to assist companies with making reasonable accommodation and for hiring individuals with disabilities.

    4) Take advantage of the tools and training available through your state or federal office of the Department of Labor including the excellent information on the EEOC website.  http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm

    5) Consult with qualified legal hiring prior to not hiring any individual with a disability.

    Tags: , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Citations, Department of Labor, HR | Leave a Comment »

    Does Background Screening Really Reduce Risk?

    Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

      If you haven’t already reviewed your screening and hiring policies on applicants with criminal records put it on your “to do list” for 2010.   Highly published and expensive lawsuits related to negligent hiring make it seem that background screening is necessary step in your hiring process- but is it?   With experience both as a HR Director and working for a leading background screening vendor, my answer is maybe- it can be an important step and will reduce risk but only if done in accordance with best practices and within the state and federal regulations.  

     The Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the federal courts will soon require evidence-based screening and hiring policies. Within the next 12 to 18 months, employers can expect to see the EEOC issue new guidelines that require empirical evidence for the “business necessity” defense in racial discrimination cases that arise from screening and hiring practices.  Employers will benefit from having clarity in what is permissible.  If you now use the common five-year, seven-year, 10-year or lifetime employment bars for people with criminal records you need to think about how you can validate this information and show business necessity for the specific employment bar.  Most screening vendors claim that criminal checks reduce workplace violence, theft and fraud, but  don’t have any meaningful empirical evidence- with the expected EEOC guidelines and recent lawsuits on discrimination based on background screening they should be working to produce this information over the next several months.   If you current vendor can’t help you will need to consider a new vendor.  Employers may also look to the work of social scientists such as Alfred Blumstein and Shawn Bushway.  Blumstein published a major study in 2009 that actuarially identifies the point at which an individual with a criminal record is at no greater risk of committing a crime than other individuals of the same age. 

     The bottom line is that employers should not use background screening as the only criteria for hiring or screening applicants.  Behavioral interviewing and assessment testing along with reference checking are also important tools.  If  you are using background screening having job-specific hiring policies and a case by case review of all background screening results is recommended- and don’t forget two time tested HR practices for mitigating risk:  proper supervision and effective performance management.

    Join the conversation: Do you use background screening in your hiring process and do you believe it reduces the risk of a bad hire or a negligent hiring lawsuit? 

     

    Tags: , , , , , ,
    Posted in Department of Labor, HR | Leave a Comment »

    Yet another employment discrimination settlement for an Auto Dealership- Are You Next?

    Friday, January 29th, 2010

    Within the past 60 days three dealerships have reached big dollar settlements with the EEOC for races, age or gender discrimination. Most recently a dealership in Georgia paid out $140,000. With 250 new investigators and a perceived easy target in dealerships I won’t be surprised to see more of these claims in the coming months.  Dealerships seems to be a favorite target for the EEOC these days, and too many make it too easy.

    Beyond the four simple steps I offered in an earlier blog “ $1.5 Employment Litigation Recipe” you should also consider EPLI (Employment Practices Liablity Insurance) coverage for your dealership.     Prevention is key- training, a nontolerance attitude and enforcement of policies to ensure that discrimination doesn’t happen or is swiftly dealt with at your dealership will signifcantly reduce your risk  but having EPLI provides peace of mind in the event of claim occur.

    Tags: , , , , , ,
    Posted in Citations, Department of Labor, HR | Leave a Comment »

    « Older Entries