Experienced HR professionals know that, generally speaking, an employee has no viable claim for sexual harassment unless her workplace has become “hellish.” Nonetheless, savvy employers will take action long before offensive behavior adds up to an actionable claim of sexual (or racial or religious) harassment. By focusing on inappropriate behavior and nipping it in the bud, management can head off harassment claims by setting the example for sensitivity and respect for others’ views.

Does this Sound Familiar?

How many of you have had this experience: You’re in the middle of sexual harassment training, and one of your senior male managers says, “Boy, I wish someone would harass me!” Or this: You hear a supervisor engaged in conversation with members of her department about the relative physical attributes of the various competitors on the latest reality show. Or: Your sales manager passes along to you and others in the organization a computer video clip his sister sent him via e-mail showing a fraternity prank that involved mooning the opposing crowd at a football game.

Such situations are all too common, and they send the wrong message about management’s views concerning what appropriate workplace conduct is. If those scenarios sound familiar, it may be time to gather your supervisors together for some awareness training. Here are 10 best practices you can pass along to all your managers.

Rule #1: Suggestive or Sexual Materials Don’t Belong in the Workplace

Period! That means the Victoria’s Secret catalog, even if it’s shared only among women. That means the e-mailed list of 10 Reasons a Cucumber Is Better Than a Man. That means a video clip of Janet Jackson’s revealing moment at the Superbowl halftime show. Yes, it was aired on national television, but that doesn’t mean a reasonable person wouldn’t find it offensive.

If you find yourself mentally debating whether an anecdote, e-mail, or humorous birthday card posted in the break room might cross the line and offend someone, trust your instincts and diplomatically see to its removal.

Rule #2: Your Coworkers Aren’t Your Family

Of course, a friendly working atmosphere is a good thing. If you treat a colleague as you would a spouse, significant other, parent, or child, however, it’s time to reevaluate the relationship (that is, the relationship with the colleague). Get back on the professional track.

Rule #3: Eliminate Derogatory Gender-Related Language

Derogatory gender-related language should be eliminated from the workplace vocabulary. For example, if someone says “This project is a bitch” or “The computer system is f’ed up,” you should ask the speaker not to use such language because it may make others uncomfortable. True, courts have recognized that this sort of shop talk isn’t sexual in nature. Nonetheless, some people find it offensive, and the workplace is better off without it.

Rule #4: Beware the Nonverbals

One often-cited federal sexual harassment case describes a supervisor as making the sound “um um um” in the presence of an attractive subordinate. Other cases have included staring as allegedly offensive conduct. Put your supervisors on notice that sexual innuendo can come in the form of comments, sounds, expressions, or gestures. Regardless of the form it takes, it isn’t appropriate professional conduct.

Rule #5: Keep Terms of Endearment at Home

That includes “honey” or “hon,” “sweetie,” “dear,” “chick,” “babe,” “sugar,” etc. True, it isn’t harassment if the term is used to apply equally to both males and females. In reality, however, that’s seldom the case, and a term that’s meant affectionately or as a joke can easily be inferred as condescending. Also, be aware of terms like “mom” and “gramps.” Even when used affectionately, such names may be viewed as derogatory or disrespectful toward older employees (see rule #3).

Rule #6: Watch the Hands

A brief, professional handshake is fine. There’s also nothing wrong with a light touch on the shoulder to get a colleague’s attention. But going much beyond that is asking for trouble. Some supervisors use a “hands-on” approach to establishing rapport with colleagues — hugs, shoulder rubs, and other casual contact that’s meant in a friendly way. However well meant, such contact (especially when it comes from a boss) can make people uncomfortable. Respect others’ personal space, and try establishing rapport with a smile rather than physical contact.

Rule #7: Sex Life Discussion = TMI (Too Much Information)

Whether the conversation is about a supervisor’s love life, a coworker’s love life, or Carrie Bradshaw’s love life from the last season of Sex and the City, it isn’t a conversation that belongs in the workplace. Counsel your supervisors that if their employees come to them wanting to share information about personal relationship problems, the best practice is to get the conversation back to work-related topics.

If the individual really seems to need outside help, suggest professional counseling (the company’s employee assistance program, if there is one). Remind your supervisors that once they’ve allowed themselves to become their employees’ (unlicensed) therapists, it can be awfully hard to get out of that role and reestablish the relationship on professional grounds.

Rule #8: Accentuate the Positive, but on a Professional Level

Compliments on physical appearance must be handled with care. For example, he says, “That brooch you’re wearing is interesting. Is it an antique?” She thinks, “What’s he doing looking at my chest and letting me know that he was looking?” Play it safe and keep day-to-day pleasantries on the weather or other subjects that aren’t emotionally charged.

Rule #9: E-mail and Voice-mail Messages

There’s a word for e-mail and voice-mail messages: evidence. People tend to view electronic communications as a substitute for personal conversation and treat them with the same informality. Remember that such messages are recorded and stored. There’s no guarantee that the recipient will hit “delete” or that, even if she does, the result will be complete erasure. Don’t say anything in e-mail or voice mail that you wouldn’t write on a hard copy document or that you wouldn’t want to hear repeated in a court proceeding.

Rule #10: Rules of the Road — Ditto All the Above

Supervisors traveling on work-related business represent the company even when en route, dining out, or staying overnight. Business-travel behavior must live up to the same standard as in-office behavior. In other words, the above rules don’t have geographic boundaries. They apply on and off the company premises. Yes, that includes the company holiday party.

Bottom Line

When you counsel your supervisors that they’re expected to be models of respectful behavior, you may get the reaction that you’re trying to take all the fun out of the office. Just remind them that nothing takes the joy out of the workplace like having to defend against a claim of harassment — however trivial or baseless. A culture of respect for others will pay off in the form of more professional working relationships and greater productivity.

A: In addition to prohibiting religious discrimination in the workplace, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposes an affirmative duty to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of your employees unless doing so constitutes harassment or poses an undue hardship on your business. Of course, you have the right to prohibit religious proselytizing in the workplace. However, simply signing e-mails with “God bless” or “Your friend in God,” while objectionable to some, doesn’t meet the definition of proselytizing or forcing a religious belief on others. Furthermore, undue hardship requires more than just proof that some workers complained of religious expressions in the workplace. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission holds that undue hardship requires evidence that an individual’s religious expression was so severe and pervasive that it infringed on the rights of coworkers or caused a disruption of work.

Still, it would be best to advise the employees that their expressions offend some employees and ask them to stop. If they don’t stop, you may need to move on with your progressive discipline system. One of the more difficult situations HR must handle is when an employee feels the need to “preach” to coworkers.

Proselytizing and preaching the gospel don’t really belong in the workplace. And if you allow one employee the freedom to express her religious beliefs, you have to allow others to do the same. That’s usually where the trouble begins. Ultimately, and perhaps unfortunately, the easiest solution may be to require that all employees use a standardized e-mail signature for all communications on the company’s e-mail system.

As people become more and more accustomed to communicating through electronic social media, personalized e-mail signatures, employee blogs, and other means of electronic self-expression are becoming more prevalent. While it’s hard to imagine why an expression of peace and friendship such as those stated in your question would be “offensive,” the fact is religious expressions are often a source of controversy.

Cheesecake Factory Has Big Portions, Big Settlement

Just one example of the rising number of male-male sexual harassment claims is the 2008 case of EEOC v. Cheesecake Factory, Inc. Since the first EEOC settlement for male-male harassment was reached in August 1999 (for a hefty $1.9 million), the EEOC has filed similar suits in recent years against Carmike Cinemas, Inc., Haydon Brothers Contracting, and Fleming’s Prime Steak House. Just this past December, a male-male harassment suit was filed against the upscale New York restaurant Sparks Steak House.

In the Cheesecake Factory case, six male employees alleged that they were subjected to repeated sexual harassment by a group of male kitchen workers at a Phoenix restaurant. The employees who filed suit with the EEOC claimed they were subjected to egregious sexually abusive behavior, including sexually charged remarks, genital groping, and even simulated rape. The EEOC alleged that managers had witnessed the acts, which included employees being dragged forcibly into the walk-in refrigerator, but had made no efforts to curtail the behavior. Eventually, one employee called the police for assistance.

The company denied the allegations, settling the suit this past November for $345,000 and agreeing to specifically provide sexual harassment training to employees and managers.

Oncale Opened Doors for Male-Male Claims

Before 1998, many federal courts held that a male couldn’t file a sexual harassment claim against another male. However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., held that same-sex harassment could be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the case, a male employee working on an oil platform was first verbally and then sexually assaulted by three other male coworkers, one of whom was a supervisor.

The key question in the case was whether the employee had been harassed “because of” his sex, and the court identified three avenues through which same-sex harassment may occur. Specifically, male-male sexual harassment may be found if the alleged harassment:

1. is a result of sexual desire;
2. is motivated by general hostility toward fellow men; or
3. occurs as a result of fellow men being treated differently than women in the workplace.

Same-sex harassment may also occur if an employee is mistreated because of perceived nonconformance with gender stereotypes, e.g., male employees bullying other male employees they believe are “effeminate.”

Note that sexual desire is only one of three possible causes for the harassment. As a result, the sexual orientation of the parties isn’t relevant to whether the event is sexual harassment. The Oncale case set the precedent for same-sex harassment as well as sexual harassment without motivation of sexual desire. In many sexual harassment cases, the aggressors’ behavior is a form of intimidation rather than exhibition of sexual attraction. In fact, in the Cheesecake Factory case, for example, no allegations were made that the harassers were acting out of sexual desire.

Bottom Line

You have a responsibility to ensure that your workplace is free of sexual harassment. Title VII requires supervisors and employers to act promptly to investigate and remedy sexual harassment once they become aware of it. Failure to do so can lead to employer liability. Thus, you should take harassment complaints seriously — no matter who makes them. If a male employee complains about the actions of another male employee, you should investigate and respond in the same manner you would respond to a female’s complaint about a male or vice versa.

You also should review your harassment policies to ensure that they apply to all actions “based on sex,” including actions between men. Your preventive program should include an explicit policy against sexual harassment that’s clearly and regularly communicated to your employees and effectively implemented as well as a specific procedure for resolving sexual harassment complaints. Typically, your policy should appear in your employee handbook, which employees must read before beginning their employment, and the policy should also be posted in a conspicuous place in your workplace. Finally, your policy should include an antiretaliation provision assuring employees who make good-faith complaints that they won’t be retaliated against.

― U.S. Supreme Court
Price Waterhouse

Facts

Brenna Lewis started working for Heartland Inns, a small hotel chain, in July 2005. She mainly worked as a night-shift auditor, and in the first 18 months of her employment, she received two merit pay raises from her managers and favorable evaluations from the guests. When Barbara Cullinan, Heartland’s director of operations, heard from Lori Stifel, Lewis’ manager, what a great job she was doing, she gave Stifel permission to move Lewis to the day shift.

Lewis accepted the offer and took over the job in December 2006. All was well until Cullinan saw Lewis at the front desk. She told Stifel that she wasn’t a good fit and that the company had taken “two steps back” when Lewis took over because she lacked the “Midwestern girl look.” Cullinan had been heard saying that Heartland employees should be pretty, a quality she believed was essential for the front desk. So strong was her belief that she had previously told a hotel manager not to hire an applicant because she wasn’t pretty enough.

Lewis, who has been mistaken for a male, prefers loose-fitting clothing, including men’s button-down shirts. She wears no makeup and keeps her hair short. Stifel described her style as an “Ellen Degeneres” look.

Cullinan insisted that Stifel either put Lewis back on the night shift or resign. Stifel refused to make the switch because she thought Lewis was doing phenomenal work.

The company began requiring general managers to conduct a second interview before hiring front desk employees, and video equipment was installed so that Cullinan and the HR director could see applicants before hiring them. One of Lewis’ former managers questioned the move to Cullinan, who responded that hotels must have a certain “personification and appearance.”

Interview Gone Bad

In January 2007, Lewis and Cullinan met for an interview. By then, Lewis had heard from Stifel what Cullinan had said about her appearance. She questioned the necessity for an interview, noting that others hadn’t been held to the same requirement. She told Cullinan that she’d heard about the “Midwestern girl” comment and asked her whether Heartland’s actions were lawful.

Lewis cried throughout the meeting. During the course of the interview, Cullinan asked her why she thought hotel revenue was down and what her views were on new company policies. She also asked if Stifel was the source of her knowledge about the “Midwestern girl” comment. Three days later, Lewis was fired, supposedly for thwarting the interview procedure and being hostile to new company policies. Following her termination, she sued Heartland, claiming sex discrimination and retaliation.

Litigation Ensues

Lewis, who had never been disciplined, claimed that Heartland’s true reason for firing her was her failure to conform to sex stereotypes, in violation of sex discrimination laws. That claim, along with her retaliation claim, was rejected by the district court, prompting her to appeal to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal court that handles appeals from South Dakota.

The Eighth Circuit looked at cases decided 30 years earlier, when female employees were expected to wear uniforms, sexually provocative clothing, and contacts rather than glasses. The courts ― then and now ― found that stereotypical attitudes requiring women to walk, talk, and dress more femininely, including wearing makeup and jewelry, violate the law when they lead to adverse employment decisions. Lewis argued that she was fired not because of her job performance or qualifications, but because her appearance didn’t meet Heartland’s preconceived idea of “feminine” or “pretty.”

The Eighth Circuit said the district court made a mistake. When an employer discriminates against a female employee because she doesn’t wear dresses, makeup, or jewelry, it is engaging in sex discrimination because the discrimination would not occur but for the employee’s sex. Thus, the court sent the stereotyping claim back for a jury trial.

Retaliation

Lewis also filed a retaliation claim alleging she was fired three days after she raised her concerns about the company’s actions. She asserted that during the second interview, Cullinan grew defensive when Lewis asked her about the “Midwestern girl” comment. While Heartland claimed that its policy required a second interview, Lewis responded that the requirement was put in place in reaction to her specific situation and that the hotel hadn’t previously required second interviews of others who had transferred within the company.

The kiss of death for the company may have been Cullinan’s description of the interview with Lewis. She testified that Lewis had “emphatically stated that she thought it was illegal” for Heartland to ask for a second interview and move her back to the night shift. The court agreed that Lewis clearly stated her opposition to an illegal action, the most basic element for a retaliation claim. Because she was fired three days later, the court found there was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to determine whether retaliation occurred.

Bottom Line

It isn’t only women’s appearance that leads to stereotyping. In one case, a man who was undergoing a sex change was threatened with termination if he refused to submit to multiple psychological evaluations. In another case, a woman didn’t receive a promotion because her supervisor believed she had too much on her plate with four young children. Finally, a young woman who was told she was “being a blond again” was able to proceed with her sexual stereotyping claim based on the comment. The lesson? Be careful that your decisions aren’t based on personal stereotypes about what employees should look or dress like or how they walk and talk.

Firing an employee who is vociferously objecting to and raising concerns about being treated unfairly should cause you to step back and get some advice. Do you really want to buy a lawsuit because you acted in the heat of the moment? Even if the underlying claim has no merit, the complaint alone is enough to warrant a retaliation claim ― and the damages for a retaliation claim are the same as those for a sex discrimination claim, including attorneys’ fees.

It’s hard to believe there was a day when nonnative English-speaking parents disapproved of their children learning any language other than English. Today, many parents embrace foreign languages as a stepping stone to their children’s economic success. That’s because businesses often prosper from employing bilingual and multilingual staff.

The Vast Melting Pot

It’s hard to ignore the importance of language skills in our society. Have you ever taken count of how many languages are spoken in the waiting room of your local Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) at any given time? The DMV is a microcosm of a larger picture. According to CNN.com, 55.8 million people speak a language other than English in the United States. Those 55.8 million people are potential consumers of the services and products that you provide.

Businesses rely on staff who can effectively communicate with potential and existing customers. At the most basic level, knowledge of your customers’ language is a great way, if not the best way, to effectively communicate. Think about it: When you return from a non-English-speaking country, is it not a refreshing feeling to finally hear your native tongue all around you? Doesn’t the ability to fully interact with others make you happy? Your customers are looking for a positive business transaction. From a business perspective, hiring employees who can make that happen makes sense.

The Reality

Often there’s the perception that immigrants or children of immigrants don’t reside in the Midwest. When it comes to the Hispanic population, it’s true that Wisconsin doesn’t come close to states like New York, California, Texas, and Arizona. However, according to Ben Poston of the Journal Sentinel, since 2000, the Hispanic population in Wisconsin has increased by 48.2 percent.

Darryl Morin of the League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin explains, “What [this number] does is confirm what a lot of us already know ― Hispanics are integrating into Wisconsin and bringing economic and social benefits to the state.” Enrique Figueroa, director of the Roberto Hernandez Center at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, foresees a continuation of Hispanic population growth in the state over the next decade.

Finding Bilingual Employees

Every employer knows that finding the right employee is a difficult task. According to Julian Teixeira’s article “More Companies Recruit Bilingual Employees,” some recruiters are becoming more resourceful. Joining local organizations such as the National Society of Hispanic MBAs is just one example of that resourcefulness. Through membership, businesses are able to post job opportunities in the organization’s newsletter. Others are holding “open houses” for bilingual and multilingual candidates allowing the employers to target bilingual and multilingual candidates and introduce them to their company. Some businesses have even begun paying bilingual and multilingual employees a higher salary than other staff.

Testing Language Abilities

There are varying degrees of language proficiency. Just because a person can order food in another language at a restaurant doesn’t mean he can just as effortlessly conduct a real estate transaction in that language. Many recruiters test candidates’ language skills during the interview process. According to Teixeira, it’s important to implement oral and written components for the test. You also want to make sure that a candidate is proficient speaking and writing English because he will almost certainly need to conduct business in English.

Bottom Line

There’s no disadvantage to hiring bilingual and multilingual employees, but there may be a disadvantage to not hiring them. People look for fruitful business transactions on both ends. That’s more easily facilitated when both parties can communicate effectively. Language is a common bond, and the more bonds you create, the more business you’ll reap. That’s because your customers not only will feel comfortable working with you, but they also will appreciate the effort you put into creating that level of comfort.

Claudia N. Lombardo is an attorney at Axley Brynelson, LLP. Her practice includes personal injury law, bicycle accident injuries, medical malpractice defense, stockbroker malpractice, insurance litigation, and criminal defense. She can be reached at (608) 283-6744 or clombardo@axley.com.

The Commission on the Status of Women is a state agency founded in 1965 to study issues affecting women and to advise the California Legislature and state agencies on inequities in laws, practices, and conditions that affect women. The commission asked the California attorney general to respond to two inquiries regarding the eligibility of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered veterans to obtain state-funded veteran benefits. The commission estimates there are over 137,000 such veterans residing in California. On December 31, 2009, the attorney general issued an opinion letter that addressed the commission’s concerns.

California Vets Entitled to Benefits Regardless of Sexual Orientation

One of the issues raised by the commission was whether otherwise eligible military veterans who live in California could receive state-funded veteran benefits if they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. The confusion arose from federal legislation passed in 1994 titled Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, more widely known as the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy.” Under that policy, members of the armed forces “shall be separated” from their military service if they have:

• engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act;
• stated that they are homosexual or bisexual or used words to that effect; or
• married or attempted to marry someone known to be of the same biological sex.

If someone is discharged from the military because of a violation of the policy, the discharge is usually characterized as an “honorable discharge” or “under honorable conditions,” assuming there are no other aggravating circumstances. Given the military’s ability to discharge someone on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, there was concern among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered veterans about whether they could obtain state-funded veteran benefits once discharged from the military.

The attorney general concluded that despite the federal policy, California can’t deny state-funded veteran benefits to such veterans. The attorney general relied on a section from California’s Government Code that generally states that “no person in the State of California shall, on the basis of their race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability,” be unlawfully discriminated against under any state-funded program, by any state agency, or under any program or activity that receives financial assistance from the state. The term “sex” is defined to include transgendered individuals. Accordingly, the attorney general concluded that based on California’s Government Code, veterans residing in California are entitled to state-funded veteran benefits, regardless of their sexual orientation, if they have been honorably discharged or discharged under honorable conditions from the military.

Domestic Partners Entitled to Benefits

The second issue raised by the commission was whether veterans’ registered domestic partners are entitled to the same benefits that spouses of military veterans receive. To respond to that question, the attorney general analyzed the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 (DPRRA) and relevant portions of California’s Family Code. Those sources state that properly registered domestic partners who have filed a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the secretary of state are entitled to the full range of legal rights, protections, and benefits as those that are extended to spouses.

The attorney general also reviewed the California Superior Court case of Strauss v. Horton. In that recent case, the court held that the passage of Proposition 8 in California created a valid amendment of the California Constitution to define that only a man and a woman can have their relationships designated as “marriage.” Although the court held that the constitution now defines marriage as being between only a man and a woman, it noted that same-sex couples could continue to receive all of the same rights and protections as married couples.

Based on the Strauss opinion as well as the relevant portions of the Family Code and the DPRRA, the attorney general concluded that domestic partners of veterans residing in California are entitled to the same state-funded veteran benefits to which spouses of veterans are otherwise entitled. Attorney General’s Opinion (AG Opn. 08-801, 12/31/09).

Bottom Line

This opinion letter by the attorney general reemphasizes that discrimination against individuals on the basis of their sex and/or sexual orientation is prohibited in California. Although the letter focused on state-funded veteran rights, it does provide guidance for employers as well. You should make employment-related decisions without regard to an employee’s sex, perceived sex, or sexual orientation, including transgender status. Additionally, you should offer the same benefits to properly registered domestic partners as you offer to employees’ spouses. Equal and consistent treatment of employees is the key to avoiding discrimination claims.

Jennifer Barrera is an associate at Carlton DiSante & Freudenberger LLP in Sacramento, California. She specialized in labor and employment litigation for management (including all forms of discrimination and harassment, wrongful discharge and wage and hour litigation), employer advice and counseling. She may be reached at jbarrera@cdflaborlaw.com.

According to the EEOC, Outback discriminated against female employees with respect to the terms and conditions of employment and denied women equal opportunities for advancement. In the lawsuit, the agency alleged that female employees hit a glass ceiling at Outback and couldn’t get promoted to higher-level profit-sharing management positions. It also alleged that the women were denied favorable job assignments, particularly in kitchen management ― a requirement for consideration for top management jobs in the restaurants.

In addition to providing monetary relief, Outback agreed to a four-year consent decree that requires it to:

• institute an online application system for employees interested in managerial and other supervisory positions;
• employ an HR executive in a newly created position of “vice president of people”;
• for a period of at least two years, employ an outside consultant to monitor compliance with the terms of the decree and analyze data from the online application system to determine whether women are being provided equal opportunities for promotion; and
• report every six months to the EEOC on carrying out the terms of the decree.

The $19 million in monetary relief will be administered through a claims process in which an administrator will send letters to all female workers employed at corporately owned Outback restaurants from 2002 to the present who have at least three years of tenure. EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc., et al., DCCO, Case No. 06-cv-01935.

Teens Recover $620,000 on Sexual Harassment Claim

Following a five-day trial in federal court in Baltimore, two teens recovered $620,000 from their Eastern Shore employer, T.L. Morris Seafood, on their claims of assault and battery and sexual harassment. According to the testimony at trial, the president of T.L. Morris allegedly harassed the teens at work by making numerous inappropriate oral and physical advances. The two teens were hired to offload crabs from boats, clean and sort the catches, and stack inventory in cold-storage loading trucks.

The jury awarded them $120,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, to be split evenly. The court has yet to rule on the employer’s posttrial requests to set aside the jury’s findings. Cory Adams and Tyler Bennett v. Timothy Morris, et al., DC Md., Case No. 08-02494, 08-02405, Jury Verdict December 11, 2009.

Whirlpool to Pay More than $1 Million for Harassing a Black Female Worker

The district court in Nashville, Tennessee, has entered judgment in the amount of $1,073,261 against Whirlpool Corporation in a race and sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of Carlotta Freeman, an African American former employee at the company’s LaVergne, Tennessee, facility.

The suit, filed by the EEOC, alleged that the appliance manufacturing giant failed to protect Freeman from persistent harassment by a Caucasian male coworker, which ultimately resulted in her being physically assaulted by him.

Following a bench trial, the court awarded her $773,261 in back pay and front pay and an additional $300,000 in compensatory damages for nonmonetary injuries, the maximum of amount allowed under federal law.

During the four-day trial, the evidence showed that over a period of two months, Freeman reported escalating offensive comments and gestures by a male coworker before he physically assaulted her. Although four levels of Whirlpool management were allegedly aware of the escalating harassment, none took effective steps to stop it. As a result, the employee suffered devastating permanent mental injuries. EEOC v. Whirlpool Corporation, DC Tn.,Civil Action No. 3:06-0593.

• In 2008, the median annual earnings of women 15 or older who worked year-round, full time was $35,745, down from $36,451 in 2007 (after adjusting for inflation). Women earned 77 cents for every $1 earned by men.

• Women-owned businesses garnered more than $939 billion in revenue in 2002. There were 116,985 women-owned businesses with receipts of $1 million or more.
• There were nearly 6.5 million women-owned businesses in 2002. Women owned 28 percent of all nonfarm businesses; 916,657 of these were employer firms.

• More than 7.1 million are employed by women-owned businesses. There were 7,231 women-owned businesses with 100 or more employees, generating $274 billion in gross receipts.

• Nearly one in three women-owned businesses operated in health care and social assistance and other services, such as personal services and repair and maintenance. Women owned 72 percent of social assistance businesses and just over half of nursing and residential care facilities. Wholesale and retail trade accounted for 38 percent of women-owned business revenue.

• In California, women own 13 percent of businesses. California had the most women-owned businesses at 870,496. New York was second with 505,077 or 8 percent of all women-owned businesses. Texas was third in number with 468,705, accounting for 7 percent of all women-owned businesses.

• In 2008, 59 percent of females 16 and older participated in the labor force, representing about 72 million women.

• Thirty-eight percent of females 16 or older who work in management, professional and related occupations, compared with 32 percent of males.

• There are 23.8 millionfemale workers in educational services, health care, and social assistance industries. More women worked in this industry group than in any other. Within this industry group, 11.9 million worked in the health care industry, 9.1 million in educational services and 2.7 million worked in the social assistance industry.

• There is a 67 percent chance that your taxes will be prepared by a woman, as this was the percentage of tax preparers who were women in 2008. In addition, 72 percent of travel agents were women.

• There were 99,000female police officers across the country in 2008. In addition, there were about 14,000 women firefighters, 349,000 lawyers, 267,000 physicians and surgeons, and 36,000 pilots. (Note: Number of pilots pertains to 2007.)

In 2008, the BLS reported that the unemployment rate was 10.1 percent for blacks and 7.6 percent for Hispanics. These figures were considerably higher than the unemployment rates for whites and Asians, at 5.2 percent and 4.0 percent, respectively. During the first 10 months of 2009, the unemployment rate for black male college graduates 25 and older was 8.4 percent — compared with 4.4 percent for white male college graduates.

According to an article by the New York Times, that incongruity is driving many college-educated black males to “scrub” their resumes of “any details that might tip off” a potential employer to their race. One job hunter deleted a reference to an association for African-American business students while another eliminated his middle name (Jabbar) from his resume altogether.

One Yale-educated out-of-work African-American man commented to the Times, “You even worry that the hiring manager may not be as interested in diversity as the HR manager or upper management.”

To ensure that your hiring managers aren’t passing up quality applicants because of their race, you must make them accountable. Accountability is important to ensure the success of your efforts to diversify your workforce. Managers, supervisors, and HR personnel should be made responsible for that success. Link managers’ performance evaluations and compensation with the results of their efforts to recruit and hire a diverse workforce.

For example, you might modify your evaluation forms to include several measures of diversity performance, including compliance with equal employment opportunity policies and attaining recruiting and promotion goals. You also might consider rewarding managers, supervisors, and HR personnel for their efforts and successes. Of course, you shouldn’t hire employees for the sole purpose of creating a diverse workforce — doing that could subject your company to an increased risk of reverse discrimination litigation.

One positive aspect of the current recession for employers is that there are more quality applicants than ever who want to work for you. Forgetting all the legal implications (and there are plenty), you should make sure your hiring mangers don’t pass over applicants because of their race because they are doing your company and workforce a severe injustice. Dismissing an applicant by race could mean you miss out on the employee who comes up with your next (or first) million dollar idea or eventually works her way up the ladder to lead the company into the future.

Before being appointed to the position by President Barack Obama on May 12, 2009 (she was confirmed by the United States Senate on July 30 and took office on January 4, 2010), Griffin was a Commissioner of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC). There, she helped develop and approve enforcement policies, including those authorized by law, regulation, or order.

According to a news release from the OPM, “Griffin was a vocal supporter of promoting a diverse Federal workforce, as well as a proponent of greater efficiency and fairness in the Federal EEO process. She has also been a strong advocate for women’s rights and the rights of individuals with disabilities.”

Both are areas Griffin has personal experience with. She was one of only 11 women in the second co-ed class of the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, where she earned her undergraduate degree in 1983. While she was in school there, she was involved in an accident that left her confined to a wheelchair.

Before her appointment with the EEOC, Griffin worked extensively in labor and employment law positions in both the public and private sectors, including her service as the Executive Director of the Disability Law Center in Boston from 1996 to 2005. From 1995 to 1996, she was an Attorney Advisor to the former Vice Chair of the EEOC, Paul M. Igasaki, advising him on legal matters and policy issues. She is also a Vietnam-Era Veteran of the U.S. Army, serving on active duty from 1974-1977.

“The more I learned as commissioner at the EEOC, the more I learned that everything I wanted to change happened at OPM and not at EEOC,” Griffin said. “Looking at the data we collect with the various agencies, and interacting with the EEO directors of the various agencies, a lot of the fixes that I think will make the federal government be a better employer can only be done at OPM.”