According to a study by the Center for Worklife Law, the number of family responsibility discrimination (FRD) lawsuits is growing steadily.  A few years ago these types of cases were rare. But in the last decade they have increased 400%.  FRD involves discrimination against employees because of the need to care for family members. According to the study, 67% of cases involve pregnancy and maternity leave, 9.6% involve elder care, 7% relate to care for sick children, 4% for a sick spouse, 3% involve leave for newborn care by a father or adoptive parent, and 2.4% to care for someone with a disability.

The cases are expensive.  It’s estimated that employees win 50% of the cases and that the average damages are over $570,000.   As with other types of discrimination, training supervisors and managers regarding the basic legal requirements of FRD is critical.  Reviewing leave policies and practices with FRD in mind is also a good idea.

For more information go to:     http://op.bna.com/dlrcases.nsf/id/ssaa-849uvy/$File/FRDupdate.pdf

Is it okay to allow even minor racial comments, crude or sexual jokes or similar derogatory behaviors at the workplace if nobody objects? One of the risks of including verbage in anti-harassment workplace conduct policies such as, “is unwelcome” is that it conveys the impression that the company condones such conduct until such time that it offends someone and only then must it stop.

Another flaw in this ill-conceived lithmus test of offensiveness is its’ reliance on the notion that all employees are comfortable speaking up if something they overhear, read in an email, or is said to them is offensive. Many employees are not comfortable being the whistle blower especially if they are a new employee or in any kind of workplace staff minority.

In February 2008 a telephone survey conducted by Novations  Group, a Boston-based consulting firm, found that 45% of men and 38% of women heard sexually inappropriate comments at work in 2007. The survey found that 38% of employees between the ages of 18 and 34 heard age-related ridicule while only 16% of those over age 55 heard such ridicule. This data suggests that employees are more likely to make innappropriate remarks when in the presence of those least likely to take personal offense.

Employees who make these inappropriate remarks might assume they would not be subject to discipline if the group they are associating with do not take offense at such remarks. So should managers intervene to stop such behaviors? Absolutely, and here is why. By not taking action to stop any conduct that could be considered degrading based on sex, race, or another statutorily protected characteristic a manager, and by extension, the company is seen as endorsing bias and creating a potentially hostile work environment.

If an employee pursues a harassment claim against the organization, that claim will more likely succeed with evidence that managers were aware of but failed to stop discriminatory remarks or behaviors in the workplace even if that conduct was not directed at the employee.

The bottom line is don’t wait for a complaint to intervene and stop any occurence of conduct that could test the definition of workplace harassment. A policy isn’t enough. Be the example and step in. Don’t let the joke be on you or your company.

Source:  HR Magazine, September 2008, Not Funny – Remove the Welcome Mat for Inapporpriate Jokes, by Elaine Herskowitz

According to a recent article in Law.com, a Pennsylvania federal judge has ruled that a company did not commit sexual harassment or retaliation against a female employee when she was fired for refusing to get coffee for the men in her office.

The woman alleged that her office was sexist, primarily because she was complimented on her appearance, invited to lunch and asked to get coffee for her male supervisors.

The court dismissed the case, concluding that “the act of getting coffee is not, by itself, a gender-specific act.” The court concluded there was no evidence of gender bias because the coffee-getting job had always been assigned to the receptionist position, even though only women had ever held the receptionist job at the company.

The former employee’s lawyer said they will appeal the decision because the federal judge erred by not recognizing that some tasks are “inherently more offensive to women.” This may sound like an odd case, but the emotions underlying it on both sides are obviously real and can lead to expensive employment law battles like this one.

My own approach to this kind of workplace problem is twofold and rather practical: I don’t drink coffee…and when I need a Dr. Pepper, I get it myself.