week 10
228 Business and Society
continually decreased over the years.64 Figure 8.2 depicts the number of complaints and resolutions of pregnancy discrimination cases from 2015 through 2018.
These legal imperatives require that companies formalize employment prac- tices to ensure that no discrimination is occurring. Thus, managers must be fully aware of the types of practices that constitute discrimination and work to ensure that hiring, promotion, annual evaluation, and other procedures are fair and based on merit. The spread of HIV and AIDS has prompted multinational firms with operations in Africa to distribute educational literature and launch prevention programs. Some companies work with internal and external stakeholders and even fund medical facilities that help prevent the disease and treat HIV/AIDS patients. Another component to their initiatives involves education on fair treatment of employees with the disease. Multinational companies in Mexico, for instance, produced a written commitment to eliminate the stigma and discrimination that often surrounds HIV/AIDS in the workplace.65
To ensure that they build balanced workforces, many companies have initiated affirmative action programs, which involve efforts to recruit, hire, train, and promote qualified individuals from groups that have traditionally been discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, or other characteristics. Coca-Cola established a program to create a level foundation so that all employees have access to the same informa- tion and development opportunities.66 A key goal of these programs is to reduce any bias that may exist in hiring, evaluating, and promoting employees. A special type of discrimination, sexual harassment, is also prohibited through Title VII.
Sexual Harassment The flood of women into the workplace during the last half of the twentieth century brought new challenges and opportunities for organizations. Although harassment has probably always existed in the workplace, the presence of both genders in roughly equal numbers changed norms and expectations of behavior. When men dominated the workplace, photos of partially nude women or sexually suggestive materials may have been posted on walls or in lockers. Today, such materials could be viewed as illegal if they contribute to a work environment that is intimidating, offensive, or otherwise interfering with an employee’s work performance. The U.S. government indicates the nature of this illegal activity: unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and
Figure 8.2 Growth in Filings and Resolutions of Pregnancy Discrimination Act Complaints to the EEOC
Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Pregnancy Discrimination Charges,” https://www.eeoc.gov/ eeoc/statistics/enforcement/pregnancy_new.cfm (accessed June 19, 2019).
Receipts Resolutions 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2015 2016
2017 2018
C B P _ F errell_ C h08.indd 228 12/9/2019 6:32:59 P M03/18/2020 - tp-70a028a4-6922-11ea-a484-024 (temp temp) - Business and Society
Chapter 8 Employee Relations 229
other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.67
Prior to 1986, sexual harassment was not a specific violation of federal law in the United States. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment creates a “hostile environment” that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, even in the absence of economic harm or demand for sexual favors in exchange for promotions, raises, or related work incentives.68 In other countries, sexual harassment in the workplace is considered an illegal act, although the specific conditions may vary by legal and social culture. Until recently, Mexican sexual harassment law protected public-sector employees only if their jobs were jeopardized on the basis of the exchange of sexual favors or relations. In the European Union (EU), sexual harassment legislation focuses on the liability that employers carry when they fail to create a workplace culture free of harassment and other forms of discrimination. The EU has strengthened its rules on sexual harassment, including definitions of direct and indirect harassment, the removal of an upper limit on victim compensation, and the requirement that businesses develop and make “equality reports” available to employees.69
There are two general categories of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile work environment.70 Quid pro quo sexual harassment is a type of sexual extortion where there is a proposed or explicit exchange of job benefits for sexual favors. For example, telling an employee, “You will get the promotion if you spend the weekend with me in Las Vegas,” is a direct form of sexual harassment. Usually, the person making such a statement is in a position of authority over the harassed employee, and thus, the threat of job loss is real. One incident of quid pro quo harassment may create a justifiable legal claim. Hostile work environment sexual harassment is less direct than quid pro quo harassment and can involve epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, intimidating acts, graphic materials that show hostility toward an individual or group, and other types of conduct that affect the employment situation. For example, at one automobile manufacturing plant, male employees drew inappropriate sexually explicit pictures on cars before they were painted. This was found to be sexual harassment. An email containing sexually explicit jokes that is sent out to employees could be viewed as contribut- ing to a hostile work environment. Some hostile work environment harassment is nonsexual, meaning the harassing conduct is based on gender without explicit ref- erence to sexual acts. For example, in Campbell v. Kansas State University (1991), the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas found repeated remarks about women “being intellectually inferior to men” to be part of a hostile environment. Unlike quid pro quo cases, one incident may not justify a legal claim. Instead, the courts will examine a range of acts and circumstances to determine if the work environment was intolerable and the victim’s job performance was impaired.71
From a social responsibility perspective, a key issue in both types of sexual harassment is the employing organization’s knowledge and tolerance of these types of behaviors. A number of court cases have shed more light on the issues that constitute sexual harassment and organizations’ responsibility in this regard.
In Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993), Teresa Harris claimed that her boss at Forklift Systems made suggestive sexual remarks, asked her to retrieve coins from his pants pocket, and joked that they should go to a motel to “negotiate her raise.” Courts at the state level threw out her case because she did not suffer major psychological injury. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned these decisions, though, ruling that employers can be forced to pay damages even if the worker suffered no proven psychological harm. This case brought about the “reasonable person” standard in evaluating what conduct constitutes sexual harassment. From this case, juries now evaluate the alleged conduct with respect to commonly held beliefs and expectations.72
sexual harassment unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature which, when submitted to or rejected, explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment
quid pro quo sexual harassment a type of sexual extortion where there is a proposed or explicit exchange of job benefits for sexual favors
hostile work environment sexual harassment a type of sexual harassment that involves epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, intimidating acts, graphic materials that show hostility toward an individual or group, and other types of conduct that affect the employment situation
C B P _ F errell_ C h08.indd 229 12/9/2019 6:32:59 P M03/18/2020 - tp-70a028a4-6922-11ea-a484-024 (temp temp) - Business and Society
230 Business and Society
Several firms have been embroiled in sexual harassment suits. For example, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of Jewelry, is accused of discrimination against women for a period of over ten years. The class-action suit, which at one point involved about 70,000 women, could result in substantial punitive damages and fines.73 In another case, a jury awarded the victim $95 million in damages due to years of experiencing severe sexual harassment by a manager at the furniture rent-to-own store, Aarons Inc. The manager’s behavior encouraged other male employees to harass the victim as well, creating a hostile workplace. To make matters worse, the company neglected to respond to the victim when she left a message on their hotline.74
U.S. Supreme Court decisions on sexual harassment cases indicate that (1) employers are liable for the acts of supervisors; (2) employers are liable for sexual harassment by supervisors that culminates in a tangible employment action (loss of job, demotion, etc.); (3) employers are liable for a hostile environment created by a supervisor but may escape liability if they demonstrate that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective measures offered by the employer; and (4) claims of hostile environment sexual harassment must be severe and pervasive to be viewed as actionable by the courts.75
Much like the underlying philosophy of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations (FSGO) that we discussed in earlier chapters, these decisions require top managers in organizations to take the detection and prevention of sexual harassment seriously. To this end, many firms have implemented programs on sexual harassment. To satisfy current legal standards and set a higher standard for social responsibility, employees, supervisors, and other close business partners should be educated on the company’s zero tolerance policy against harassment. Employees must also be educated on the policy prohibiting harassment, including the types of behaviors that constitute harassment, how offenders will be punished, and what employees should do if they experience harassment. Just like an organi- zational compliance program, employees must be assured of confidentiality and no retaliation for reporting harassment.
Training on sexual harassment should be balanced in terms of legal definitions and practical tips and tools. Although employees need to be aware of the legal issues and ramifications, they also may need assistance in learning to recognize and avoid behaviors that may constitute quid pro quo harassment, create a hostile environment, or appear to be retaliatory in nature. In fact, retaliation claims have more than doubled since the early 1990s, prompting many companies to incor- porate this element into sexual harassment training. Finally, employees should be aware that same-sex conduct may also constitute sexual harassment.76 Sexual harassment from women to their male subordinates is yet another issue. One law enforcement officer in Texas won a lawsuit against his female boss after claiming that she frequently wanted sexual favors and touched him inappropriately.77 Table 8.6 lists facts about sexual harassment that should be used in company communication and training on this workplace issue.
Whistleblowing An employee who reports individual or company wrong- doing to either internal or external sources is considered a whistleblower.78 Whistleblowers usually focus on issues or behaviors that need corrective action, although managers and other employees may not appreciate reports that expose company weaknesses, raise embarrassing questions, or otherwise detract from organizational tasks. Although not all whistleblowing activity leads to an extreme reaction, whistleblowers have been retaliated against, demoted, fired, and subject to even worse consequences as a result of their actions.79 For example, Eddie Garcia, an energy specialist work- ing for Santa Fe County in New Mexico, was accused of grand larceny and was fired from his job after pointing out improper conduct on the part of an exclusive
zero tolerance the practice of applying penalties to even minor infractions of policy
C B P _ F errell_ C h08.indd 230 12/9/2019 6:32:59 P M03/18/2020 - tp-70a028a4-6922-11ea-a484-024 (temp temp) - Business and Society