Employment discrimination law roundup

  • Employee with (per Costco) history of “serious misconduct and insubordination” wins $750K after being fired for speaking at too loud a volume, the result she said of deafness-related difficulty in modulating her voice [Jon Hyman]
  • “Now What? Disciplining an Employee with a Suspected Addiction or Substance Abuse Issue” [Dale Deitchler and Jeffrey Dilger, Littler]
  • ADA: “6th Circuit says full-time work is not an essential function of every full-time job” [Jon Hyman] “So, you want to change the essential functions of a particular job, do you? Let’s talk ADA.” [Eric B. Meyer]
  • “Our group member has a fragrance sensitivity – and we’re supposed to be hugged to check for any scents” [Alison Green, Ask a Manager via Hyman]
  • “Is the sexual harassment “groundswell” starting?” [Robin Shea, Constangy; state agency volume] “Bracing For The Deluge Of EEOC Lawsuits” [Gerald Maatman, Seyfarth Shaw; EEOC filings rise]
  • “Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work?” [Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev, Anthropology Now; related, Amy Alkon (counterproductive “privilege checking”)]
  • Arbitrator orders Oregon town of West Linn to pay $100,000+ to cop fired after incendiary, racially charged Facebook posts [Everton Bailey Jr., Oregonian]


  • Re: Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work?

    In the link, they say this:
    “Whites generally feel they will not be treated fairly in workplaces with prodiversity messages.”

    Then they say this:
    “Companies that establish formal hiring and promotion criteria — through job tests and performance rating systems — to limit managerial discrimination see reductions in managerial diversity.”

    They go on to tacitly admit that the only way to push more diversity is with preferential treatment towards preferred demographics. Demographically blinded processes don’t yield the desired level of diversity. The only processes they reference as increasing diversity are not demographically blind. You think that the people being discriminated against might not notice that? That they might not feel like they are being treated fairly in such an environment? It isn’t just that the ‘non-diverse’ demographics feel they aren’t being treated fairly, the authors tacitly admit that they can’t being treated fairly and get the desired level of diversity. The authors’ stance appears to be: Screw those people, we’ve got an agenda to push.

    “Fifth, we know from a large body of organizational research that people react negatively to efforts to control them. ” – Followed by more discussions on how to control people.

    The whole piece is a not terribly subtle example of the implicit bigotry and authoritarian mindset that pervades the whole diversity ‘movement’. Banality of evil, indeed.

    Under diversity, we are all equal. Just some of us are more equal than others.

  • I would draw the opposite conclusion from your statements, Jason. Because a blind process yields different results, it would indicate that the protected minorities average less qualified.


    • ? I offered no conclusion on the relative qualifications between the ‘diverse’ and ‘non-diverse’ populations (note that there is a non-diverse population; “Crazy Rich Asians” is ‘diverse’, “The Royal Tenenbaums” is not), although that conclusion is certainly implied.