Protecting employees from discrimination and harassment in the workplace must start with a grounded understanding of the law, and policies and education to ensure employees understand their rights. According to the EEOC:
It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person’s race or color.
Harassment can include, for example, racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person’s race or color, or the display of racially-offensive symbols.
Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Protecting employees from discrimination and harassment in the workplace must start with a grounded understanding of the law, and policies and education to ensure employees understand their rights.
According to the EEOC:
It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person’s race or color.
Harassment can include, for example, racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person’s race or color, or the display of racially-offensive symbols.
Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Employers may be responsible for a hostile environment created by non-employees, such as customers, if a court determines the employer could have fixed the problem.
The logic of imposing this liability is not as sound, since the employer did not hire the customer and the employer has done absolutely nothing that would constitute harassment.
Regardless, courts addressing Title VII claims have held that, to the extent the employer can take steps to control or minimize the harassment of its employees by customers, it must do so.
Employees have a right to be free from retaliation for their opposition to discrimination or their participation in an EEOC proceeding by filing a charge, testifying, assisting, or otherwise participating in an agency proceeding.
Retail organizations that are proactive in creating inclusive experiences—for employees and for customers—have a differentiating opportunity to grab market share. In today’s social media world, each employee’s actions and behaviors can be seen as positive brand ambassadorship, or conversely, have the potential to derail brand reputation. The same can be said for how an employer protects the rights of employees in the face of harassment or discrimination on the part of the customer.
The best defense is to have a strong, consistent and inclusive values and clearly communicated policies that discrimination and harassment are not tolerated.
Having a critical response team ready to address those hopefully rare instances of brand derailment can be the difference between success and failure. In those cases:
• Quickly acknowledge awareness of the problem
• Fully investigate the issue
• Engage partners and experts to help manage and problem-solve
• Take appropriate actions
• Follow through and communicate actions taken and steps to prevent the problems from occurring in the future
Clear anti-harassment policies are critical in heading off trouble. Your policy should include a clear definition of harassment, including information about the different forms harassment takes. The policy should then describe how employees should report harassment, whom to report it to, and the consequences for harassment.
It isn’t enough to have a policy—people have to be aware of it. The policy should be included in an employee handbook. Include a page that employees sign to show they’ve received the policy. Include information on a multi-channel reporting procedure that allows allowing employees to bring complaints to more than one member of management.
Don’t set a policy and then forget it. Managers should regularly review the employer’s anti-harassment policy with employees. Make sure employees understand the policy by asking questions informally and sharing hypothetical examples so everyone regularly gets a mini refresher course
in what harassment is.
Managers need to empower employees to stand up to harassment. Make it clear that the organization will not tolerate harassment, and ensure everyone understands the channels for reporting it.
Provide regular training for both employees and supervisors so that they know how to identify, report and respond to instances of harassment is key to prevention.
To be effective, the training should clearly delineate what is acceptable and unacceptable workplace conduct, and explain that the workplace extends to any place where employer business is conducted or when employees are on company time. This includes lunch breaks, company happy hours, business trips, and holiday parties.
Include third party harassment policies as core element in overall non-discrimination policies to specifically address employee harassment coming from people outside of our company.
Our third party harassment policy aims to address employee harassment coming from people outside of our company. We won’t tolerate this kind of behavior, even if it means having awkward conversations with partners or losing business. Ensuring our employees are safe in our workplace is our first priority. In this policy, we indicate how to recognize harassment and how to report incidents. We also explain how we investigate claims and protect victims.
This policy applies to everyone outside our company including vendors, investors, customers, contractors, shareholders, and any other people we are connected to or do business with. Harassment is any kind of
behavior that humiliates, victimizes or threatens a person, like directing racial slurs and making sexual advances. Even seemingly harmless actions, like a customer calling an employee constantly outside work for non-emergencies and without prior agreement, can constitute harassment. Innuendos, veiled threats and inappropriate or offensive jokes are all included in our definition.
Harassment can happen in-person, over the phone, via email or through a messaging app. It can come from strangers or people you know. Anyone who objectifies, threatens or ridicules our employees is a harasser. We will describe our rules for dealing with these behaviors.
Harassment coming from customers is often difficult to deal with. Employees might be reluctant to report customers, especially ones who are responsible for substantial revenue. This causes the customer’s behavior to go unpunished and continue.
Please don’t hesitate to report a customer (or a customer’s employee) if they behave inappropriately and make your life difficult. Reporting them means that they won’t harass you anymore and that we will also have the chance to protect other employees who would come in contact with the harasser.
Report the customer to HR via email or in-person and inform your manager of your report. If you have emails or other evidence, please attach them or bring them to HR’s office. HR will investigate your claim and contact the
customer to ask them to change their behavior. If the customer is a business, our HR will do the following:
• Contact that business’ HR department and file a complaint against the person who harassed you.
• Explicitly ask for that behavior to stop.
• Ask the customer-company to assign another person as your contact.
We will push for this solution in three cases:
• If the harassment from that person has happened before to you or your colleagues.
• If the incident of harassment was severe (like a threat of violence or an explicit request for a sexual favor).
• If you tell us you don’t feel comfortable working with this person anymore.
We will also discuss possible solutions on our end. For example, we may remove you from that person’s customer account and assign you to an account of equal worth. If you needed to interact with that person in specific cases, we may assign another employee to fill in for you at those times. We will not penalize you or retaliate against you in any way. Your working hours, salary/wage or other benefits won’t be affected.
If the customer-company ignores our report, or if the incident of harassment happens again and the customer seems unwilling to deal with the person responsible, we will dissolve our contract with that customer. If the customer is an individual, we will refuse our products/services until they correct their behavior.
We all work best in environments where we feel safe and happy. We can’t control the behavior of people outside of our organization, but we can act to stop it. Please let us know whenever you are being harassed or witness others being the victims of harassment, whether the perpetrator is a customer, an employee, or a partner.
Two Black men who hadn’t bought anything and were waiting for a colleague to arrive in one of Starbucks’ Philadelphia stores were arrested after an employee called police when one of the men tried to use the restroom. The arrest was recorded by cellphone and triggered protects, boycott threats and debates over racial profiling.
After the incident, the company’s leaders apologized, personally met with the men, and subsequently closed more than 8,000 of its US stores to train more than 175,000 employees on how to prevent racial bias. The training was developed with help from the NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund, Demos, and other diversity and civil rights experts. The training was not mandatory, but Starbucks said it expected its employees to participate and that they would be paid for their time.
The company’s decision to close stores for an afternoon for diversity training is unprecedented and the most visible public measure taken by a company accused of racial profiling. Starbucks says it intends to educate its team about bias and inclusion far beyond the initial workshop and will
continue to broach the subjects in the coming months and years.
The curriculum was developed with guidance from several national and local experts confronting racial bias, including Bryan Stevenson, Founder and Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative; Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education
Fund; Heather McGhee, President of Demos; former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder; and Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League. Starbucks will involve these experts in monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the measures we undertake.
The first module “Mindful Decision Making” focuses on the impact of discrimination and seeks to help employees make more thoughtful decisions free of bias. The modules will also address engaging with empathy, gratitude and building diverse teams.
Starbucks also initiated a review of its training and practices to make important reforms where necessary to ensure stores always represent the company’s Mission and Values, by providing a safe and inclusive environment for customers and partners.
Once completed, the company will make the education materials available to other companies, including licensee partners, for use with their employees and leadership.
Airbnb partners with NAACP to address a barrage of complaints over the years that hosts discriminate against minorities trying to book rentals.
A widely cited Harvard Business School study found widespread discrimination by Airbnb hosts who were less likely to accept bookings from guests whose names sounded distinctly black. Incidents of
discrimination occur so frequently that people share their stories of racial bias under the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack.
A company spokesman said Airbnb is taking a series of steps to fight bias and promote inclusion, including experimenting with reducing the prominence of guest photos in the booking process. The company is also trying to increase the number of “Instant Book” listings, a feature that allows guests to book immediately without host approval.
The NAACP has partnered with the home-sharing company to expand the service to more minority communities. As part of the partnership, local NAACP chapters will work with Airbnb to launch a community campaign educating more minorities on the economic benefits of hosting and bringing travelers to their neighborhoods.
Airbnb has committed to sharing 20% of its earnings from the community outreach efforts with the NAACP. The company has also committed to increasing the diversity of its US employees from 9.6% to 11% by the end of the year, with guidance by the NAACP.
An African American delivery driver for Lowe’s Home Improvement was told by his manager that he would not be making a delivery because the customer said she only wanted a white driver in her house. Although the driver was already on his way, the manager told him to switch routes to respect the wishes of the customer.
Following the incident, Lowe’s issued a statement about the manager’s decision. It read: “Under no circumstances should a discriminatory delivery request be honored as it is inconsistent with our diversity and inclusion core values and the request should have been refused.”
The company confirmed that a full investigation had been carried out to determine what happened. It also confirmed that the manager was no longer working with the company.
It is a difficult time to be Muslim in the United States. Since the events of 9/11, Muslim Americans have faced greater scrutiny, with recent global events triggering further anti-Muslim sentiment both here and abroad.
• Since 9/11, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has seen a 250% increase in cases of religion-based discrimination against Muslims.
• Racially-driven hate crimes have also increased post-election. According to a 2017 FBI report and findings of the Southern Poverty Law Center, hate crimes targeting Muslims doubled in the past two years, surpassing the peak reached in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks.
• A report by the University of Chicago and South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) found that women who wear hijab or head scarves are particularly vulnerable, accounting for 63% of the documented hate incidents targeting women post-election.
Anti-Muslim rhetoric has translated into increased anti-Muslim discrimination in the workplace, presenting new challenges for companies committed to a diverse and inclusive workplace.
When companies openly oppose discrimination, they send powerful messages to politicians, employees, consumers, and to the general public at large about their values.
State and federal law prohibits discrimination and harassment based upon race, sex, age, disability, and religion, among other protected class categories.
A customer’s religious preference is not a cognizable basis for denying an employee’s religious accommodation request or a legitimate basis for
reassigning an employee of a different faith.
Refusing to hire someone because customers or coworkers may be “uncomfortable” with that person’s religion or national origin is illegal in the same way as refusing to hire that person because of religion or national origin is in the first place.
If an employer takes an action based on the discriminatory preferences of others, including co-workers or clients, the employer is unlawfully
discriminating.
Under the law, customer preference can never be a justification for discrimination.
Honoring a customer’s preference to reassign an employee because the employee is of a different faith than a customer, or because the employee
wears a visible symbol of that faith, can lead to claims of employment discrimination.
Respecting customer preferences that are discriminatory and requiring an employee to continue to provide service when a customer is openly discriminating against or harassing an employee can lead to costly litigation.
Failing to address and manage customers’ discriminatory preferences or harassment of workers, can put employers at risk of costly employment
litigation.
Banning head coverings or other religious garb in an attempt not to discomfit customers is not only illegal, it does nothing to improve the public’s comfort with Muslim Americans.
Less than a year after 9/11 the EEOC brought a class action against American Airlines, alleging that the airline maintained a policy of refusing to hire Muslim women who wore hijabs as passenger service agents. The case was settled within one week. American Airlines paid $60,000 to the lead plaintiff and her attorney and changed its uniform policy to contemplate exceptions for religious accommodation.
Several years later, a hijab case did go to trial. The plaintiff was a car rental agent with Alamo Rent-ACar, responsible for renting cars and personally interacting with customers at the counter and on the telephone. Over the years the company had routinely accommodated her wish to wear a hijab during the holy month of Ramadan. After 9/11, however, when plaintiff requested an accommodation from the company’s dress code to wear her hijab, she was told that she could do so, but not at the front counter where she would be interacting with, and, the company suggested, offending customers. The employee refused to remove her hijab while working at the front counter and was terminated. She sued. The court, holding that the company had a duty to accommodate plaintiff’s religious practice
and could not rely on perceived customer preferences to establish that accommodating plaintiff would cause it undue hardship, granted summary judgment against the employer. The jury awarded the plaintiff $287,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.
According to the EEOC, if an employer takes an action based on the discriminatory preferences of others, including co-workers or clients, the employer is unlawfully discriminating. The EEOC provides the following example to help illustrate the point:
Nasreen, a Muslim ticket agent for a commercial airline, wears a head scarf, or hijab, to work at the airport ticket counter. After September 11, 2001, her manager objected, telling Nasreen that the customers might think she was sympathetic to terrorist hijackers. Nasreen explains to her
manager that wearing the hijab is her religious practice and continues to wear it. She is terminated for wearing it over her manager’s objection.
Customer fears or prejudices do not amount to undue hardship, and the refusal to accommodate her and the termination, therefore, violate Title VII. In addition, denying Nasreen the position due to perceptions of customer preferences about religious attire would be disparate treatment based
on religion in violation of Title VII, because it would be the same as refusing to hire Nasreen because she is a Muslim.
Some companies are including religious wear options as part of corporate dress codes. Westpac recently announced it will create hijabs to correspond with uniforms employees wear. The line was released in 2017, and features the company’s colors and logo. “It’s all part of a push to ensure diversity and inclusiveness in the workplace, says a bank spokeswoman. “This is another way we can show our support for our people and ensure they feel great at work,” she said.
Other organizations that have made similar decisions include Optus and Commonwealth Bank, which, after nearly a year of consultation with employees, introduced a grey hijab with the company’s logo as part of its uniform, according to the Financial Review. The initiative was spearheaded by executive manager Malini Raj, who says the move reflects CBA’s pride in having employees and customers from a variety of cultures. “We have a lot of Muslim employees and our customers are very diverse, so it’s important to make them feel supported and included.”
