The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued a technical assistance document titled “Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities.” The document sets forth “best practices” which are proactive measures that go beyond federal anti-discrimination requirements. Some of the best practices include the following:

• Training managers on the legal obligations that may impact decisions about the treatment of workers with caregiving responsibilities
• Developing, disseminating, and enforcing a strong EEO policy
• Ensuring that managers are aware of and comply with the organization’s work-life policies
• Responding to complaints of caregiver discrimination efficiently and effectively
• Enforcing anti-retaliation provisions

The best practices are designed to reduce the chance of EEO violations against caregivers and to remove barriers to equal opportunity employment.

The document is consistent with ELI^®’s rationale as taught in its Civil Treatment^® programs: Employers that create a work atmosphere in which employees are treated lawfully, civilly, and professionally benefit from a reduction in complaints of unlawful discrimination, improved employee morale, and an improved bottom line.

The EEOC’s technical statement can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiver-best-practices.html.

Managers Are Wise to Get Help When Dealing with Personal Appearance Issues

Issues of personal appearance continue to drive claims of discrimination. Accordingly, managers should always get help when confronted with such issues.

In the case of EEOC v. Papin Enters. Inc., (M.D. Fla., No. 6:07-cv-01548, 4/7/09), the EEOC brought suit on behalf of a Subway sandwich shop franchisee employee, claiming the employer discriminated against the employee by failing to accommodate her and firing her when she failed to remove a nose ring. The employee contended she wore the nose ring for religious reasons. The franchisee sought to follow a rule set by the franchisor that forbade employees from wearing facial jewelry.

The employer filed a dispositive motion, claiming it had offered a reasonable accommodation to the employee (wearing a bandage over the nose ring) that the employee refused. Further, the employer sought to dismiss the claim on grounds of undue hardship, claiming that its image would be significantly damaged if the employee wore a nose ring. The court denied the motion and allowed the case to proceed to trial.

In the case of Burchette v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., (S.D.N.Y., No. 1:08-cv-08786, 3/30/09), an African-American employee filed suit against Abercrombie & Fitch, claiming she suffered race discrimination when ordered to remove blonde highlights from her hair. When the employee asked if she could color all of her hair blonde, she was told she could not because it was not natural. She was told that she should have the hair color that she was born with and that she should not come back to work unless she colored her hair all black. The employee was offended and did not return to work.

In her lawsuit, the woman claimed the employer discriminated against her when it selectively enforced its “look” policy. According to the employee, white employees were not required to strictly comply with the policy. The employer sought to dismiss the case on grounds that the employee could not state a claim. The court denied the motion and allowed the case to proceed.