Labor: Beware of election backlash
Last week, employees made their way to the polls by the millions to cast a vote in the 2012 general election.
November 26, 2012 at 06:38 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Last week, employees made their way to the polls by the millions to cast a vote in the 2012 general election. The results are in, but talk of the election and what the next four years will bring is only beginning. You probably have had or heard these conversations at home or with friends, on your commutes to work and also in your workplaces. So, should an employer be concerned about “election talk” in the workplace? When should an employer draw a line in the sand and put the kibosh on such talk? And, how can an employer best protect itself from related legal exposure?
Election talk in the workplace
Some election-related talk is bound to take place among employee ranks. For management, the challenge is twofold:
- Be aware of what is said
- React promptly and appropriately when employee talk crosses the line into problematic territory
While election talk may be civil and innocuous, given the hot-button political issues this election season, it is easy to see such talk spiraling into commentary that may be perceived as inappropriate, discriminatory and/or harassing based on protected categories, such as race, religion, gender and/or sexual orientation.
Situations might get particularly hairy when supervisors or managers get involved. As an example, suppose a supervisor, male or female, has a well-intentioned, seemingly innocent discussion with a female subordinate about the election, in which they disagree on the former candidates' differing views on abortion and contraception. Several months later, this subordinate receives a lower review then in past performance periods. The supervisor says it's due to the performance, but the employee thinks, especially in light of the supervisor's election-related comments, that the supervisor may harbor a discriminatory animus against her because of her gender. It is all too easy to see a discrimination charge arise from this, and related, scenarios.
When to put the kibosh on it
Employers walk a fine line when it comes to election talk in the workplace. While it is likely unrealistic—and inappropriate—to attempt to prohibit or prevent all such talk, management should be trained to recognize and respond promptly and appropriately to questionable comments or encounters. The worst response to a questionable exchange is to ignore it and hope that it never resurfaces. It may well come back to haunt you. These types of issues are best addressed head-on, through appropriate investigations and, where needed, corrective action in line with the employer's applicable policies.
Your policies are your best protection
Well-written, consistently enforced anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies are key in helping employers minimize exposure from any election-related backlash in the workplace. Such policies should state the employer's commitment to prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on the categories protected by applicable federal, state and local laws; incorporate clear, legally compliant reporting procedures; include appropriate anti-retaliation language and include disciplinary measures for any violations. Of course, the best written policy is worth little to nothing, unless consistently enforced by trained management. With a solid foundation built from strong policies and smart practices, and knowledge of potential discrimination-related issues, an employer should be well-prepared to evaluate and formulate the right response strategy for any elected-related backlash in the workplace.
Last week, employees made their way to the polls by the millions to cast a vote in the 2012 general election. The results are in, but talk of the election and what the next four years will bring is only beginning. You probably have had or heard these conversations at home or with friends, on your commutes to work and also in your workplaces. So, should an employer be concerned about “election talk” in the workplace? When should an employer draw a line in the sand and put the kibosh on such talk? And, how can an employer best protect itself from related legal exposure?
Election talk in the workplace
Some election-related talk is bound to take place among employee ranks. For management, the challenge is twofold:
- Be aware of what is said
- React promptly and appropriately when employee talk crosses the line into problematic territory
While election talk may be civil and innocuous, given the hot-button political issues this election season, it is easy to see such talk spiraling into commentary that may be perceived as inappropriate, discriminatory and/or harassing based on protected categories, such as race, religion, gender and/or sexual orientation.
Situations might get particularly hairy when supervisors or managers get involved. As an example, suppose a supervisor, male or female, has a well-intentioned, seemingly innocent discussion with a female subordinate about the election, in which they disagree on the former candidates' differing views on abortion and contraception. Several months later, this subordinate receives a lower review then in past performance periods. The supervisor says it's due to the performance, but the employee thinks, especially in light of the supervisor's election-related comments, that the supervisor may harbor a discriminatory animus against her because of her gender. It is all too easy to see a discrimination charge arise from this, and related, scenarios.
When to put the kibosh on it
Employers walk a fine line when it comes to election talk in the workplace. While it is likely unrealistic—and inappropriate—to attempt to prohibit or prevent all such talk, management should be trained to recognize and respond promptly and appropriately to questionable comments or encounters. The worst response to a questionable exchange is to ignore it and hope that it never resurfaces. It may well come back to haunt you. These types of issues are best addressed head-on, through appropriate investigations and, where needed, corrective action in line with the employer's applicable policies.
Your policies are your best protection
Well-written, consistently enforced anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies are key in helping employers minimize exposure from any election-related backlash in the workplace. Such policies should state the employer's commitment to prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on the categories protected by applicable federal, state and local laws; incorporate clear, legally compliant reporting procedures; include appropriate anti-retaliation language and include disciplinary measures for any violations. Of course, the best written policy is worth little to nothing, unless consistently enforced by trained management. With a solid foundation built from strong policies and smart practices, and knowledge of potential discrimination-related issues, an employer should be well-prepared to evaluate and formulate the right response strategy for any elected-related backlash in the workplace.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllClimate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
Election Outcome Could Spur Policy U-Turns Across Employment Landscape
6 minute readLatham, Kirkland Alums Land the Top GC Posts—Here's What It Means for Business Generation
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250