One dumb manager remark costs firm big
May 21, 2010 by Tim GouldPosted in: Special Report
Note to managers — when making hiring or promotion decisions involving female employees, avoid applying the following standard: “First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes flex time and a baby carriage.”
Sales managers at giant drugmaker Novartis disregarded that advice. Now the company’s on the hook for $250 million in damages for discriminating against women — and perhaps opening the floodgates for a special type of bias lawsuits.
“Caregiver discrimination” (call it “family responsibility discrimination,” if you prefer) is a concept that’s been bandied about by attorneys for a couple of years now. But the Novartis decision — and its enormous price tag — has brought the issue front and center.
And smart companies are paying attention.
The Lily Ledbetter controversy — and the resulting passage of the Fair Pay Act — brought the problem of gender inequality in salaries into sharp focus. The Novartis decision is likely to do the same for the issue of women trying to juggle family responsibilities and careers.
And don’t forget the recent federal court decision granting class certification in a case against retailer Walmart — what’s being billed as the largest gender discrimination case in the nation.
Not their finest hour
We’d be hard pressed to think of a company that came off looking worse than Novartis did in its recent month-long trial in federal district court in New York. A few high (or low) lights:
- One manager’s explanation of why he didn’t want to hire young women: “First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes flex time and a baby carriage”
- Another manager denied a maternity leave request from a woman who’d just adopted a baby, saying maternity leave was only for women who’d actually given birth, and
- Still another told a woman he didn’t think she could do her job because “she was a single mother of three children who was going through a divorce.”
There’s more — a lot more — but you get the idea.
Time for HR to step up
So what’s the message here? Simple: The issue of caregiver discrimination is real, and it’s not going to go away.
It’s a symptom of what’s happening in today’s workplace. Employees are finding it harder and harder to juggle increasing work demands and the pressures of the home front — and that goes for men as well as women. Employee morale’s been deflated by wage freezes and the threat of layoffs.
The political timing’s right, too. What with the Obama administration’s pro-employee push — from increased DOL enforcement efforts to a power shift in the National Labor Relations Board — business isn’t exactly getting a lot of good press.
One bright spot in all this: the HR function’s more important than ever. Who else is going to help companies set up fair, equitable promotion, hiring and pay policies — and devise ways to keep employees engaged and motivated?
Case cite: Velez v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Tags: caregiver discrimination, family responsibility discrimination, Velez v. Novartis
HRMorning.com delivers the latest HR news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HR professionals.
follow us on Twitter
join our group on Facebook
May 21st, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Stupid Stupid Stupid!!!!!!!!
Apply the same standard to male single parents!!!!!!!!!!
Being male myself I have had to see female coworkers go throught this stupidity.
One main question……..With no children would there be a human race?
Glad the the court is seeing things at least somewhat clearly!!!!!!
May 24th, 2010 at 8:15 am
This is happening all the time everywhere. From comments like “You do a great job, I would have promoted you if you weren’t part time” after hiring to “How will you handle the child care situation if you get this position”. Both comments made to me in HR jobs, one 15 years ago and one 2 weeks ago. Companies need to crack down on managers with these attitudes. It makes me feel very frustrated as an HR professional that the job I left 15 years ago because of that attitude is still out there at many companies. Knowing I didn’t want to work for a company again with that attitude when I was asked how I would handle the child care situation if I got the job I looked the guy in the eye and said, “Gee, they are 17 and 15 and pretty self sufficient these days. Thank goodness too because my elderly parents require more care and time off to drive to doctor’s appointments than the kids”.
May 24th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Ann, you should have said “Gee, I don’t know, why don’t you tell me about your child care arrangements first.” It amazes me that there are still people out there who think that way AND think its acceptable to say those things to an employee. Amazing.
May 24th, 2010 at 10:33 am
The managers’ court comments indicate either (1) total dumb ignorance or (2) total dumb arrogance. My experience is that many managers who are far removed from the daily nuts and bolts world of employment law just don’t understand what can or can’t be asked/said in employment issues such as described in the article. Put them in (1) above. If they understand but ask illegal questions or make illegal comments anyway, place them in (2) above. Either way, there is NO excuse for “managers” making these comments.
May 24th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Just another illustration of why companies need to train their managers on the right and legal questions to ask applicants, whether internal or external, that are relevant to the positions for which they are applying. While I do realize that even training doesn’t always solve this problem becuase there are some who will ignore these types of things regardless of how much training they receive because they just don’t get it- never will because they are just plain stupid. Other than that, companies need to hold their managers accountable to managerial standards which is not happening all that much because seems to me like it’s almost taboo to hold managers accountable these days.
May 24th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I do feel for these people and it’s about time someone made it clear how wrong it is.
Ann, I’ve been there. I left my last job after my manager asked “Do you REALLY think you can handle this promotion with two kids at home??!!!” I responded with just a simple “What??!!” making my point that I could handle it just fine and that I was ticked that she would say that. Unfortunately she didn’t back off and I ended up quitting. I left there and went to work for a company I love and who appreciated that I can be a mom and an employee. It’s been 5 years and I still regret that I destroyed the e-mails, letters, and notes I had as evidence against her.
May 24th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Any manager who makes a hiring and/or promotional decision should be let go or demoted for not knowing what can and can’t be asked/said when meeting the perspective applicant/employee. That is part of their job duty and their responsibility to know and be aware. Unfortunately, there are far too many of these folks who continue to act in this manner.
May 24th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
You have that right Mike. Some people just shouldn’t be managers. Stupid is as Stupid does. I am just fed up with these managers who think they know everything. You give them advice on how to handle something and they don’t take it. Then your looking at a DOL investigation and or a law suit. That is where arrogance get you. These managers need a huge does of humility before they take that management position. Sorry for the Rant Folks. This just hit home with me.
May 24th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
All this is great but consider the situation it puts a small business in. Many small businesses can not afford to have a key person out for very long and depending on the job description, hiring from a temp. agency does not always work.
When I was working for a small company, I knew the law, yet was able to get the individuals I was interviewing to share with me, on their own, anything I felt was important to the company.
If they were pregnant, going through a divorce, only going to be in the area for a short time even if they had a way to get to and from the job.
What happened to common sense. I would never apply for a job in which I had no constant means of transportation, if I was 6 months pregnant or if I knew I was planning on relocating to another area in the near future!!
May 24th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Millie:
You have a good point. Sometime HR people are so looking out for employees and their “rights”, they forget the health of the company is just as, if not more, important. It may not be politically correct and even borderline discriminatory to ask. But, the bottom line is, if someone is pregnant, they’re going to take time off for maternity. If someone has little kids at home, they’re going to take more time off than a single person. If someone has not transportation, chances are they’re going to miss more work time than someone who does. All this “time off” costs the company an hurts the bottom line. Sometimes we are so worried about not discriminating and being politically correct, common sense goes right out the window with the profits.
May 24th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Lorie & Millie, just because someone has kids at home does not mean they cannot perform the duties of the job. I agree that if a person is planning to move away in 6 months, it would impact my hiring decision, but family situations… you never know. I’ve had employees with no family obligations who couldn’t manage to get the job done and I’ve had employees with family who did an amazing job. I have to wonder, if you had an employee who underperformed – was it because of family obligations or just not a good hire?
May 25th, 2010 at 7:00 am
I have been on both sides of the fence, so to speak. In a previous position, I had a meeting with the president of the company to discuss why I felt I deserved a raise in compensation. I had gone over all the benefits I had brought to the company and mentioned the fact that a recently hired employee, who was male, who had similiar job responsibilities, was making more than I was. The president’s response was that he had a family to support. At the time, I had four teenage children living at home and my husband had become sick and was on disability. My mistake in handling that situation was that I got angry. I didn’t get the raise and left the company soon after.
In the company I currently work for, we had an admin. who was recently hired and became pregnant and went on leave early because of complications. We do not have maternity leave but we do have short/long term disability benefits and the state the admin. worked in also had state disability benefits. She never came back from her leave, resigning after her benefits ran out. She had worked for the company less than a year and had payroll deduction benefits (voluntary life) that the company had continued to pay for her in her absence with the understanding that once she returned the company would make out payment plans with her to pay the monies back. To this day, the company has not seen any money from this person.
I agree with Lorie and Millie that HR walks a fine line with this issue. You have to have common sense but you must also balance that with fairness.
May 25th, 2010 at 7:59 am
While this issue is still alive and well concerning Moms w/small kids, an even bigger problem is looming on the horizon as Baby Boomers age. Ann mentioned it at the end of her comment. Employees with the responsibility of aging parents or other relatives. This is something more of us will have to deal with…juggling children and parents and work! Find your local Area Agency on Aging for info on caregiver support. Many AAA’s have programs that can be presented to employers on how to assist their employees.
May 25th, 2010 at 8:43 am
I once worked for a company owner who would routinely award men higher pay raises then women because “men had to support a family, women didn’t.” I should of know this was coming when I answered the ad in the paper for a “girl Friday.” Yes, that was a long time ago, but still.
May 25th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Petey:
I agree that you just never know, lol. Yes, most employees with or without family obligations work very well. I am not saying that someone with small kids at home can’t be good at his/her job. I’m just saying overall the odds are that those with small children (or other family obligations) will miss more time than someone without. The point is we sometimes lose common sense in our efforts to be nondiscriminatory.
Say two applicants are equally qualified in every way for a position. One has many family obligations – small children, aging parents; the other is free of family obligations and career-oriented. Both could do the job well, but which one is more likely to be more focused and less likely to miss work? It’s not politically correct, but it’s common sense from a business perspective to take the applicant with less outside encumbrances.
May 25th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Lorie, your hypothetical about the two employees with identical qualifications does make sense. But for me it’s all about performance. As long as the job gets done well and the customers are cared for, I don’t worry too much about attendance. If I have an employee whose performance is substandard (for whatever reason), I address that employee and that situation on an individual basis.
One more thing; you can file this under the heading of things that make you go “Hmmmm…”
Isn’t it funny that we say it makes more business sense to hire (for example) a man, because he has no family obligations, but yet we pay him more? Wouldn’t it make good business sense to hire the person who can do the same job but for a lower wage??
May 25th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I agree that it is a fine line, employee vs company; I tend to agree that the company needs to survive and make money, but not on the bias’ of ignorant abusive hiring managers that end up costing the company more in the court system.
As an aside, under the “HMMMMM…” catagory: I remember my past job being frustrated being a single female, no kids, feeling underpaid vs the men in the company, but also feeling underpaid vs the female w/kids employees too as they got more of their taxed dollars back then I did! So in effect, we did the same job, but they got more of the money we were paid because they had kids and I didn’t. The more kids they had, the more they got “paid” to do the same job. Hmmmm…
May 25th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Petey I have 2 managers here, one shares your philisoy of as long as they do their job I don’t care about attendance and his people do a good job and work an average of 6 hours a day (sal-exempt.) I work for the other manager who feels if you can do your job in 6 hours, then i need to give you 3 more hours worth of work a day. So the people that report to manager A work about 36 hrs, the people that report to manager B (like me) work 45 hours a week. Talk about unfair. I wish managers would get on the same page.
May 25th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Man did I spell philosophy wrong in that post or what !??
May 25th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Ann2:
I hear you! Unfortunately, that is an income tax problem and not really related to the job/pay. Of course, any two people doing the same job should be paid the same regardless of sex or # of family members they support. The only justifiable difference would be some sort of adjustment for seniority or experience.
I, too, feel that you should not have to pay less tax just because you chose to have a brood of children. We should move to a flat tax income tax. Everyone pays 10% of their income, for instance. That way everyone is feeling the same tax pain proportionately. And the number of dependents you have would not enter into it. I am sick of seeing people getting more from Uncle Sam in “refunds” than they pay in, just because they have a slew of children that the rest of us are paying for. It’s infuriating.
May 25th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Like it or not, in making a hiring decision (not a promotion decision) it is relevant whether the employee has proper support for his/her children. I know you cant ask that, but it IS relevant, and could impact their performance. A single parent of 4 children is not likely to perform as well as a single parent with 1 child or no children. Admit it…You know I am right about this…
Once hired, it is job performance that counts…period.
These are stupid managers who did not apparently absorb their “compliance training” which all big companies are diligent about.
May 26th, 2010 at 7:50 am
Cheryl, have you tried one of those new philisoy burgers? LOL. I have the same problem – my fingers can type faster than my brain thinks. Does that mean I’m a super-awesome typist or…
The inconsistency issue (the 36 hour work week for some, but 45 hours for others) is frustrating and problematic for HR. So, how do we fix that?
May 26th, 2010 at 8:42 am
In California we have pregnancy disability leave of up to 16 weeks, plus FMLA of up to 12 weeks (that amounts to about 7 months off). I have a really hard time hiring a pregnant women for a key position, knowing she will work 2 or 3 months, then take a long leave, requiring me to backfill her with a temp. I do it, but it sure doesn’t make good business sense. I have one employee with two children under 4, and a third on the way. She has a husband who is not employed. Yet, every time a child is sick, she takes off. Her husband apparently is only capable of making babies, not caring for them. These are the things that are right under the law, but not good for business. Fortunately, for the most part, my managers are well aware of employees’ rights and non-discriminatory practices, so we won’t end up like Novartis. Somehow you’d think a large company would have someone to make sure they do it right.
May 26th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Millie:
I can tell by your comments that you have never really had to work for a living. Your comments were “What happened to common sense. I would never apply for a job in which I had no constant means of transportation, if I was 6 months pregnant or if I knew I was planning on relocating to another area in the near future!!”.
Say your car broke down and you have just been downsized and have no savings, are you going to lay at home and die or are you going to find a job. Your six months pregnant you have child to be concerned with as well so you wont go to work, how are you going to feed and cloth and shelter yourself and the baby. Or maybe you have to move in six months so you dontt look for a job? How do you survive until the move?
I can tell by your pompas arrogant demeener that you have never been forced to face the reallity of todays world with out a lot of money backing you.
People work for a living, pay day to pay day. Survival hinges upon employment wether it is the ideal situation for the employer or not. Food, shelter, and clothing are the basic nessecities of life a companies ability to provide its management with exhorbitant saleries and bonuses should not be top priority. The exhorbitant salries and bonuses should be secondary to taking care of the employees whom may not always be perfect but whom without, the bottom line would be non-existant.
May 26th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Jeanette, employees aren’t eligible for FMLA or CFRA leave unless they’ve worked for you for at least 12 months & have worked at least 1250 hours in the past 12 months. So, they would not be eligible for these leave benefits after only working for you for 2-3 months. They would be eligible for PDL, but that only covers an employee when she is actually disabled by the pregnancy. It does not cover baby-bonding leave like FMLA does.
May 26th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Lauren, you are correct. However, even a long PDL is tough for a newer employee who has just started. As I mentioned, we comply.
May 26th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Thank you Ed! I’ve been ticked off ever since I read Millie’s post yesterday but held it in.
May 26th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Ed makes a good point that sometimes people have to take jobs under less than ideal circumstances in order to make a living, but I don’t think it’s necessary to denigrate another poster to make your point. We don’t know Millie’s situation.
And I agree with Charles McCarty that it is job performance that counts… period. I don’t agree that a single parent of 4 children is not likely to perform as well as a single parent with 1 child or no children.
I don’t agree and neither would my mom. She was a single mom with 4 kids who also cared for her elderly mother. She worked for the same company for decades and was much loved and appreciated. She worked as hard anyone there, she drove to work in blizzards, she worked overtime when they asked, whatever it took.
Some might say “well that’s just one person’s story.” And that’s exactly the point. The person with 4 kids who is always late and never gets his/her work done… that’s just one person’s story too. That’s why we have to treat everyone fairly, because each person and situation merits individual consideration and respect. If you start lumping everyone together into categories and treating them accordingly, it’s not only illegal, but you run the risk of missing out on some good, hard-working employees who might make a real difference in your organization.
May 26th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I try to be very understanding with all my perspective employees. However, if I know the position I am trying to fill requires a great deal of training and is also one of the busiest positions in the company, then I have to make sure the employee is going to be able to show up for work on a regular basis.
What I really feel would help employers & individuals looking for a job is changing the law reguarding the information that a previous employer can share with a company who calls for previous work references on a canadate.
Right now because of the way the law is written & any attorney will tell you, if you are the person calling for the references, try to get all the information you can. If you are the person being called for the reference, give only the start and ending date of employment along with beginning and ending salary. If someone calls asking for a reference on a previous employee and I know they were a good and valuable employee, then I make sure that I tell the person calling for the reference exactly that. If the employee did not do their job well, then I will only confirm the information in regards to date of hire, termination date, starting and ending salary. This also will help the individuals who were good employees to continue to better themselves should they wish to change companies and it will also help & save money for companies. Most of us know hiring the wrong person for a position can be expensive. I have advised individuals for years that they should never leave a job without getting a letter of reference from their employer. I have never known a company not to write a letter if the individual was a valuable employee. If the individual has letters of references that I have checked out, I don’t care what issues the applicant might have as long as they are quilified for the position.
You always want to follow through with checking out the letters of reference. I have found that some were not authentic. The individual just typed what he wanted on the company letterhead and signed his supervisors name.
May 26th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Sorry, I am working late and typing really fast. I meant to go back & fix the spelling and punctuation errors before sending.
May 26th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Dear Ed & DL
I somehow lost what I was originally typing so just in case it does not show up & I do not have the time to re type it all, here are the facts. I am 60 yrs old. I have been working all my life at a full time job since I was 16. I left work when my first child was due. I left work when I had my second child. the only 2 times my car had a problem I caught a cab to work. If the weather man said it was going to snow during the night, I left for work an hour early just not to be late. I had a full time job when my mother was dying of cancer, yet I never was late for work or missed a day of work until I took off when she passed away. However during her (6) month illness I got up at 3:30 each morning to visit her before I went to work and every afternoon during my lunch hour even if I could only stay for 20 minutes because of travel time. I was at her bedside when she passed away at 5:00 AM on a Monday morning- her birthday- and was at work by 7:00. I went to work because I knew their were many employees that lived paycheck to paycheck and although I knew they would understand my situation, the reality was they needed their money and my moms passing was MY PROBLEM not theirs. I loved my mom dearly and that was very difficult for me but I was the office manager and the only one the company would allow to do the payroll. Several years after my mother passed away, I had to move my father to a nursing home, I spent every free moment I had looking for a good place. I was very pro active in his care and because of that I moved him 4 times before I realized they were pretty much all the same. I visited him every morning before work, every afternoon during lunch, every weekend and when I didn’t have to work late I visited him at night, this went on for (7) yrs. until he passed away a year ago.
Lets just say I do care and understand but my parents raised us with– When you open the door of the company to start your job, leave your personal problems outside. Always try to find your own solutions. Because I know some of the difficulties that can face people I try very hard to be understanding with all my employees. I do not know if either of you are in a management position and I will not assume one way or the other, I will extend the courtesy you did not show me- but I have had employees actually come to me and say “I should not have been docked the 15 min I was late for work cause it was not my fault I caught a bridge lift” Or ” I deserve to be paid holiday pay because if the manager had not taken so long to hire me I would have met the 90 day qualification.
It is very hard today for both companies and employees. One of the main problems I think is because there is not the loyalty that used to exist. Some companies are partly to blame because instead of holding on to valuable & dedicated employees some companies rather let them go and hire a person less qualified but also at a lesser salary. Employees are partly to blame because some of them have almost no work ethics. Coming in 15 minutes late or returning late from lunch is no big deal–but it is a big deal and also unfair to their coworkers if they have to cover their position until that person shows back up at their work station.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Millie I think a lot of what you are saying is about work ethic but I think the differences in work ethic is because of the differences in the X,Y (?) generations. I’m 49 and I don’t remember what generation I am but I share your work ethic. I gave birth and returned to work full time in 3 days. That was 26 years ago. I was always the first to arrive in the morning and the last to leave at night. I ate lunch at my desk everyday. However from hiring and working with this generation of highly skilled individuals I have taken a hard look at my work ethic and started to cut myself some slack. Granted I would never accept the excuses from employees you have noted but if they are late from lunch but they work hard and do a good job, I’m OK with that. Now sometimes I’m late from lunch too and I’m certainly not the first person in the office anymore. As long as we are hiring people that take responsibility for their actions, for their attitude and do a good job, that is the new definition of a good work ethic.
May 28th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Millie
I am 47 andand have the same work ethic as you, this is not about your work ethic. This is about your interview and hiring ideology. You did all that you could to promote the company through many adversities such as needing to take a cab to work. Yet according to you “What happened to common sense. I would never apply for a job in which I had no constant means of transportation, if I was 6 months pregnant or if I knew I was planning on relocating to another area in the near future!!”, you dont seem willing to afford anyone the oportunity to show you they can do it too! I would hate to apply for a job at your organization and be turned down, not because of my skills but because my car was in the shop or I was going through a divorce, or I was a single parent. Are there any perfect employees out there.
May 28th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Cheryl you are right, I got a little of the beaten path. I do think the job decescription palys a big part in how flexable a manager can be with certain individuals. The only time I have a problem with this is if the employee starts coming into work late on a regular basis. If a manager does not step in to see if they can figure out what is going on, it can hurt moral or another employee starts wondering why that person is getting special treatment.
June 1st, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Ed, my comments on 5-26 at 11:23 PM were simply in response to your entry on 5-26 at 10:37 PM
See my entry on 5-26 at 5:14 PM.
June 17th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
I think I worked with Cheryl 26 years ago. Her daughter was born on Friday evening and she was back at work on Monday morning. I too have a very strong work ethic and gave more to that employer than maybe I should have. As an HR professional today, I try to make certain that my managers and supervisors are equipped with the skills necessary to ascertain the information needed from a potential employee without crossing that PC line. Unfortunately, occassional mistakes are made. The individuals in this article were not making “mistakes”, they were just plain stupid.
June 28th, 2010 at 7:06 am
I know I may be too late in responding to this but this has hit a nerve. I once worked for a company owner. I was asked to make a list of all of the employees and their hire dates and their last pay raise. All of a sudden pay raises were dished out with exeptions. (Mind you, this had nothing to do with performance reviews). Some got raises others didnt. Reason: the ones that did had families and deserved a raise. Those that did not have children still at home (me) they didnt need one. I wish I had suited. Not knowing what I know now, shows me that I was right in, a short time later, quit. Some companies are, in my opinion, are very self serving, bleeding-hearts, and just plain idiots and have no regard for their employees that are helping them with building “their” company and providing “them” with their paychecks. Shame, Shame.