Sometimes, the road to a lawsuit or other trouble can be lined with good intentions – such as implementing a diversity program that in the end satisfies no one and angers just about everyone

The problems often begin with the most innocent and well-meaning initiatives: for instance, a mentoring program for historically overlooked groups or an outreach effort to hire in low-income communities.

Some HR managers who’ve tried those approaches then had to battle against charges of “reverse discrimination” or favoritism. It’s at that point, they’ve said to themselves, “Wasn’t this supposed to be a good thing?”

Diversity can be a good thing when it’s implemented properly. As a guide to proper implementation – and a lesson in diversity do’s and don’ts – consider the analysis by employment-law expert David Haase of three recent landmark legal battles over diversity:

Bernstein v. St. Paul Companies
The battle in this suit swirled around a statement issued by the company’s CEO, who sought to make certain that employees knew he supported HR’s diversity efforts.

The CEO wrote a letter to all employees that stated, in part, that he “did not want the company to consist exclusively of white men.”

Right after that, the CEO and the HR manager found themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit filed by white men at the company who said the statement was proof of intent to hold them back while promoting women and minorities.

The company ended up winning the suit, mainly because in the same letter the CEO also said the company was committed to hiring and promoting “the most talented people that are available … irrespective of whether they are of a certain gender or of a certain race.”

The lesson: Proclaiming support for diversity is OK, as long as it comes with the stipulation that everyone is going to get a fair shake.

Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband, LLC
What happens when an employee refuses to sign on to a diversity program and openly defies its intent? That question got answered in a lawsuit filed by an employee who said his religious beliefs blocked him from recognizing the “value” of some groups, such as homosexuals.

The employee asked for a religious accommodation resulting in an exemption from the policy to “value all individuals.” The company refused the accommodation and fired him.

In the end, a judge ordered the company to rehire the employee, with the stipulation that the employee would not engage in discrimination or harassment of the groups in question.

The lesson: Such disputes usually are decided on a case-by-case basis, but the important point is that even if an employee doesn’t fully sign on to a diversity program, he or she must commit to treating all people in the workplace equally and with respect.

Moranski v. General Motors
An employee claimed that he was discriminated against because he was not allowed to form his own religious affinity at work, even though the company sponsored affinity groups – as part of a diversity program — based on race, national origin, gender and sexual orientation, and provided those groups with meeting space and other resources.

The company’s affinity-group policy specifically did not allow any group that promoted or advocated any religious or political position.

What happened? A court dismissed the employee’s claim while noting that the company didn’t promote any religious group over another, so there was no discrimination in the policy of barring all religious groups.

The lesson: You don’t have to extend diversity programs to every group in the universe, but you do have to make certain that no one group is provided with an advantage or penalized with a disadvantage.

Tags: , discrimination, diversity, harassment, homosexuals, minorities, reverse discrimination, white men