Also, while people are entitled to religious accommodations the threshold for undue burden on the ER is much lower than with say an ADA request. I think the ER would not have much of a problem overcoming that objection, especially in a state with protections for gay and lesbians.

That is an interesting observation and insightful distinction. I have had discussions on that very point but more times than not have failed to get people to see the legitimacy of just such a distinction. Insight is an effective HR tool. The relevance of HR people recognizing this distinction is that by having such insight HR can help others feel more comfortable; effectively handling the total problem in a wholelistic manner.

I agree that the VP working with the male employee who had difficulty working with a female employee could have done things better and probably could benefit from some diversity awareness training. It just seems to me that his response was typical of most managers trying to do the right thing. Certainly he left the guy with a feeling that he was “right” and that management had his back. But I’m not convinced that the VP meant that. The VP may be saying that he will pay more attention to what was going on to protect both employee’s. Again, I would expect the VP after checking the situation out more, to call the employee’s in to resolve the matter.

The second failure here is a HR manager that does not see what has really happened here. If not the HR manager becomes complacent in the wrong done to the female employee.
_______________________________________

Mike I thought about this for several days now. I have to say that I disagree completely that all the VP was doing was taking care of anothre’s fear. No sir, he was wrong flat out. If in fact it is assumed that he did not do what you suggest, ask what happened that made the man fearful, serves to compound his wrong. A VP cannot simply assume that a female or any other person or protected class is to be feared and then without any cause, move in such a manner that he tacitly agrees that the person is some sort of ‘danger’ effectively casting suspicion on the innocent employee. This wrong on several different levels all the way to the point that the female male have a prima facia case for a hostile work atmosphere. No sir, I can’t agree on any level that the VP handled this correctly. It would seem the HR manager needs classes in diversity along with the male employee. From the story all that has happened is that the female showed up for work.

I agree that HR needs to mitigate the circumstances. I also agree that there is plenty of case law out there. That is the bread and butter of lawyers, to find case law supporting their point of view while the other lawyers do the same. HR deals with the real “gray” areas and is in the best position (compared to judges and lawyers) to identify the REAL issues facing their work force (fears, concerns, personal problems, etc.). Most people DO NOT want to go to court. They generally do if they feel that they have been dismissed, they are RIGHT, and they are angry. HR can go a long way to mitigate these issues by being impartial and working on all the issues.

To John: “This is very, very wrong. The VP for whatever reason is sending the message that any female employee cannot be trusted.”
Actually, I don’t find a lot of fault with the VP. I don’t read his actions the same as you. The employee expressed concern (fear) that the female co-worker might file a harassment claim and he had no way to defend himself. The VP basically said he would be more present to monitor the situation so that any issues could be dealt with early. This may have been a way to deal directly with the employee’s fear that he would not be able to defend himself. What the VP failed to do was to take a closer look at the situation, ask the first employee what had happened that made them fearful, talk to both employees to find out if there are any problems, AND monitor the situation to see how these employees really interact.

March 31st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
My comment is not about the “gay” situation, but it reminded me of another situation I had regarding Sexual Harassment. An employee was working with a women co-worker and he told the VP (who was the manager on duty) that he “could not work like this”. The VP/manager said “Like what?”. The employee said “with another women”. “What if something happens and I get accused of sexually harassing her”? The VP/manager said ” OK, I’ll check in on you every 15 minutes to be sure nothing is going on. I agree with you that you have to be very careful in today’s workplace and you are correct in fearing that something might happen”.
___________________________________________

This is very, very wrong. The VP for whatever reason is sending the message that any female employee cannot be trusted. He is presenting a tactic that will tie up resources to monitor literally nothing, set in motion an mistrust between the male and female staff and place an unfair burden on the female employee because of someone else’s insecurities. Would this have happened if the employee were white male? What if the compliant was about someone that had a disability or was of a different ethnic group? Would the VP cast active suspicions on everyone else the same as he did concerning the female employee?

I understand trust building. But trust building is only part of the employee dynamic. Cowing to such complaints and aiding and abetting such issues by an employee’s frivolous complaint or insecurities do not help resolve anything. This was wrong and somebody should explain that to the VP, perhaps as I have, about why it is wrong.

March 31st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
To John:
“However it IS the job of HR to take sides persay. If your aapproach does not work you have to become an advocate for employment law. By default you then must take sides with the individual that falls on the side of employment law.”

I agree, but this is the difficulty that all HR Directors must deal with. What does “employment law” dictate? What are ALL the facts? The HR professional must suspend his/her tendency to “know” what
is going on and to dig deeper.”
____________________________
Agree

Mike R
“. . . The root of the problem lies in perceptions, biases, and attitudes which have been formed through hard fought personal experiences.”
_____________________________

Also agree but here is where you have really made the best point. These are the things that actions are based upon. It is at this point that the list above becomes relevant. As you have stated we in HR cannot buy into those perceptions and must take stands regardless of those perceptions that people may feel strongly about but still violate employment law.

Mike R
“Generally the first step is to identify the behavioral expectations, but without dealing with the real problem, then it will resurface later. Over the years, I find that we MORE in common than differences. We share the same hopes and fears. When trying to resolve such issues, it is more than a one shot thing. It’s a process that is based on communication and trust building. Unfortunately, sometimes one or both party’s fears are so great that they are unable to engage, the HR professional lacks the skills and training to facilitate, or there isn’t enough time. In such instances, I generally encourage the employee’s to utilize our EAP program to continue the process and stress the behavioral expectations and the employment consequences.”
_________________________

I find the issues of discrimination and the lack of social skills or HR professional skills to deal with them quite different indeed. Yes EAP has a place to offer personal assistance to the problemed employee but that is not a panacea to standing firm on behavioral expectations. The employee’s agreement or even understanding of the expectations is not a requirement.

Employment law can be found under Title VII or any of the other titles. It is FLSA, FMLA, DOL, and many other statutes or court cases that have been placed in our civil judicial system for years. It is not hard to find case law to apply to most any situation. No, I am not a strict advocate of pulling the law out if alternative solutions can be found. But it is not the employee’s responsibility; it is the responsibility of HR to mitigate those circumstances before they turn into a lawsuit.