Training

In our ever-evolving world, fostering cultural sensitivity is paramount for creating inclusive and respectful work environments and minimizing legal risks. Language plays a crucial role in shaping our perceptions, and unfortunately, some words used in everyday conversation may perpetuate stereotypes and contribute to cultural insensitivity. This Native American Heritage Month, employers should consider abandoning the following words and phrases, and encourage their employees to do the same, in an effort to embrace more inclusive work environments, and mitigate the risk of discrimination claims brought by indigenous members of their workforce.

An Election Primer for Private-Sector Employers

As the 2024 general election draws near, employers can anticipate a rise in political expression from employees both inside and outside of the workplace. Political speech encompasses a broad array of activities, extending far beyond verbal or written communication on political topics. For example, wearing clothing or accessories that endorse or oppose certain issues (N.L.R.B. v. Mead Corp.); wearing wrist bands in support of political causes (Tinker v. Des Moines); displaying bumper stickers, campaign buttons or political posters (Ferguson Police Officers Ass’n v. City of Ferguson); donning insignia such as buttons or decals (Home Depot USA, Inc. and Antonio Morales Jr.); and even “liking” a social media post can be viewed as protected speech (Bland v. Roberts).

From Congress’ recently proposed “Dismantle DEI Act of 2024” to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision permitting mandatory diversity training by employers, diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs remain a contentious issue in U.S. politics. In June 2024, attorneys general from 40 states joined one of two dueling letters, reflecting the inconsistent sentiments on this topic across state lines.

While properly implemented DEI programs remain permissible under Title VII and other applicable laws, recent legislation proposed by Senate and House Republicans would seek to eliminate any such programs sponsored or supported by the federal government. On June 12, 2024, twenty-two members of Congress, led by Ohio Senator J.D. Vance (Donald Trump’s vice-presidential candidate in the 2024 election) introduced the Dismantle DEI Act of 2024 (the “Act”). With respect to the Act, Senator Vance stated, “The DEI agenda is a destructive ideology that breeds hatred and racial division. It has no place in our federal government or anywhere else in our society.” The proposed legislation seeks to eliminate all federal DEI programs and funding for federal agencies, contractors which receive federal funding, organizations which receive federal grants, and educational accreditation agencies. Although the Act would not apply to the private sector, the federal government remains the nation’s largest employer and the Act would impact a workforce of over four million employees.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, there has been in increase in litigation challenging employers’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies and practices. In one recent example, however, a conversative panel of judges in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an argument that a mandatory diversity training constituted unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In the complex tapestry of workplace dynamics, there exists an often unspoken advantage known as the beauty premium or “pretty privilege.” This phenomenon refers to the societal bias toward individuals who are perceived as conventionally attractive. Over twenty years of scholarly articles show an unconscious preference to interact with people we may find attractive, even in the employment context during the hiring process and throughout employment. While it may seem superficial, pretty privilege can significantly impact one’s career trajectory, opportunities, and overall experience in the professional world.

What is caste and caste discrimination?

“Caste” or a “caste system” is a social hierarchy passed down through families and can dictate an individual’s permissible professions as well as aspects of their social life, including whom they can marry.[1] It exists in a variety of ways, but for purposes of defining a legally protected class, it most directly relates to persons of South Asian descent. Importantly, however, an individual’s race or religion is not a caste, and caste and race/religion should not be equated or conflated.[2]

Many companies have invested in and prioritized diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives over the past several years. And for good reason: DEIA initiatives have been proven to improve employee recruitment, retention, and morale, and to help mitigate risks associated with potential disparate treatment and discrimination claims by employees.

While diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility have slowly made their way to the forefront of many employers’ minds, two dimensions of diversity are often overlooked in these discussions—neurodiversity and ability diversity. More than 1 billion people, 15% of the global population, live with a disability. Thus, employers must ensure that neurodiversity and employees and applicants with disabilities are properly represented in DEIA initiatives.