Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for my wording of “a select few.” I guess our points of view are not so far apart afterall.

The term “protected class” comes from Title VII of the federal law. This covers many groups that have been discriminated in the past based on sex, race, nationality, religion. Age, disability, and veteran status was added through other legislation. Some states have added “sexual orientation.”
My point is that there are individuals who do not “fit” the legal definition of “protected class” today and so find it difficult to escape discrimination or bias on the job (gays and lesbians, smokers, overweight individuals, economically deprived, etc.)

My second point is that the company can only respond to what it knows or should have known. It is obvious from the article that Mr. McNeil is in a protected class (otherwise the suit would have been dismissed summarily). It is not known if the other employee is in a protected class (older worker, veteran, disabled, etc.). It is pretty apparent that the other employee engaged in boorish behavior with the doll (Not unlike a recent newpaper cartoon showing the president as a monkey). It is most probable that the friction between these two employees has existed for awhile. When the employer became aware of this friction, they should have addressed their expectations for both. This may have been done, it isn’t stated. What is known is that Mr. McNeil filed a complaint with the state against a co-worker he had problems with over a misdemeanor smoking law. It is also known that the employer fired this employee three days later for “promoting violence in the workplace.” It is not known what Mr. McNeil did or said that was considered “promoting violence” but that will be for the courts to decide.

My guess is that the company addressed the behavior of these two towards each other in the past (probably following the monkey in the noose incident). I would guess that Mr. McNeil sees himself in the right and expected the company to severely punish the other employee. When that did not happen, he decided to escalate the situation to involve a state agency to punish the co-worker and the company. Now that he was terminated, he is seeking the federal government to punish the co-worker and company and to validate him.

Again, no specifics. So, you disagree with the fact that you need to act based on a “business need” rather than personal bias or feelings; the fact that the employer should orient its employees to expectations and set boundaries on day one (especially on how to register a complaint and how employee’s should treat one another); the fact that this was a concern over a misdemeanor offense that has balooned into a “hostile workplace” claim; the fact that recent laws have placed the employer in the position as an enforcement arm of the government for I-9′s, smoking bans, etc.; or the fact that many forms of boorish and discriminatory behavior are not covered by current law because those targeted (smokers, homosexuals, etc.) are not defined as a “protected class?”

Rather than personal attacks, I would be interested to know what you disagree with and why. Of course, if you prefer to remain vague, rely on personal attacks and use big words like “pontificate” to vent your feelings, then I will understand. I mean, I posted over a month ago, so I wonder what has gotten your dander up today.

Thanks for your vague and unsupported comment.

It made me reread my comments to try to understand your point of view. I am confused as to what interpretation you find “interesting” or what comments that are “not well founded.”

Your comment concerning brushing up on “Intro to HR” gave me the impression that you are still attending school and are still learning how to do this people business.

The laws you mentioned don’t apply to the employees, but the employers. The employer needs to ensure that there is no discrimination in employment actions based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, military affiliation, or disability. Beyond that, the employer needs to ensure that there is no pattern of behavior that would create a “hostile” environment for any protected group.

I find that the one employee who violated the statute and smoked in the break room wrong. I think his childish way of communicating that he wants the other employee to let it drop, by sending a monkey and noose is inappropriate. I also consider the fellow’s filing a complaint with the state health department and not going to managment just as inappropriate. He doesn’t appear to be trying to get compliance with the smoking law. He appears to be saying that he is RIGHT and he doesn’t care if the company suffers bad press, loses business, or that the other employee is demeaned and ridiculed over a small mistake that amounts to a parking ticket. Self centered individuals like this are often shunned in the work place. For him to say he was fired for his race and not because of his own boarish behavior which started this situation is an inappropriate use of the legal system.

Businesses have a business need to ensure fairness and that employees work together effectively. The codes you mention affect only a select few who are considered in a “protected class” and relates to how the employer conducts business. Some people are discriminated against every day, but they do not enjoy any government protection because the majority in our scociety disagree with their personal behavior; smokers, overweight people, gays and lesbians, etc. It wasn’t so long ago when society felt that women and African Americans had less rights than everyone else. Long before any laws were passed, businesses had to deal with these issues.