11th circuit decision on dreadlocks and race asks big questions on the meaning of discrimination

In EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions [pdf], the EEOC asked the 11th Circuit to determine whether banning an African-American employee from wearing dreadlocks constitutes race discrimination.

In a lengthy decision that discusses the very concept of race, the court answered the question “no”.

Court permits use of employee’s own racist Facebook posts in race-discrimination case

I read with interest this morning’s post on Eric Meyer’s Employer Handbook Blog, entitled, Court says employee’s Facebook page on race stereotypes is fair game at trial. The post discusses a recent federal court decision which permitted an employer to impeach at trial a race-discrimination plaintiff with her own racial Facebook posts.

Why #BlackLivesMatter should matter to employers

Earlier this week, an African-American Nashville police officer was decommissioned for changing his Facebook profile photo to that of Black Panther National Chairman Bobby Seale and Huey Newton holding a Colt .45 and a shotgun. The photo became iconic in the 1960 for the Black Power movement. Elsewhere in Tennessee, the Memphis police department suspended two police officers for Snapchatting a picture of a white person pointing a gun at a cartoon image of a black child running through a home.

Then, Cleveland Browns running back Isaiah Crowell Instagrammed this image, with the caption, “Mood: They give polices all type of weapons and they continuously choose to kill us...#Weak.”

Are ban-the-box laws actually causing more racial discrimination?

I read with great interest an article on vox.com, entitled, “Ban the box” might just replace one kind of discrimination with another. The article discusses two recent studies, one by The Brookings Institution and the other by the University of Chicago, both of which concluded that ban-the-box laws have the unintended consequence of causing more discrimination against minorities, not less:

No matter what the producers of #Hamilton tell you, race is never a BFOQ

True confession time. I am not a fan of Hamilton. I don’t get it. Never have, never will. I will probably go to my grave having never seen what people tell me is the greatest thing to come to Broadway in the last few decades. And I’m perfectly okay with that.

I say this as prologue to today’s thought, which discusses this ad (h/t HuffPost), in which the producers of the Broadway seek “NON-WHITE men and women, ages 20s to 30s, for Broadway and upcoming Tours!”

EEOC proposed significant pay equality changes to EEO-1

If your company has 100 or more employees, you should be very familiar with the federal government’s EEO-1 survey. The EEOC requires that you annually complete and file this form, which requests demographic on your employees, broken down by protected classes and job categories.

Last Friday, the White House made a game changing announcement about the information it proposes you submit in your EEO-1 filings.

BMW settles EEOC background-check lawsuit for a cool $1.6 mil

Last month, a South Carolina federal judge denied BMW’s attempt to dismiss an EEOC lawsuit which alleged that the company’s criminal background checks for job applicants had a discriminatory disparate impact on African American (opinion here).

In the wake of that decision and looming trial date at the end of this month, BWM and the EEOC have agreed to settle their differences. In exchange for the EEOC’s dismissal of its lawsuit, BMW will pay $1.6 million, and offer employment to 56 of the claimants and up to an additional 90 other African-American applicants identified by the EEOC.

Interesting, Judy Greenwald, at Business Insurance, quotes both BMW and the EEOC, each of which holds a very different opinion on what this settlement has to say about an employer’s use of criminal background checks:

“EEOC has been clear that while a company may choose to use criminal history as a screening device in employment, Title VII requires that when a criminal background screen results in the disproportionate exclusion of African-Americans from job opportunities, the employer must evaluate whether the policy is job-related and consistent with a business necessity,” said David Lopez, the EEOC’s general counsel, in the statement.

BMW said in its statement that the settlement “affirms BMW’s right to use criminal background checks in hiring the workforce at the BMW plant in South Carolina. The use of criminal background checks is to ensure the safety and well-being of all who work at the BMW plant site.

“BMW has maintained throughout the proceedings that it did not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and does not discriminate by race in its hiring as evidenced by its large and highly diverse workforce.”

At the end of the day, the resolution of this case has very little to do with the legality of criminal background checks (and whether they are discriminatory) and everything about two litigants buying off off the risk of a trial on the issue. For now, the safest course of action for employers is to follow the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII (at least until the federal courts tells us otherwise).

Just because lone acts of harassment aren’t always actionable doesn’t mean you should ignore them

By now, you’ve likely heard of the furor over the Confederate flag following the horrific church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina. You haven’t? Well, watch this, from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and then let’s talk.

What are you to do if you have employees who like to display the Confederate flag at your workplace (think belt buckles, or do-rags, or maybe even small flags, or pictures thereof, in offices or cubicles)? Do you: a) permit it because solitary acts of harassment that are overtly severe or offensive likely are not actionable under Title VII; or b) prohibit it because it might make your African-American employees uncomfortable, or worse, offend them (heck, even South Carolina and Wal-Mart have relented on the issue)?
If we’re talking about a Confederate flag (or flags) as part of a deeper pattern of harassment, which includes other, more overt, acts, like nooses, monkeys, and racist language (like in this case), then it’s a no-brainer. You investigate, fire the offending employee(s), and institute some serious, heavy duty anti-harassment training. If you think you should do anything else, we need to have a serious talk.
But, if we’re talking just about a Confederate flag, without anything more, what are you to do? Ban, or not ban? 
I’m not suggesting you need a “no Confederate flag” policy, but, if you see, or learn of, an employee displaying this charged symbol, I suggest that you require its removal. You would not permit an employee to display a Nazi flag because of its very clear anti-Jewish meaning. For many African-Americans, the Confederate flag holds the same meaning. So, because you want a harmonious and inclusive workplace, you do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing may not necessarily be illegal.

Get in the zone … the no-blacks zone

Does Title VII permit an employer to staff its stores based on the racial composition of its customers? That’s the question at the heart of EEOC v. AutoZone, currently pending in federal court in Chicago.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC alleges that the auto-parts retailer transferred African-American employees to certain stores in the Chicago area based on its conception that its Hispanic customers preferred to interact with Hispanic employees.

According to Employment Law 360 [sub. req.], AutoZone claims that the EEOC cannot prove its claim because the transferees would have suffered no loss in pay, benefits, position, or responsibilities, and therefore suffered no adverse employment action under Title VII.

Meanwhile, the EEOC claims that this brand of segregation is the exact type of discrimination Title VII is supposed to prohibit: “Structuring a workforce or work assignments by race is at the core of what Title VII was enacted to combat. Autozone’s argument boils down to the proposition that an employer is free to segregate its workforce so long as it is careful to do so through lateral transfers. Title VII is not that narrow.”

It seems to me that even if the pay, benefits, etc. were exactly the same in both stores, we abolished “separate-but-equal” 61 years ago, and Title VII should not permit an employers to Plessy v. Ferguson its workforce for any reason.

For more on customer preference as discrimination, check out the following two posts from the archives:

• Customer preference does not protect employers from race discrimination claims 
• Customer preference and race discrimination—when the customer isn’t right

Racist comments as protected concerted activity (really!)

Racism at work cannot be tolerated, right? So here’s a quick quiz. Assume you hear a white employee yelling the following at black co-workers:

• “Hey, did you bring enough KFC for everyone?” and
• “I smell fried chicken and watermelon!”

Do you: a) fire the offending employee; or b) brush it off? 

I’m going to lay pretty decent odds that most of you opted for choice “a.” Would you believe, though, that according to one NLRB judge, the answer depends on whether the racist employee is walking a picket line.

In Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. (6/5/15) [pdf], Administrative Law Judge Randazzo concluded that, while clearly racist, offensive, and inappropriate, the employer violated the NLRA when it fired the offending employee because he made the remarks in the context of a strike and there were no corresponding threats of violence:

Runion’s “KFC” and “fried chicken and watermelon” statements most certainly were racist, offensive, and reprehensible, but they were not violent in character, and they did not contain any overt or implied threats to replacement workers or their property. The statements were also unaccompanied by any threatening behavior or physical acts of intimidation by Runion towards the replacement workers in the vans.… The record evidence in this case does not establish that Runion’s statements were coercive or intimidating to the exercise of employees’ Section 7 rights, and it does not establish that the statements raised the likelihood of imminent physical confrontation.

Thus, an employee is justified, under the NLRA, to be as racist as he wants to be as long as: 1) the comments are made in the context of otherwise protected, concerted activity, and b) the comments are not accompanied by violence or overt threats of violence.

Although the breadth of the NLRB’s current iteration’s interpretation of “protected concerted activity” should surprise no one, I am stunned that this ALJ has gone this far. 

1. No employee should be subjected to this type of abuse, picket line or no picket line, and it is shameful that this type of misconduct is condoned.
2. Employers should not be forced into a Hobson’s Choice between the NLRA and Title VII. Retaining the offender may save the employer from liability under the NLRA, but it won’t do the employer any favors if the victim pushes the issue under Title VII.

If nothing else, this case is a scary reminder of how far the NLRB and its judges will go to fine protected concerted activity. Employers, you are warned/

Did the 6th Circuit just gut the honest-belief rule?

The only fight I’ve even been in was in 4th grade. For reasons that I can’t remember, Yale Weinstein and I squared off in the schoolyard of Loesche Elementary School. There were no winners, only losers, and the only thing that saved both of us from suspension that day was the fact that the principal knew my dad from his childhood and was friends with my grandmother. It’s not what you know, but who you know, right?

Let’s suppose you have two employees who get into a fight at work, and one happens to be white and one black. Does Title VII require you to fire both employees, or can you make an honest assessment of the instigator, and only fire the responsible party?

According to the 6th Circuit in Wheat v. Fifth Third Bank (5/7/15) [pdf], an employer potentially violates Title VII when an it fires only one participant in a workplace fight, when both are of different races.

The facts are relatively simple. Wheat (black) and Hatfield (white) first got into an argument, which later escalated into a physical altercation. The employer’s HR department immediately investigated, concluded that Wheat was the instigator, and fired him for violating its workplace violence policy.

The 6th Circuit concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing Wheat’s Title VII claim on summary judgment. Critically, the appellate court reviewed the deposition testimony and found that the evidence showed that Hatfield, and not Wheat, was the aggressor.

Even the most cursory of examinations of the evidence before the district court and this court reveals that a genuine factual dispute exists regarding Wheat’s status as the aggressor in the confrontation with Hatfield. In fact, the deposition testimony establishes that it was Hatfield, not Wheat, who pursued the altercation after the two men had separated initially and gone to their respective “corners.” Even Hatfield himself admitted that it was he who took the ill-advised step of reengaging with the plaintiff after their initial encounter. Moreover, even if the defendant’s position is premised upon its belief that Wheat was the initial aggressor when the two men met in the hallway of the bank, the argument must fail. Although Hatfield claimed that the plaintiff “put his hand in [Hatfield’s] face,” Wheat stated during his deposition that he was turning around to extricate himself from the argument when Hatfield “assaulted” him by swatting him on his arm.

Based on the appellate court’s reading of the deposition testimony, it concluded that “divergent explanations of the unfolding of the relevant events creates an obvious dispute of fact that should preclude the grant of summary judgment to the defendant at the prima-facie-case stage of the litigation.”

To that, I say hogwash. Courts have long held that they do not, and will not, sit as super-personnel departments, second-guessing an employer’s business decisions. Indeed, an employer’s “honest belief” in its decision will act as a shield from a later claim of discrimination. As another panel of this same court recognized a few years ago, in Brooks v. Davey Tree Expert (internal quotations omitted):

Under the “honest belief” rule … so long as the employer honestly believed in the proffered reason, an employee cannot prove pretext even if the employer’s reason in the end is shown to be mistaken, foolish, trivial, or baseless…. For an employer to avoid a finding that its claimed nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual, the employer must be able to establish its reasonable reliance on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made.

[W]e do not require that the decisional process used by the employer be optimal or that it left no stone unturned. Rather, the key inquiry is whether the employer made a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking an adverse employment action. Although we will not micro-manage the process used by employers in making their employment decisions, we also will not “blindly assume that an employer’s description of its reasons is honest. Therefore, when the employee is able to produce sufficient evidence to establish that the employer failed to make a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking its adverse employment action, thereby making its decisional process unworthy of credence, then any reliance placed by the employer in such a process cannot be said to be honestly held.

It seems to me that as long as Fifth-Third Bank’s HR department engaged in a reasonable-under-the-circumstances investigation of the fight between Wheat and Hatfield, a court is not in a position to second-guess the results of that investigation or the terminations that flowed therefrom. Yet, by examining the deposition testimony and reaching its own independent conclusion of which employee was responsible for the fight, hasn’t this court undermined (or, more accurately, ignored) the employer’s “honest belief?” And, if that’s the case, what does it say about the future of the honest-belief rule as a viable defense to a discrimination claim in the 6th Circuit?

For now, however, if you are faced with two employees of different races (or national origins, or religions…) fighting in your workplace, is it just best to fire them both, if your honest belief of who was the instigator won’t protect you if that “instigator” happens to be of different race?

Turning a mistake into an educational opportunity

Yesterday, local morning news anchor Kristi Capel got herself into a bit of a mess when, during her newscast and while speaking to her African-American co-anchor, used “jigaboo” to refer to Lady Gaga’s music.

We can debate the sincerity of her explanation (“I deeply regret my insensitive comment. I didn’t know the meaning and would never intentionally use hurtful language. I sincerely apologize”), or the intent of her words. To me, she did not appear to intend hatred or bigotry, even if I don’t necessarily believe that she didn’t know the meaning of jigaboo. We can also debate whether she deserves to lose her job because of this incident. To me, if this is her first instance of racial insensitivity in the workplace, then there is no reason she must be fired (although Fox 8 certainly would be within its rights if it did so).

Instead, I want to use this story to illustrate a broader and much more useful point. In responding to workplace harassment, Title VII does not require that an employer deploy the most severe punishment. Instead, Title VII merely requires that an employer institute corrective action that is reasonably likely to prevent the harassment from re-occurring. Every workplace faux pas is not an excuse to punish. Yet, each presents an opportunity for an employer to teach, and for employees to learn.

In commenting on the incident, Fox 8’s news director said, “Kristi apologized on the air shortly after making the remark. She did not know what the word meant but that is no excuse for using it. We have spoken with her and are confident nothing like this will happen again.” Good response.

A few from the archives for MLK Day

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Race relations have been particularly scrutinized over the past few months, with Ferguson and its fall out around the country. Thus, it is more important than ever to pause and think about Dr. King, and the lessons of inclusion and respect to be learned from his life and untimely death.

In this regard, here is what I’ve had to say to mark this day over the past few years.

• Something Different for MLK Day
• What Dr. King fought for … and what he didn’t
• MLK Day calls for reflection about how far race relations have come, and how far we have left to go
• Some words to ponder on MLK Day

1.2 million reasons to fight harassment

According to an EEOC press release, a Wyoming federal judge has approved a $1.2 million settlement with three well-servicing companies on behalf of a dozen employees who claimed that they suffered regular and repeated racially derogatory comments and jokes:

Employees regularly used terms like “wetback” and “beaner” to refer to Hispanic employees, “wagon burner” to refer to Native American employees, and the “N-word” to refer to black employees…. According to the EEOC’s amended complaint, minority employees on the rigs regularly heard racist terms … such as “n----r-rigging” and telling employees to “n----r a pipe down” were also common.

Said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez, “This type of outrageous discrimination sadly still exists. Employers in the oil and gas industry should heed this settlement and renew their efforts to ensure that employees are treated equally regardless of race or national origin.” EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill added, “The type of blatant racist conduct alleged in this case has no place in the workplace. We believe that our lawsuit and the significant relief obtained in this settlement will send the message, not only to the defendants, but to the entire industry that the EEOC will not this kind of misconduct - or retaliation for complaining about it.”

Over the past couple of weeks, our country has been hyper-focused on race. It’s pathetic that employees still have to suffer workplaces with any degree of racism. While I believe that not every mishandled situation is because of race, this EEOC settlement shows that we still have a ways to go with race relations, and employers that shirk or ignore their responsibilities in this regard do so at their peril.

EEOC should do as it does, not as it says

Last June, the EEOC sued BMW, claiming that the company’s policy of automatically disqualifying from employment anyone with certain felony convictions disparately impacted African-Americans. Unfortunately for the EEOC, like BMW, it also uses criminal background checks to screen applicants.

BMW has filed a motion to compel (copy here, h/t: Nick Fishman, at the EmployeeScreen IQ Blog), asking the court to require the EEOC to disclose in discovery its own policy for criminal background checks in hiring. BMW argues that the information is necessary to develop defenses to the Agency’s discrimination claim:

The extent to which the EEOC excludes individuals from employment based on their criminal background assists in determining the meaning of “business necessity” because the actual practices of the EEOC, as the agency charged with administering the statutory scheme, inform the meaning of the statutes and regulations it enforces. Likewise, the similarities between the EEOC’s and BMW’s policies bear on whether the EEOC may be estopped from complaining about BMW’s use of policies and procedures that the EEOC also uses.

This argument is not novel. At least two other federal courts have compelled the EEOC to turn over similar information in similar cases (here and here). The words of one of those courts is particularly instructive:

If Plaintiff uses hiring practices similar to those used by Defendant, this fact may show the appropriateness of those practices, particularly because Plaintiff is the agency fighting unfair hiring practices.… Further, Defendant is not required to accept Plaintiff’s position in its briefs that the two entities’ practices are dissimilar – Defendant is entitled to discovery on this issue as it relates to Defendant’s defense.

Intellectual dishonesty is offensive. If the EEOC has policies that screen-out certain felons, then the EEOC should not publish enforcement guidance that limits this practice, and should not pursue litigation that challenges this practice.

What’s good for the EEOC’s goose should be good for corporate America’s gander. The fact that the EEOC has fought so hard to keep this information away from the eyes of the companies it is suing suggests that there is fire to go along with the EEOC’s smoke. Bravo to these employers for attempting to keep the agency honest.

The best defense to a discrimination claim is…

Wilson v. Chipotle Mexican Grille (6th Cir. 9/17/15) [pdf] is an unusual or distinct case, yet it teaches employers an important lesson about how to win a discrimination case.

Catherine Wilson, an African-American female, worked as a part-time crew member at a Cincinnati Chipotle. Her reviews listed her as a “low performer,” and her supervisors counseled her about her “attitude.” Wilson requested, and was denied, a 10-day leave of absence to go to Disney World. Because of her insistence for the time off, however, her manager took her off the schedule for those 10 days and considered her to have quit her job.

When she was fired after attempting to work after she “quit,” she sued the restaurant for race and sex discrimination.

The court had little trouble dispensing with the employer’s claim that Wilson had quit her job. Whether or not she requested time off, she returned to work the next day with the intent to work. Those actions do not demonstrate a voluntary resignation.

Regardless, the employer still won the case because Wilson could not show that she was replaced by someone outside the protected classes.

Wilson offered no evidence that Chipotle replaced her with white or male employees. To the contrary, Wilson’s part-time slot was picked up by three African-American females and one African-American male. The Clifton branch work force was 75% African American during the relevant period, and Wilson offers no evidence that this changed at the time.

So, what’s the best defense to a discrimination claim? Hire others in the same protected group. If your workplace is three-quarters black, it become very hard for a black employee to claim disparate treatment. If you replace that black, female employee with three other black females, and a black male, it’s case over.

An African-American, female employee cannot show discrimination when you replace her with another African-American female. All the more reason to maintain a diverse workforce. And, an important point to consider if you need to replace a fired employee that you think might turn around and sue.

Customer preference and race discrimination—when the customer isn’t right

The EEOC has sued a Chicago auto parts retailer for race discrimination after it fired an African-American store manager. The store was located in a heavily Hispanic Chicago neighborhood. THe company decided to eliminate or limit the number of non-Hispanic employees working at the store, believing that its Hispanic customers preferred to interact with Hispanic employees. When the manager refused to report to another store, the EEOC claims he was fired.

John Hendrickson, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago, explains in a news release why the agency filed suit.

Fifty years after the adoption of the Civil Rights Act, a major employer transferring an employee simply because of his race and then firing him for not going along is unacceptable. When the employer is a major national brand and a leader in its industry, it’s even worse. Everyone must understand that supposed customer preference is no excuse for discrimination—it’s still illegal, and the EEOC will step in to challenge it.

Mr. Hendrickson is correct. As one federal court explains, “It is now widely accepted that a company’s desire to cater to the perceived racial preferences of its customers is not a defense under Title VII for treating employees differently based on race.” Avoid the trap of acting on a mistaken belief that customers will only deal with like-skinned employees. Simply, the customer can never choose the race of the person working for you. The customer might be right about a lot things, but discrimination is not one of them.

A black and blue lawsuit: Tiffany & Co. sued for race discrimination

My dog’s name is Loula Mae. “Loula” is name of the dog on the kids cartoon Pocoyo, which my son was obsessed with when we got her. “Mae” just sounded right to pair with Loula, and gives her a bit of a gentile, southern charm. Little did we know, however, that the birth-name of Holly Golightly, the iconic lead played by Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is also Lula Mae. Now we know why our dog is so damn classy.

I only tell this story because today’s post is about the famous jewelry store, Tiffany & Co., which has gotten itself into a little legal mess over the racial composition of its management team and its alleged treatment of its lone African-American manager.

The New York Times reports that Michael McClure, a group director Tiffany since 1993, has sued the jeweler, claiming a “systemic, nationwide pattern and practice of racial discrimination.” According to McClure’s lawsuit, he is the only African-American to hold one of the more than 200 management positions at Tiffany. He further alleges that that despite consistently glowing reviews since his hire, the company gave him a “warning for termination” earlier this year. McClure claims that his new boss provided that warning after meeting McClure for the first time, and then telling a group of vice presidents that he was surprised “a black man is representing the Tiffany brand.”

A lawsuit is merely a collection of alleged, unproven facts. For its part, Tiffany says that the lawsuit is meritless, and that it “welcome[s] and value[s] diversity in all forms.”

An employer like Tiffany likely does not have any affirmative action requirements—that is, it does not have an obligation to hire a racially balanced workforce. Having said that, however, it does not look good when defending a race-discrimination lawsuit if only 0.5% of your managers are African American. Companies should hire the best employees and fire the worst. Yet, you also need to think about what your business looks like, if for no other reason than having an “almost-all-white” management team is not going to make it any easier to defend the race claim brought by your lone black manager.

photo credit: Shereen M via photopin cc

Prejudice vs. Racism: Please don't confuse the two

Last week, Inc. interviewed the billionaire, entrepreneur owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Mark Cuban. In light of Donald Sterling, racism was one of the topics covered. Mr. Cuban’s candid and honest response has sparked a wave of controversy:

If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street. And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face—white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere—I’m walking back to the other side of the street. 

While we all have our prejudices and bigotries, we have to learn that it’s an issue that we have to control, that it’s part of my responsibility as an entrepreneur to try to solve it, not just to kick the problem down the road.…

Mr. Cuban has been wrongly crucified for his candor. Prejudice is human nature; it’s not bigotry or racism. We all hold prejudices. Bigotry and racism, however, imply intentional hatred. Crossing the street late at night because you see someone in a hoodie coming towards you does not mean you hate that person because you assume he’s black. Instead, it means you’ve been influenced by what you’ve seen, heard, or experienced, and that influence is causing a reaction.

Here’s the difference, from a Title VII perspective. If you learn of race-based comments or action in the workplace, you have an obligation to investigate and take appropriate corrective action reasonably to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. If you are dealing with racism, no corrective action will halt the behavior, and the only likely response is termination. If, however, you are dealing with unconscious prejudices, you can use the incident as a learning tool to open a dialogue with your employees about race.

In managing employees, it is unrealistic to expect them to hold no prejudices. Recognizing this fact is the first step to managing race in our workplaces.

This week in racism (part 2): Macklemore

Last night, I caught up on Louie on my DVR. At the end of the episode, Louis CK made the following observation about love:

How do you know when you really love someone? When you can reveal your secret racism to them.

Well, damn, Macklemore must love us all, because at a concert Sunday night he performed dressed as a stereotypical Jew—wig, beard, and large, stereotypical hook nose—while singing a song about saving money (photos here).

For his part, the rapper denied any anti-Semitic intent, tweeting, “A fake witches nose, wig, and beard = random costume. Not my idea of a stereotype of anybody.” He later posted a half-hearted apology on his website, again claiming the getup was unintentional.

When you are conducting investigations in your workplace, let common sense be your guide. If it looks like a bigoted stereotype, and dresses like a bigoted stereotype, no amount of implausible deniability will make it anything other than a bigoted stereotype. Does anyone really believe that wearing a big hooked nose while singing about money was unintentional? Use your BS sensor to sift out the nonsense and reach the truth of the matter. It will make your workplace investigations that much smoother.

Until tomorrow: