Despite what SCOTUS said about collegiate affirmative action, corporate DEI efforts are still legal

Last week, a federal court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a conservative shareholder against Starbucks challenging the company's diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. He called the lawsuit "frivolous."

In 2020, Starbucks decided that it needed a greater representation of BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) employees. As a result, it announced a policy that aimed to increase company-wide BIPOC representation to at least 30% in five years. Its efforts included implementing a leadership accelerator program for BIPOC employees, linking executive compensation to meeting DEI goals, and granting funds to community nonprofits.

National Center for Public Policy Research, which owns around $6,000 in Starbucks stock, sued, claiming those policies require the company to make race-based decisions in violation of state and federal civil rights laws. Explaining the lawsuit, the NCPPR said that setting "goals for the number of 'diverse'—meaning not-white—employees it hires … is outright racial discrimination."

Not all reasonable accommodation standards are created equally

Consider this example, and then let's talk.

Lydia works as a cellar person in a brewery. The essential functions of her job include the ability to lift up to 40 lbs. and to move kegs that weigh as much as 160 lbs. She delivers a note from her doctor that says, "No lifting or moving more than 10 pounds."

What are this employer's obligations to offer her a reasonable accommodation for her lifting and moving restrictions? It depends on the medical reason.

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and pregnancy loss

Missy, a newly hired server in the taproom of a brewery, suffers a miscarriage and asks her manager for ten days of leave to recover. As a new employee, Missy has not yet accrued any paid leave. The employer is too small to be covered by the FMLA and does not have a policy providing any unpaid leave.

Must the brewery grant Missy her requested ten days of post-miscarriage leave?

Historically, the answer could have been no.

WIRTW #682: the “horse hockey” edition

Lou Grant. Leslie Knope. Dr. Mark Greene. Captain Merrill Stubing. Even Michael Scott. The history of television is littered with great bosses. Earlier this week my friend Suzanne Lucas asked her vast LinkedIn network to name their choice for the “best” tv boss. Her choices were District Attorney Adam Schiff and Lieutenant Anita Van Buren, from Law & Order.

My choice: Colonel Sherman T. Potter, who adroitly and compassionately led M*A*S*H's 4077 for the series' final 8 seasons.

What made Col. Potter the best boss?

First and foremost, he always had his team's back, no matter what. He took ownership of his group and shouldered the blame whenever something went wrong. As the 4077's leader, the buck stopped with him, period. Which is not to say that his unit didn't have accountability. To the contrary, he always held his people accountable inside his unit, even as he defended them to everyone outside. When his people screwed up (as they often did), he made sure they understood and that it never happened again.

Col. Potter also embodied much of the best qualities of a good boss. His integrity was unmatched and unquestioned. He always encouraged everyone in his command to be the best versions of themselves and led by example. He knew when to use humor to lighten a situation and when to put the screws to him team. And, most importantly, he never forgot that his doctors, nurses, and other charges weren't soldiers by trade but were stuck in the middle of war zone. It's his empathy and compassion that stands out the most from all of his other admirable qualities.

And that's why Sherman Potter is the correct answer as the best tv boss of all time.

Who is your choice? Share in the comments below.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

$2.6 million reasons why it’s illegal to fire a gay employee

Yesterday, a federal jury in Columbus returned a $2.6 million verdict in favor of Stacey Yerkes, a former Ohio State Highway Patrol employee who claimed that she was constructively discharged (forced to quit based on intolerable and unreasonable working conditions) because of her sexual orientation.

Despite what he says, Elon Musk will not pay your legal bills if you’re fired for Xing

"If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill. No limit. Please let us know."

Elon Musk tweeted (xed?) that note Saturday night to his 152 million followers on his platform. Thus far it’s been liked close to 850,000 times, quoted or retweeted more than 165,000 times, and viewed nearly 130 million times.

And it's complete and total rubbish.

Work and religion aren’t a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup

Everyone's relationship with God — whether you call that deity God, Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, something else, or nothing at all — is personal. I have no opinion on your spiritual relationship, as should you have none on mine. Thus, I get mad whenever someone tries to shove their religious beliefs down my throat. Not only do I not care, but I can guarantee that you will not change my mind. Proselytism is one small step removed from fanaticism, and rarely, if ever, has anything good come from religious fanaticism.

I share the above as prologue to today's discussion, which focuses on a Title VII lawsuit the EEOC recently settled with Aurora Pro Services, a North Carolina residential home service and repair company, alleged to have required employees to participate in religious prayer sessions as a condition of employment.