Phase 4 IP Assignment

Phase 4 IP Assignment

Key Assignment Draft

The Key Assignment for this course will involve creating polices for the various laws that are covered in the employee handbook. The purpose of the handbook is to equip managers with the information they need to lead their teams. For this assignment, you will create a paper of 1000 words.

Include the information below in your assignment. When discussing each act, provide an example of how it might be violated by an employer or employee and the approach that can be used (such as EEOC, diversity, grievances, counseling, documentation, or termination) to address the violation.

A policy for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

A policy for the Age Discrimination in Employment act (ADEA)

A policy for dealing with different types of harassment.

A policy for the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)

A policy for the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

A policy for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

A policy for the Equal Pay Act (EPA)

A policy for employee use of technology because new sources of social media and more advanced electronic devices are regularly being introduced to the market. Address topics such as: refraining from workplace commentary on social media, maintaining a professional image, what can be shared and what not to share on social media, harassment, privacy, and IT security.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

Overview

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Most employers with at least 15 employees are covered by EEOC laws (20 employees in age discrimination cases). Most labor unions and employment agencies are also covered.

The laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits.

Authority & Role

The EEOC has the authority to investigate charges of discrimination against employers who are covered by the law. Our role in an investigation is to fairly and accurately assess the allegations in the charge and then make a finding. If we find that discrimination has occurred, we will try to settle the charge. If we aren’t successful, we have the authority to file a lawsuit to protect the rights of individuals and the interests of the public. We do not, however, file lawsuits in all cases where we find discrimination.

We also work to prevent discrimination before it occurs through outreach, education and technical assistance programs.

The EEOC provides leadership and guidance to federal agencies on all aspects of the federal government’s equal employment opportunity program. EEOC assures federal agency and department compliance with EEOC regulations, provides technical assistance to federal agencies concerning EEO complaint adjudication, monitors and evaluates federal agencies’ affirmative employment programs, develops and distributes federal sector educational materials and conducts training for stakeholders, provides guidance and assistance to our Administrative Judges who conduct hearings on EEO complaints, and adjudicates appeals from administrative decisions made by federal agencies on EEO complaints.

Diversity

Challenges in Recruiting and Hiring Diverse Employees

by Lila Kelly

To remain competitive in today’s market, it is important to make an effort to attract, hire and retain qualified diverse employees. Unfortunately, organizations sometimes lose qualified job applicants in the process. This can happen because of two reasons. One, the applicant’s potential for the job is underestimated, and the applicant is screened out. Perhaps this is due to cultural misunderstandings, prejudice, or just lack of interviewing skills on the part of the interviewer. Or two, the applicant decides the organization is not a good place for them to work, and the applicant screens the employer out.

Workplace Diversity

Diversity can be defined simply as the spectrum of characteristics that any one person embodies. These characteristics span education, employment history, culture, gender, and race, among many others. Diversity in an organizational context refers to the extent to which the organization seeks and values a diverse workforce and incorporates its value of diversity into all strategies, programs, and practices for the benefit of the entire workforce. A diverse workforce can be a powerful asset for organizations. It can result in a stronger, higher performing workforce that can help an organization innovate and solve complex problems to meet organizational objectives.

Booz Allen’s Capabilities and Approach

Our capabilities encompass six targeted areas:

Strategic Planning

Organization and Workforce Competencies

Leadership and Workforce Development

Communication and Engagement Strategies

Diversity Performance Measurement

Diversity and EEO Office Restructuring

Booz Allen Diversity and Workforce Inclusion Capabilities

Dealing with Grievances (a short course for managers) Topchik, Gary. Training & Development

Employees express grievances when they perceive wrongs. Whatever the source of the complaint–and even if the complaint is unfounded–a grievance can upset and frustrate the affected employee. Often, the results are evident in the person’s work performance.

The company or union may gave an official procedure for addressing employee grievances. If not–or if no formal grievance has been filed–effective managers can settle employee grievances by taking the following steps:

* HEAR THE COMPLAINT. Show genuine interest. Listen, conside the person’s attitude, don’t argue or defend, and look for nonverbal cues. Restate the complaint to check for understanding.

* INTERVIEW. Uncover what lies behind the symptoms. Probe for the feelings behind the words and the facts beneath the feelings. Use what you learn about the person to put the complaint into the proper perspective.

Dealing with Grievances (a short course for managers) Topchik, Gary. Training & Development

* INVESTIGATE. Depending on the nature of the complaint, you might need to check the facts or look for evidence. Check production reports and personnel files. Interview other to verify what you’ve been told.

* DIAGNOSE THE CAUSE. Weigh the facts. Analyze the information in relation to the complainant’s perceptions, attitude, and working environment. Determine the specific causes of the problem and reach agreement with the complainant on the causes.

* PLAN A SOLUTION. Planning includes deciding what to do and looking at the possible consequences of any actions. Plan to take all the actions necessary to solve the problem. If the solution is beyond your expertise or authority, look for advice or help.

* APPLY THE SOLUTION. Discuss what will be done for the person with the grievance. Get his or her commitment to being part of the solution. Agree on what you and others will need to do and what actions will take place. Establish a timetable.

* CHECK THE RESULTS. Follow up to make sure that the action steps are effective, that the corrections have been made, and that other problems haven’t been created. Re-interview the complainant to make sure that the matter has been cleared up.

Topchik, G. (1994). Dealing with grievances (a short course for managers). Training & Development, 48(5), 30. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227006410?accountid=144789

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Background

Federal agencies have issued policies that require immediate response to claims of sexual harassment in the workplace; however, claims of non-sexual harassment have not received similar attention.1 In FY 2003, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued EEO Management Directive (MD)-715, which establishes that model EEO programs must issue policies and procedures for addressing all forms of harassment. In this regard, federal agencies must create a work environment that is free from sexual and non-sexual harassment.

Since fiscal year 1994, allegations of non-sexual harassment have ranked as the number one issue alleged in complaints that were filed in the federal sector equal employment opportunity (EEO) process. See Appendix (App.) 1 (Table 1). While the total number of complaints filed has declined since FY 2000, the percentage of complaints alleging non-sexual harassment has increased. Id.

Legal Requirements

It is also critical to understand the legal requirements with which the agencies must comply. The EEOC issued sections II (A) and (C) of MD-715, requiring model EEO programs to issue establish written polices and procedures for addressing harassment in the workplace. The legal authority for this requirement was established by the Supreme Court in two decisions concerning harassment liability, Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).

In Faragher, the Court found a city government liable for discrimination because such an employer, with many departments in multiple locations, could not protect against harassment without communicating “some formal [anti-harassment] policy with a sensible complaint procedure.”6 These policies are necessary to show that agencies have taken “reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly … such harassment.”7 In both cases, the Court stressed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is designed to encourage the creation of anti-harassment policies and effective grievance mechanisms.

Accordingly, the EEOC established minimum standards and guidelines for agencies’ use in developing anti- harassment policies.8 See App. 2. Pursuant to EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, Notice 915.002, June 18, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Enforcement Guidance), an anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure should contain, at a minimum, the following elements:

A clear explanation of prohibited conduct;

Assurance that employees who make claims of harassment or provide information related to such claims will be protected against retaliation;

A clearly described complaint process that provides accessible avenues for complainants;

Assurance that employer will protect the confidentiality of the individuals bringing harassment claims to the extent possible;

A complaint process that provides a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation; and

Assurance that the employer will take immediate and appropriate corrective action when it determines that harassment has occurred.

Legal Requirements

The Enforcement Guidance also provides that agencies should ensure that their supervisors and managers receive periodic training so that they understand their responsibilities under the agencies’ anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure. Such training should explain: the types of conduct that violate the agency’s anti-harassment policy; the seriousness of the policy; the responsibilities of supervisors and managers when they learn of alleged harassment; and the prohibition against retaliation.

Although EEO offices in many agencies are often responsible for establishing anti-harassment policies, it is important to understand that the EEO process and anti-harassment programs do not exist for the same purposes.9 See App. 3. The EEO process is designed to make individuals whole for discrimination that already has occurred through damage awards and equitable relief paid by the agency and to prevent the recurrence of the unlawful discriminatory conduct. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975); Clarke v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01922561 (1992). However, the EEO process cannot require an agency to discipline its employees.10 See Cagle v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01903198 (1990). The internal anti-harassment program, on the other hand, is intended to take immediate and appropriate corrective action, including the use of disciplinary actions, to eliminate harassing conduct regardless of whether the conduct violated the law. Ultimately, the goal of the anti-harassment program is to prevent harassing conduct before it can become “severe or pervasive.”

DB Week 4 Assignment

Primary Discussion Response is due by Friday (11:59:59pm Central), Peer Responses are due by Tuesday (11:59:59pm Central).

The discussion assignment for this week includes a review of the Key Assignment Outline completed by one of your classmates, as well as a substantial response to at least two other students.

Primary Task Response: Your first task is to post your own Key Assignment Outline to the discussion area so that other students are able to review your plan. Attach your document to the main discussion post, and include any notes you feel are appropriate. The purpose of this assignment is to help improve the quality of the Key Assignment Draft you will complete next week.

Respond to Another Student: Review at least 1 other student’s Key Assignment Outline and provide meaningful feedback. Refrain from general feedback, such as simply stating “good job.” Your feedback to other students is most helpful if you not only point out weak areas but also offer suggestions for improvement. The best feedback takes a three-stage approach to identify what was done well, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.

For assistance with your assignment, please use your text, Web resources, and all course materials.

What is the key to an effective business presentation? Rosner, BobView Profile. Workforce78.2 (Feb 1999): 24-25.

DEAR WW: My boss wants me to fill in for him and give a presentation at a big conference. I’m nervous about this and don’t even know where to begin.

-I CAN WALK THE WALK, BUT CAN I TALK THE TALK?

DEAR TALK: Before I give you my speech about public speaking, let me tell you about the time when General Motors Corp. came up with a presentation that just didn’t translate into sales. It took place in the ’70s, when Chevrolet decided to export a U.S. model to Mexico. Expectations were high because the Nova was reasonably priced, it was a hot seller, and Chevrolet was going to put its marketing muscle behind the car. There was one small problem: Nova in Spanish means “no go.”

Chevrolet learned the hard way the importance of speaking the same language as your audience. (The Mexican sales of the Nova stalled, just like its south of the border translation.) It’s no different when giving a presentation. The following questions should help you connect with your audience. I’ve adapted them from Loud and Clear: How to Prepare and Deliver Effective Business and Technical Presentations by George Morrisey, Thomas Sechrest and Wendy Warman (Perseus Press, 1997). Unlike most books on giving presentations, this is specifically targeted for the workplace. It covers everything from how to handle a heckler to how to set up a room for maximum impact.

I

What is the key to an effective business presentation? (Cont)

. What is your objective? Unless you’re at a psychics’ convention, chances are the audience won’t be able to read your mind to get your message. So you’ve got to be clear in communicating it. Before you start writing your speech, write down your main point in a single sentence. Then make sure your speech gets that point across.

2. What do you know about the audience? Do some digging to find out who will be there and what their hot buttons are-then tailor your speech to them. To keep my focus as I write a speech, I keep my objective and a description of a typical audience member and his or her chief concerns on a Post-itT note stuck to my computer.

3. What emotional impact do you hope to have on the audience? Most people giving presentations adopt Sgt. Friday’s attitude on “Dragnet”: “Just the facts, ma’am.” They forget that what people take away from a presentation is how the speaker made them feel. So remember that even though most business people don’t wear them on their sleeves, they do have hearts. Play to them.

4. What will the audience take away? They’re giving you their most valuable possession-time. Give them something in return. I try to give a blend of solid advice with humor (or as I like to say, “ha-ha plus ahah”). You can develop your own formula. But before you speak, ask yourself: “Is this worth giving up half an hour for?”

Rosner, B. (1999). What is the key to an effective business presentation? Workforce, 78(2), 24-25. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/219777167?accountid=144789

Agenda, purpose, or introduction slide

The purpose of this presentation is to train new managers on various laws that are in the Human Resources Management Policy Manual.

The presentation will train new managers to effectively manage their teams.

Provide an Outline of the following topics

Discussion of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Discussion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

Discussion of different types of harassment

Discussion of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)

Discussion of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

A team-building activity that addresses one of the topics in the presentation

No Proof of an Anti-Harassment Policy

In Horton v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40014 (2004), the EEOC found that the agency had discriminated against the complainant on the bases of her race and sex. Complainant asserted that her first line supervisor treated her in a condescending manner by closely scrutinizing her work and assigning her work to others. The agency was unable to avoid liability because it could not establish the first element of the affirmative defense – that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassing behavior. The EEOC found that the record did not contain any evidence to show that the agency had an anti- harassment policy, or an established procedure, for reporting harassment. As a result, the agency was ordered to pay $7,500 in non-pecuniary damages and attorney’s fees, provide EEO training, and expunge complainant’s employment file.

In Horkan v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01976837 (2000), the EEOC found that the agency had discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her sex and disability. In particular, the EEOC stated that there was no evidence of a strong anti-harassment policy that was uniformly enforced throughout the facility, and there appeared to be no clearly defined and effective complaint process for employees with allegations of harassment. As such, the agency could not avoid liability or limit damages for harassment by the supervisor.

Policies Have Unclear or Insufficient Investigation Procedures

Agencies should “set up a mechanism for a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation into alleged harassment.” Enforcement Guidance, Part V.C.1.e. In particular, the agencies’ complaint procedures should identify the investigation process, including where to file the complaint, who will conduct the investigation, and who will make the decision for corrective action. Most of the responding agencies provided EEOC with broad “policy statements” denouncing harassment, and warning employees of the repercussions for such behavior. While EEOC’s regulations endorse such statements as a tool to prevent harassment, the agencies’ efforts to prevent and eliminate harassment should be explained in detail, either in the policy statement or in complaint procedures. 16

Our survey shows that the policies did not contain any complaint procedure in 44%of the agencies (17), and in 53% of one agency’s sub-components (31). In many of those policies, it is unclear whether an obligation to investigate harassment claims has been created, and who would be responsible for those investigations. Other agency officials explained their procedures for handling harassment, but did not appear to have these procedures written down, or generally accessible to employees. While a strongly worded policy statement may demonstrate the agency leadership’s commitment to preventing harassment, effective procedures for handling harassment claims also are necessary. The failure to conduct a prompt investigation of harassment claims ignores the requirements set forth in the Enforcement Guidance and may expose an agency to potential liability for harassment by a supervisor.

With regard to the investigation process, the survey focused on whether the policy designates an agency official to accept harassment claims, whether the policy relied solely on the chain of command to accept harassment claims, and whether the policy relied solely on the EEO process to conduct the investigation.

Policies Fail to Designate Any Officials to Accept Claims of Harassment

Employees must be notified of who they may approach to raise claims. Enforcement Guidance,, Part V.C.1.c. The survey shows that the policies of 10% of the agencies (4) and 37% of one agency’s sub- components (22) failed to designate anyone as responsible for accepting claims of harassment. EEOC has conducted program evaluations and issued appellate decisions regarding the agencies’ anti-harassment programs. Information from several evaluations and decisions is summarized below.

No Officials Designated to Receive Harassment Complaints

In one program evaluation issued on July 31, 2003, EEOC found that the agency’s anti-harassment policies failed to explain how employees should raise a claim. The agency’s EEO office did not know how to address a stalking incident, and as a result, the manager did not investigate the incident for nearly seven months. In two EEOC decisions, managers failed to conduct investigations because either there was no harassment policy, or if there was a policy, it was not effectively conveyed to the agency’s managers and supervisors. See Van Wolken v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 07A30134 (May 11, 2004); Apfel v. Social Security Administration, EEO Appeal No. 01963810 (August 5, 1999). The failure to conduct a prompt investigation resulted in the agencies’ liability.

Policies Designate Only Chain of Command to Accept Harassment Claims

Part V(C)(1)(c) of EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance suggests that employers designate at least one official outside an employee’s “chain-of-command” to accept claims of harassment. As such, investigation procedures should provide multiple points of contact for the employee, such that all claims need not go through the “chain-of-command.” The survey shows that 13% of the agencies (5) and 31% of one agency’s sub-components (18) required employees to raise claims of harassment with their “chain-of- command.” None of these policies included provisions for dealing with conflicts of interest. Without this provision, or some other consideration for conflicts of interest, employees may be faced with complaining to the very people responsible for the conduct they are reporting. When faced with such a situation, employees will be unlikely to report harassment, and the agency will lose this opportunity to address workplace harassment through its policy. Information from a program evaluation and appellate decisions is summarized below.

EEO Process Does Not Preempt Internal Investigation

In one recent program evaluation issued on August 25, 2004, EEOC found that there was confusion among the managers as to the procedures of the anti-harassment program. When managers conduct investigations, they typically lasted between six months and one year. If the employee files an EEO complaint, the managers were not permitted to initiate an inquiry. The EEOC advised the agency that it has a duty to exercise due care by launching an internal investigation regardless of whether an EEO complaint is filed.

Importance of Educating Employees about Harassment

While issuing anti-harassment policies and procedures will help to address the high number of complaints, it is also critical for agencies to ensure that its managers and employees understand the types of conduct that constitute harassment under Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. To educate managers and employees about harassment, this report will provide the legal definition of harassment and utilize cases to illustrate what types of conduct constitute a viable claim of non-sexual harassment.

Legal Definition of Harassment

To establish a viable claim of harassment, a complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on the statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer. Ornelas v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01995301 (2002). An aggrieved employee is one who has actually suffered a personal loss or harm with regard to a term, privilege, or condition of employment for which there is a remedy under Title VII. Brooks v. Department of the Navy, EEOC. Request No. 05950484 (1996). Where a complaint does not challenge an agency action or inaction regarding a specific term, condition, or privilege of employment, a claim of harassment is actionable only if, the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of the complainant’s employment. Longoria v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01A52731 (2005).

Frequency and Severity of the Conduct

In assessing whether the harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to trigger a violation of the law, the conduct must be viewed in the context of the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. Harvey v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01A40718 (2005). The Supreme Court has recognized that the conduct “must be both objectively and subjectively offensive, [such] that a reasonable person would find [the work environment to be] hostile or abusive, and . . . that the victim in fact did perceive to be so.” Id. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998).

The Supreme Court also noted that “simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment.” In this regard, it is important to realize that Title VII is not “a general civility code.” Rotarius v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01A42708 (2004) (citing Oncale v. Sundower Offshore Servs., Inc., 423 U.S. 75, 80-81 (1998)). Evidence of the general work environment, involving employees other than the complainant, is also relevant to the issue of whether a hostile environment existed in violation of the anti-discrimination laws. Jackson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01972555 (1999).

Conclusion

Questions