Bath time? Hold on while I ignore you.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley

My miniature Schnauzer Tempo was my pet growing up. She was full of personality, and she was opinionated. She thought she should make the decisions on who is to be allowed into the house. Tempo also thought that it was within her control to say who or what could hang out in her backyard. She thought she should decide when it was time for her bath, and that decision would have been never.

Tempo would watch intently as Mom gathered the dog towels from under the sink. She would quietly step into the kitchen while Mom looked for the pet shampoo and brush. As soon as Mom closed the cabinet door, Tempo turned and ran to the couch in the den, quickly hopping onto it and settling into the far corner with her back turned to Mom. Tempo believed, every time she was due a bath, that if she would ignore the facts by turning her back on the situation, the bath wouldn't happen.

 We all see this approach in the workplace--I've used the "ostrich-head-in-the-sand" analogy numerous times in my presentations and training sessions with managers. But as we know, ignoring the situation does not make it go away. No matter how many times Tempo huddled in the corner, she always ended up getting a bath. She tried to ignore the facts, and they never went away.

Managers have an affirmative responsibility to acknowledge the facts--ignoring them will inevitably lead to bad results for employers. The employee who continually shows up late? The discord in a department because one person refuses to be a team player and pull her weight? Repeated mistakes by an assistant that are growing in severity? All facts that can not and should not be ignored. The bath is coming, just like Tempo experienced, even if you ignore facts. You might not come out smelling as good as she did, though.

Neither "A" in "ADA" means "assume"

So, that whole discussion by the EEOC on the importance of interacting with your employees who request or might need a disability before taking action?

Or the post from 2008 on the changing mindset for employers thanks to the amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act?

We were serious. And so is the EEOC, who filed suit on behalf of an employee who was offered a job, showed up for the first day of work, and had the employment offer rescinded once a member of management noticed the employee was missing some fingers.

What do you mean, "The pants don't fit?"

Before you groan: this is not a post about dieting. Or exercising. Or any of those good health habits we all should work to incorporate into our lives.

This post is about fit.

If you walk into a clothing store and see that all the jeans are the same size--not yours--do you stick around and try them on? Do you stay and look through the store to see if it does have jeans in your size?

You find display of shoes that is a style you've been coveting for some time. But every pair you pick up is the same size--again, not yours. Are you a little bummed, perhaps a little unhappy, that the buyers for the store do not have enough foresight to purchase those shoes in other sizes? After all, the store just lost your potential sale, right?

All of us have experienced the occasion where we need a different size from what we had been wearing. Sometimes we find ourselves in that position even though we'd been the same size for years (decades? Okay, maybe not).

Why, then, do companies today still insist on having employees fit into the same mold simply because they share a job title or position description?

I just read a post concerning the continuing compensation inequity between genders. The post presents some interesting potential causes for the disparity and reminds me of some similar issues employers face today. Of course, compensation is important in the working world (and water is wet--sorry for stating the obvious). A bigger question rearing its head is the dissatisfaction some employees have with their one-size-fits-all positions.

This isn't about addressing accommodation needs for qualified individuals with disabilities, or making adjustments when employees need time off under a state or federal leave act. No, what companies are facing are requests such as the following:

My spouse has been transferred to a facility about two hours away. I enjoy working here, and I'd like to explore the possibility of telecommuting 2 or 3 days per week and being in the office the other days.

How would your company respond? If this is a position where presence is essential (think receptionist or support staff), you might not have a lot of room to move. The more difficult dilemma is where your company is facing this for the first time, and the immediate reaction is, "Well, we've never done that before, so there's no way this would work." Before some of you scoff at the archaic nature of this reaction, realize that it does take place. Often.

Are you missing out on potential good employees because your storefront gives the appearance that you only carry one size of shoes, jeans, compensation or job structure?

Dancing with--your employees?

I just finished reading a blog post by HR Bartender asking whether our society has lost our empathetic side and what we can do to work toward getting it back.

I met with a client today to discuss the dismissal of two charges of discrimination we defended on its behalf, charges which arose because the employee believed she was treated "unfairly" in a couple of situations. As the agency investigation revealed, this client went far beyond the call of duty in dealing with the employee's issues. The employee was simply dissatisfied with the result.

I think HR Bartender is on to something--we probably have lost our ability to empathize, in part because of the moving parts on both sides of the situation that faced my client. The phrase "no good deed goes unpunished" was uttered from the lips of my client representatives on more than one occasion. In this situation, the employee had lost the ability to empathize with the employer. Yes, you read that sentence correctly. Continuing on that line of thought--the employer, having been rewarded with two charges of discrimination after doing more than it was legally obligated to do, might not respond in such an above-and-beyond way next go-around. You might say my client is losing the desire to empathize.

Those of us on the management side are all too familiar with the employee rights-employer obligations dance steps. If empathy is waning, will we soon find ourselves paired with partners who don't have formal instruction in the dance, where "rights" and "wants" are interchangeable with obligations in the minds of those partners?

The issue is not necessarily squarely rested on the shoulders of the employees. Think about how managers and supervisors are expected to handle situations (remember our talk about how that can diffuse potential lawsuits? If not, go here and here and here.). If they are unable to muster any empathy for the situation, is that a good thing? Nay nay.

Let's all work toward finding our empathy button--so you can push it when necessary (and have it reciprocated).

Looking out for Number One can get you. . .

Word just came out that the Tennessee Titans are suing Lane Kiffin and the University of Southern California for intentional interference with contract/inducement to breach contract over the hiring this weekend of former Titans coach Kennedy Pola by Southern Cal. The allegations are that Kiffin contacted Pola, knowing he was under contract with the Titans, and discussed potential employment at USC with him. Pola's contract states that he is not to entertain any other employment opportunities without first receiving written permission from the Titans. Kiffin also did not extend a courtesy call to Titans head coach Jeff Fisher, a misstep that infuriated Fisher.

Undoubtedly this isn't the first time that a team has hired a coach away from another team--right? You read about this all the time in sports. Why don't you see more of these lawsuits? Without having the benefit of reading the complaint, we can surmise a few things that apply in most employment settings:

1. Kiffin has not made many friends in the coaching world. Thus, he may not get the same benefit of the doubt that others would be extended if they hadn't followed the contract language to a "T", either. The moral: if you make fast enemies, expect them to likewise act fast when you cross them (i.e., treat people nicely, people!).

2. Kiffin is a USC guy, and Fisher is a USC guy. In other words, Fisher expected better treatment from a member of his "family" than he might otherwise. The moral: relationships matter. If you have a common tie to someone, it can act both as a lifesaver and an anchor (i.e., if you have a good relationship with a fellow HR'er at another organization, think before you poach).

3. Kiffin hired Pola less than a week before training camp is to start for the Titans. The moral: timing is everything--you already knew that. You can make a bad situation so much worse by your timing (i.e., watch those calendars!).

4. Kiffin seems to have thumbed his nose at the Titans and Fisher. After Pola was hired, Fisher let it be known that he was not happy with the way in which Kififn handled the situation. We don't know if Kiffin apologized to Fisher in their phone call, but it doesn't sound like it. Kiffin's statement was that Fisher now had a better understanding of the timeline of events, and that the timing wasn't perfect for "all" parties. In other words, the timing was perfect for USC, and that's all that mattered. The moral: if you can show some respect for the impact on the other party, that goes a long way to diffuse a potentially dynamite-laden situation. If you don't, well, kaboom.

What other lessons do you see from this situation? It will be interesting to watch how this unfolds, and how we can all learn from it.

Summer intern feedback--from all sides

Summer intern programs are a great way to get quality work for a good bargain (see our post about the new DOL regulations on paying interns here). It's also an opportunity to hone your management skills, methods of providing constructive counseling, and test-driving some of your less experienced managers in roles of responsibility. Yes, for all intents and purposes, your summer intern program can be your managerial guinea pig.

When you're sending out calendar invites for the summer interns' exit interviews, don't forget to schedule a time with your own people about the experience. This an opportunity to improve the summer intern experience for the next class, and this is also an opportunity to develop, applaud and, perhaps, correct supervisory tendencies of your employees. You can also use the post-intern feedback to see if having an intern program is right for your company. Just like evaluations, one size does not fit all, and you don't have to do it because everyone else is.

Check out this article from Entrepreneur magazine for more discussion on slotting an intern in your organization.

Just the EEOC?

It’s easy to underestimate the importance of responding to a charge of discrimination filed with an administrative agency like the EEOC. After all, the EEOC doesn’t have the authority to award damages or assess fines against employers. To get any money from the employer, the employee or former employee will have to file a lawsuit, and the employer can just defend the lawsuit when and if it comes. Right? It’s true that the EEOC doesn’t have the authority to award damages or assess fines. But the employer’s response to an EEOC charge is the foundation for the later defense of the lawsuit. What is said, or not said, in response to a charge filed with the EEOC can have a significant impact on the outcome of a lawsuit. A recent decision from the Court of Appeals re-emphasizes this point.

In Jones v. National American University, 8th Cir., No. 09-3007, 6/23/10, the court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of an employee’s age discrimination claim. In that case, the reasons the employer gave for the employee’s termination in response to the EEOC charge were different from the reasons proffered by the employer at trial. The Court held that the different reasons given by the employer at different times was evidence that the employer’s reasons were a mere pretext for age discrimination.

Although this principle does not represent a sea change in the law, it comes on the heels of the EEOC’s announcement that it is hiring more investigators and intends to be more aggressive than it has been in the past 10 years. According to Jacqueline Berrien, the EEOC chair, the EEOC has been bolstered by substantial budget increases in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and is hiring additional staff, including frontline investigators and lawyers.

In this environment, when employers are more likely to encounter aggressive enforcement from administrative agencies, it is vital to remember the importance of responding appropriately to administrative charges of discrimination as the foundation for the employer’s defense to discrimination claims.