3 Forms of Discrimination You Didn’t Know About
The State of California is full of employment opportunities and
chances to improve your quality of life by obtaining the job that is
right for you. The sun-kissed state is marveled for numerous reasons,
but for employees and applicants, it truly stands out for the many laws
which protect individuals in the workplace. In California, it is
unlawful to discriminate against employees or applicants based on
belonging to a protected class. A protected class means race, religion,
sex, gender, age, national origin, color, marital status, medical
condition, gender identity/expression, and or military or veteran
status. If you belong to one of these classes or possess certain
characteristics of one of these classes, you are protected by California
State law from being discriminated against based on belonging to the
particular class or having one of the characteristics. This article
discusses three forms of discrimination
that may not seem obvious to the unfamiliar employee or applicant and
with this knowledge and the guidance from an Employment Lawyer, you
might be able to identify if you have a case.
- Exclusion From Training
An
employer who chooses to exclude an employee or applicant from training
that may lead to employment, advancement, or an internship opportunity
just because the employee or applicant belongs to a protected class, may
be engaging in illegal business methods.
For
example, Jim, a 25 year old male, who had a passion for working in
retail and fashion, was seeking a job in the particular industry. Jim
found a listing online to apply for a sales position at a women's
lingerie store in which offered training. He went into the store to
hand in his application. When Jim arrived, he asked to hand in his
application to the manager. While waiting to meet the manager, Jim
noticed that all employees on site were female and on the employee
backroom entrance a sign read "Girl's Club". Feeling self-assured in
his communication skills and his unique resume, Jim did not let the
feminine environment shake his confidence. The manager Susan, who was
also female, took one look at Jim and said: "I'm sorry, but we are only
considering female applicants, there is no room for a man in this
place". After Jim was denied consideration for the training that would
lead to employment, a female applicant with the same qualifications as
Jim applied and was selected for training. Here, it would seem that Jim
may have been discriminated against based on his gender which is a
protected class. Overall, it would appear that Jim was refused
consideration for an employment opportunity based purely on the fact
that he was male. This was demonstrated through Susan the manager's
comment that the store was only hiring females and that they did not
want any men at the establishment. In addition to Susan's comments, the
fact that all current employees were female on-site and the sign on the
employee door that read "Girls Club" are strong indicators that the
store has a pattern of engaging in unlawful practices of gender discrimination.
Lastly, the fact that the store hired a female employee who had the
same qualifications as Jim strongly suggests that he was passed over for
an employment opportunity based on his gender. Therefore, in gathering
all of this information, Jim might have a claim for gender discrimination against the lingerie store.
If
an employer decides not to select a particular employee or applicant to
pursue training that may lead to additional employment opportunities
solely based on the fact or presumption that this employee belongs to a
protected class, this may be a form of discrimination. Speaking with an Employment Lawyer would shed further light on a situation that may be similar to Jim's issue.
- Preventing Success, Progress, or Advancement
An
employer may be considered as engaging in illegal practices if it
hinders an employee's career from flourishing because the employee is a
member of one of the protected classes recognized in California. It is
against the law for an employer to discriminate against an employee by
means of unfair treatment, depriving the employee of advancement,
benefits, and or preventing an employee from employment privileges.
In order to bring a claim for discrimination in the workplace
via adverse treatment, the employee must provide evidence that the
treatment which he or she endured was both substantial and detrimental.
But what does this mean? This means the employee has to show that the
employer treated him or her in such an unfair manner that would likely
significantly debilitate a reasonable employee's work achievement and or
functions in the same way. This means that the way in which the
employer prevented the particular employee from carrying out his or her
duties would also have impacted a reasonable employee in the same way.
In other words, it did not affect them in a trivial way, rather it
effected the employee substantially. So if an employee is merely annoyed
or disappointed with the way in which he or she was treated, he or she
would most likely not have claim in discrimination via preventing
success, progress, or advancement.
Again, an Employment Lawyer would need to analyze the facts of the particular case in order to decide if they should pursue legal proceedings.
- The Little Things Can Add Up
As
previously mentioned, an employee might not have a claim if the adverse
treatment which they endured merely annoyed them, the treatment must
significantly cause damage or disrupt the employee from doing his or her
job. However, an employer's unfair treatment of an employee although
minor, if it is frequent, may in fact end up being substantial. For
example, Linda, an employee at an insurance company, was open about her
same-sex marriage to her partner Beth. Linda had been working at the
company for three years and felt comfortable having her framed wedding
photo of her and Beth on her desk. A new manager, Lisa was hired to
oversee Linda's department. Lisa saw the picture on Lisa's desk and
reprimanded her for having "obstructions in her workspace", even though
other employees were not reprimanded for having family photos on their
desk. A few weeks later, Lisa had Beth transferred to another desk,
which annoyed Linda but she complied. Days after her transfer, Lisa
accused Linda without evidence of falsifying her time sheet and had her
suspended from work for two weeks, which damaged Linda's career working
in insurance. No other employees were treated the same as Linda by
Lisa. Here, these occurrences may add up to Linda having a sexual orientation discrimination
case against her employer, especially because no other employees were
treated the same as Linda, and Linda was singled out because of her
sexual orientation.
An
Employment Lawyer would look at all the incidences that accumulated
against an employee to decide whether there is a discrimination case at
hand.