Where is my phone number?

I was trying to think of a reasonably OK title for this post. The focus is on consistency, but doing another "What is my phone number" made me yawn. So, boo-ya, the ole change-up. Did I just blow your mind?

Ok, referencing my last post, my three edicts of HR are consistency, fair treatment, and documentation--not necessarily in that order. As I discussed in the previous post, documentation of actions is beneficial because it ensures you will not forget the actions you have taken or your reasoning for taking those actions. By creating real-time documentation, you are better able to defend your decision making when it is called into question.

Likewise, consistency helps defend you against charges of discrimination. I am definitely Pro-Title VII and any law intended to ensure employers do not discriminate against otherwise qualified individuals with regard to employment decisions. I have known too may sexist and racist employers to believe that they are unnecessary.

That being said, I have likewise dealt with the frustration of defending a company against frivolous charges of discrimination. Anyone can file an EEOC charge, regardless of whether or not there is merit to the claim. The EEOC has a duty to investigate. Sometimes this is limited to a response, but even the response should be drafted by an attorney, and attorneys aren't cheap.

Sometimes the response is deemed insufficient, and your company will get a visit from an EEOC field investigator. This can not only be time consuming and costly, but also may create additional exposure, as a field investigator may find other issues. If this can be avoided, it should.

The best way to avoid an investigation by the EEOC is to follow my three edicts. Fair treatment is always good business. More important is consistent treatment. Discrimination exists when a protected class is treated differently than other similarly situated employees. If you treat employees the same way, you are not discriminating.

That is probably a bit simplistic, but it gets the point across. To be sure, there are cases of potentially unintentional discrimination (disparate impact) such as a hiring test that excludes minorities at a higher rate than other individuals. What I am talking about is disparate treatment, the idea that you are treating members of protected classes differently from how you treat others.

"But, I am not a racist/sexists/whatever-ist," you might say to me. "Doesn't matter," I might reply.

I have seen employment decisions that are based on solid reasoning that have been subject to scrutiny because of a discrepancy in the way two employees were treated. Perhaps you grant the non-protected employee the time off because he or she filled in for a sick employee and the protected employee never goes above and beyond the call of duty. If that is the case, you had better hope you read my previous post and documented the reason. If not, then it might look like you are discriminating against the protected employee.

When I advise managers on a course of action, regardless of the specifics of the recommendation, I always tell them to review their previous actions to ensure they are acting consistently, and if not, then they must document the reason for the discrepancy. There are legitimate reasons to make exceptions to policy, but the goal should be consistent application of policy, at least at the manager level.

I have worked with companies where one manager is strict about time and attendance, and the other manager allows more leeway. So long as the organizational needs don't require a consistent policy on time and attendance, then the variance is fine. However, if the strict manager selects employees that can be late without penalty but disciplines other employees for being late, then the company is exposed.

I would often receive calls from employees complaining about how an employee in a different department was late and did not get in trouble, so they want their own disciplinary action thrown away. My response was always that managers have different standards, and an employee is subject to the standards of his or her manager. Rarely could employees point to variant standards within their departments, and when they did, I began investigating immediately. Issues of that nature must be addressed, and managers who vary standards should be educated.

The goal of Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and similar laws is to ensure that if an applicant/employee is qualified for a position that he or she is given the opportunity to succeed in that position. When an employers consider factors that are not relevant to employment, such as color, race, national origin, disability, religion, etc., they are doing a disservice to everyone.

If there are performance issues, then address performance issues. If there are violations of policy, then address violations of policy. These things should be considered in employment, however, do them consistently. It will save you headache and money.