Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
Paper Formatting
Double or single-spaced
1-inch margin
12 Font Arial or Times New Roman
300 words per page
No Lateness!
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
Our Guarantees
Free Unlimited revisions
Guaranteed Privacy
Money Return guarantee
Plagiarism Free Writing
A customer service transgender employee
A customer service transgender employee approaches the human resource (HR) manager with an allegation that a coworker has made derogatory comments about his transition to becoming a male. The organization has a zero-tolerance policy for unethical and illegal workplace behavior. The HR manager assembles an investigation team, including himself, legal counsel, and the customer service department manager. The team interviews all individuals relevant to the investigation, including the accused employee. The accused employee denies the allegation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the team consensus is that the employee likely made those comments. However, many of the interview statements collected were soft (hearsay) accounts, and the investigation did not uncover definitive, objective proof.
What additional information should be considered in making a decision about the continued employment of the accused employee?
Consider how organizational culture affects your decision in this situation. Describe sex and gender discrimination laws and regulations. Explain how religion and spirituality may affect this situation. Identify sources of legal regulation and enforcement. Explain the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) concepts and outline the elements of EEO compliance that are applicable to this case study.
Sample Answer
This is a complex HR case that requires balancing legal risk, policy adherence, and maintaining an inclusive work environment.
Additional Information for Decision Making
When definitive, objective proof is lacking but the investigative consensus suggests the comments were "likely" made, the HR manager must consider the following information before making a final decision:
Credibility Assessment:
Specifics of Accounts: Did the reporting employee or any witness provide consistent specifics (date, time, exact words/phrases) even if the accounts are technically hearsay? Specificity often correlates with credibility.
Witness Impartiality: Assess the relationship of the witnesses to both the accuser and the accused. Do they have any conflicts of interest or biases?
Accused's Demeanor/Consistency: Did the accused's denial change or include shifting explanations?
Past Conduct/Discipline:
Accused: Does the accused have a prior history of similar disrespectful, harassing, or policy-violating behavior? A pattern of misconduct strengthens the case for disciplinary action.
Complainant: Does the complainant have a history of making unsubstantiated claims? (This must be considered cautiously to avoid bias against the victim).
Organizational Risk Tolerance:
Given the zero-tolerance policy, even "likely" misconduct must be taken seriously. Failure to act when the team believes the policy was violated creates greater risk:
Legal Risk: Potential for a future discrimination or hostile work environment lawsuit if the employee is not protected from future harassment.
Cultural Risk: Damaging employee morale, discouraging future reporting, and creating the perception that the zero-tolerance policy is empty rhetoric.
Mitigating or Aggravating Factors:
Severity: How severe were the alleged comments? Were they isolated or part of a persistent pattern?
Intent (Less relevant for policy): Was the intent malicious, or was it borne out of ignorance (e.g., inappropriate jokes, microaggressions)? While intent doesn't absolve the behavior, it can sometimes factor into the level of discipline (e.g., final warning vs. termination).
Organizational Culture's Effect
Organizational culture significantly affects the decision in this situation:
Positive, Inclusive Culture: In a strong culture valuing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), the decision will lean toward disciplinary action (even without definitive proof) to send a clear message: the organization prioritizes a safe, respectful environment over retaining a problematic employee. Failure to act is seen as a breach of cultural values.
Weak/Tolerant Culture: If the culture has previously minimized harassment or tolerated non-compliance, the HR manager might feel pressured to retain the employee (especially if they are a high performer) due to lack of hard proof. This approach reinforces the negative culture and increases the risk of litigation and turnover among marginalized employees.
Zero-Tolerance Policy: The existence of this policy forces the decision toward discipline. If the consensus is "likely," but no action is taken, the policy loses credibility, essentially making it void for all future issues.
Sex and Gender Discrimination Laws and Regulations
In the United States, discrimination based on transgender status is prohibited primarily under:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on sex. In the landmark 2020 Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, the court ruled that firing an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. Discrimination based on a person's transgender status is therefore considered a form of sex discrimination.