Gender DIscrimination - HR FIndings

maggief

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-28-04 AT 10:35AM (CST)[/font][br][br][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-28-04 AT 10:34 AM (CST)[/font]

I am a 32 yr old female. I recently filed a complaint against my boss for gender discrimination. I work for a "boys club" in which my boss and another manager on my team have made various remarks about peoples age, sex, and race. Our outside sales team consists of 18 white young males (26-32 in age), and two females. A co-worker of mine filed an age discrimination complain 1 1/2 years ago. He also brought up comments about gender discrimination in his complaint. After the investigation found nothing, the first woman sales person was hired (token female).
Six people over the age of 45 have been forced out by my boss, leaving us with our white young male sales team. All new hires are young, white males. I applied for an outside sales position but was denied.
I just recently moved from customer service to an inside sales position. I found out that I am making 1/3 of what a male in a similar position was making.
I brought all this to HR.
Their findings - they stated I was dilusional, there was no discrimination, they downplayed my job roles, embellished the other persons role, told me that everything was my fault, and that the reason why I wasn't advancing and receiving the pay I should is because I am unpopular with a couple people and have had bad performance.
On the contrary - I have never been given a review with bad performance, I have received all but 1 of my quarterly bonuses over the 2 1/2 years of employment, I have received some opportunity, and yearly pay increases. But again - I make 1/3 of the other person who had a similar job (he was new coming into the company and made $120K). All the males on my team make $80+.
HR mentioned many things that were based on opinion and stated some things as factual, that were actually false. I sent a rebuttal to their findings and have heard nothing. I asked for proof of their findings - and received nothing.
Now a third complaint is about to be filed by the only older female sales rep we had.
Why the coverup? This is the second complaint against my boss (soon to be third).
I am going to the EEOC and my attorney stated
"HR people eat unrepresented employee victims for lunch"
Any help or advice?? I feel like I have no choice but to file a lawsuit.
My attorney thought it was odd that with all the facts and witnesses I presented - that they would put me on the defensive by blaming me. Was this a crucial error on their part? Because all it did was back me against the wall!
Any help would be appreciated!

PS - I have a degree in HR!

Thanks in advance for your comments!

Don D

(1) What do you mean by a 'degree in HR'?
(2) What do you mean by a 'boys club' and what sort of industry are you in at what job title?
(3) How would you so conveniently know the ages and salaries of all the young white boys? Also, you mention a coworker, a male, who filed an age and gender discrimination complaint. How does that work if he's also male?
(4) With your degree, why would you be working in a customer service position?
(5) Is it my imagination or are you obsessed with sex discrimination, a predominance of young white boys, unequal pay, token hiring, being denied a job, being viewed as less than credible by HR, and being told you're delusional and upopular? Tell me if these things are not evident in your post.
(6) With the degree you say you have, why are you not leaving this job and going into HR where you can have an impact on correcting all the sorts of problems you recognize where you are?
(7) If you have a lawyer, why are you posting your question on a public forum?
(8) You say, "I am going to the EEOC". What's the holdup?

I tend to be rather skeptical at times and must admit that I find your post rather disingenuous. If I am wrong, you have my apology.



Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)

maggief

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-28-04 AT 12:46PM (CST)[/font][br][br]1. I have a bachelors degree in HR. My choice to not go into this field has nothing to do with what I am going through, only that I do know the laws to some degree.
2. Boys Club - meaning everyone in my group is a male (except two female sales reps - one who was aquired, and one hired after the age discrimination complaint filed 1 1/2 years ago.
3. I worked in customer service/sales support to the sales reps before moving into my current role. I have met them all, and generally know all their ages. The hiring manager has made comments about the type of sales rep he wants "young, athletic etc"
How would anyone know if they are being paid unequally? It is not a secret - people talk. The man who filed an age discrimination complaint, brought up comments made by our boss -in referrence to "getting him out because he was an old geezer" and "that he would never hire a woman as a sales rep" - he only brought up the gender comment to show overall discrimation.
5. Not obsessed - just telling you the facts. My purpose of this post was to find out HR's position. Clearly their position is to side with the company. There has been two complaints against the same person, yet he is allowed to continue employment. Company liability? I would think so. A third complaint (by the aquired older sales woman mentioned above) has been filed, but I don't know what is going on. Direct comment made by my boss about her "she's too old". Eventually she was forced to leave because the environment became too much for her to bear.
6. Because in the state I live, I would have to start out in a position that paid 1/2 of what I am making now.
7. Again - I am trying to understand HR's position.
8. There is no holdup. I exhausted my internal options, the findings meeting with HR was a week ago and I have a meeting with the EEOC in two days.

Disengenous? HR has not been involved in my bosses hiring, termination, promotion or advancement practices. I have listened to many discriminatory comments over the past 2 years - but it never directly affected me, only offended me. Now that I have been directly affected, I speak out.

Don D

You've convinced me now as to the legitimacy of the post. Sorry for my doubt. Just the way I am. Sounds to me as if you have a really solid case if you pursue it and have witnesses come forward and there is no documentation lurking in your file somewhere. Although the owners of this site might jump in and tell you the site is for HR professionals and employers only, I have to say, in my opinion, go for it. PS: The only thing you didn't reply to is what type of industry you're in, although it may be irrelevant. Just wondered.







Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)

maggief

Manufacturer of educational tools, supplies and literature/books.

So - what do you think HR's intent was?

I have 7 witnesses - who have all come forward with information.

HR said it was "jokes" and "comments that really didn't intend harm".

My concern is their blantant disregard of the facts.

Thank you for your input. I really thought I was going mad when they told me it was all my fault..?@#?!

Don D

None of us on The Forum will be able to speak to "HR's intent", not knowing the exact circumstances and the players. All we have at this point is your remarks. However, HR in general, has the responsibility to advise the company in certain areas of labor law and to carry out a feduciary responsibility to the employees while protecting the company, legally. If everything you post is factual, there is nothing to the contrary in your personnel file and the company has no opposing ducks in a row, I would say it really doesn't matter what their intent was.........they're incompetent.

You'll get more advice and comment on Monday when others log on.




Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)

System

I'm curious about the meeting with HR. They discounted facts as opinion and stated some facts that were false. This is the same information they'll provide when they respond to the EEOC. You'll need to have your witnesses on board when you file because the head hanchos in your company have already conspired.

LarryC

Along with your witnesses, be very well documented. Dates, names, what was said, what was done, etc. Nothing verbose, but good documentation. Your company will be well documented, unless your HR people are total incompetents. Don't count on it. Prepare for a good fight and don't underestimate your opponent. Companies end up winning most of these kinds of cases because they usually come across with better DOCUMENTATION. I can't emphasize documentation enough. Also, the onus of proof will ultimately be with you. Your lawyer can guide you through that process.

Hunter1

I continue to share some of Don's early skepticism. You make $40K and there are a group of young male employees who make between $80K and $120K just getting into the sales field? Maybe I'm out of touch with reality, or your company must be one profitable outfit.

We can all empathize with you if you're going through what you describe, but are you certain you have your facts straight?

This is an employer board, and I generally take the position that we should not be in the position of advising employees how to make a case against their employers. There are plenty of attorneys out there to do that, and, apparently, you have one of them. IMHO

Dasher

Was wondering what the HR department consists of in your organization. Don has given you the usual HR role and Larry has stressed how vital it is to be (fore)armed with documentation and facts rather than a lot of ranting and raving. So you really have excellent forum feedback already.

No, you are not crazy. If there have been three discrimination complaints against the company in this short amount of time, you may indeed have a valid case. Work with your attorney and don't go around the company trying to get other employees involved or on your side.

deniseE

Hunter, I have to agree...this is a board for employers...and if it begins to go in the direction of providing advice to employees...it could become quite murky.

If we learn that employees are lurking on the boards, we may be forced to be less candid among ourselves...which would be an unfortunate result.

Forum police, what do you think?

marc

Initially, I wondered how long this post would stay up since it was EE initiated. That said, I think it does have some valid HR content, albeit from the other side of the fence. As others have stated, we only have the picture as painted by the EE, it would be interesting if the ER would also post, but with the justice system becoming involved, that won't happen.

Pork

I for one don't mind getting to read some real world dialogue on what to me represents a real HR arena in trouble. It reads to me as if the poster has it right, then there is no need of having an attorney "DAWG" along for an easy ride. If it is as bad as it reads EEOC may choose to sue the company on your behalf and the other employees in the company that might be adversely effected. Your attorney can not guide you any better than the EEOC. You do not need an attorney to file your complaint. You do not need an attorney to provide you protection, the law does that for you. You are blowing the cover off of a bad situation and the law provides you with protection against discrimination and retailation.

Obviously, your HR department has no connection to this forum or they would not be in the mess as you described it to be. Additionally, they have not been eating enough PORK; their priorities are all PORKED up! Send the HR an e-mail and tell her/him they should come on board as a member.

May you and your company have a better and Blessed day.

PORK

ritaanz

Why come here? This Forum is not about reinforcing your intentions to see an attorney or that, in fact, you have been discriminated against.

Since you already have an attorney, it should be his opinion that matters, not ours. After all, "HR people eat unrepresented employee victims for lunch"

However, I feel I must make a point of your lawyer's descrption of HR people. In my humble opinion (it looks better spelled out) HR's purpose on this green earth, is to stand for all the employees in the company. We do not cower or tremble when one of our employees is represented by an attorney.

May I digress? Is the HR team all male too? Bingo!

Brad Forrister

DeniseE,

We officially frown on employee posts, and we frequently delete them - especially if we find them before anyone has responded.

We've had this debate on the board a couple of times before, and I think the consensus of everyone here at HRhero and just about all of the Forum members is that allowing employees to participate has a chilling effect on the willingness of HR professionals to be candid on the board. No offense, maggief, and thanks for the reminder that not every HR department is staffed with the kind of wise people who participate in this Forum.


Brad Forrister
Director of Publishing
M. Lee Smith Publishers

Cinderella

80-120K does seem pretty steep...I wonder if we are talking about a base + comission position? That might throw a monkey into the wrench.

HRQ

Thank you, ritaanz.

I've been asked by employees "aren't you here to protect the employees from the company?" That always kills me - my loyalty is to the company, that includes owners AND employees of all levels. I'm not on anyone's "side", I try to do what is legal and just plain "right".

I'm sure there are some untrained, ignorant, and even a little bit power hungry HR people out there, and some who have difficulty admitting they could possibly be wrong or not have the answers, but I have yet to meet one who would "eat an unrepresented employee victim for lunch".

Paul in Cannon Beach

Perhaps this thread has value as a warning to HR, but the scenario seems so blatantly discriminatory and relentlessly offensive its hard to imagine we are being told the whole story.

LeeR

I have to admit I have quit eating employees for lunch. To filling and fattening. Would much prefer a nice salad from Wendy's.

Crout

"HR people eat unrepresented employee victims for lunch." I love that! It sounds like a headline. That one's going up on my quote board. Thanks, Maggie. I hope it all works out for you.

Gillian3

I just got back from lunch. Fortunately, there was not an employee in sight.

System

HR people reside in a peculiar quandary. We are the employee advocate, meaning we assure fairness in application of policy and legal compliance. To the employee, 'advocate' means we should march up to management and demand more benefits. We review employment actions taken against employees to keep our employer out of court. To the employer, we are the bleeding heart liberal who won't let them do whatever they want.

From experience, I've learned not to give advice until both sides have presented their case. I've also known bad employees who were successful in recruiting a jury in the workplace.

Don D

"HR people eat unrepresented employee victims for lunch"

I think the real quote should have been:

"In Effort To Increase Income, Greedy Barrister Instills False Sense of Fear In Employees".






Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)

Cinderella

AND less carbs to boot! x:D

Crout

This may sound vain, but I'd like to think that I could still eat the employee victims even if they were represented.

yrunvus

First I'm wondering if this individual were not an AAF would she even be questioned in such an accusatory, you have got to be kidding, race discrimination does not happen in America, no not in our country kind of way.

Would she even be questioned to the facts of her salary or professional background. Or the fact that she had to explain that she had a degree, how degrading.

Not surprised again, but dog gummit!

Martin try not to roll over today ok!!!!!!

Don D

The first fallacy in your argument is that you do not have the first clue as to the race, sex or age of any of the respondents to this thread. All you know is that we're all HR professionals with a need for facts before we offer analysis and opinion, and to that we are entitled. We are trained to question and probe. That's HR 101. There is always a need for clarification when posts such as this question seem so tilted one way or the other, especially when they are posted by those for whom this Forum is not meant in the first place. The rules are posted and they are what they are. Would you have been perfectly satisfied had we all bought into the 'victim mentality' immediately and not asked for details?

By the way, we would welcome your participation and input on this and other threads. We need all the help we can get. Try not to just visit occasionally for a slam. Come out of the bleachers and sit with us and give us your thoughts. We need other HR professionals to join in the discussion. x:-)

marc

Where did this come from? I re-read the post and could find no mention of this person being AAF. Did I just miss it? She offered up, without being asked, that she had an HR degree. The more relevant facts forumites have, the more relevant the answers (usually).

I was just mystified as these comments seemed to come from left field. I am kind of dense sometimes (no comments pleasex;-) ), but what does the Martin comment mean?

HRratrace

I didn't see anything degrading at all about what was asked. One must always be prepared to answer difficult and unexpected questions upon entering and participating in this forum.
Furthermore, this is a forum for employers and HR professionals, NOT for EE's looking to seek affirmation of their decision to sue an employer.
From your post I can see that this is your first visit to the Forum. Welcome. If you'd like to take the time to look around, you'll see that all Q&A sessions are handled in the same manner that this one was handled. Nothing degrading - just gathering the FACTS. That's what we do in HR.

HRsage

I'm glad I'm not the only one that didn't find a mention of the poster being AAF. Now that's what I call reading between the lines.

Marc, I think the Martin reference was to Martin Luther King Jr..

Don D

I understood the grave-rolling remark, but didn't pick up on AAF until now. I'm dense too, I suppose. I don't know that the poster is AA but I assumed her to be F. What difference does it make anyway? I must recuse myself from this thread at this point.