Stereotypes and the Law

Our work normally focuses on the impact of stereotypes on people and how to speak up in the face of stereotypes. We have not yet addressed the legal ramifications of stereotyping in the workplace. In this issue of The Ouch! Files we will look at the legal consequences. It may seem a little technical, but it’s very real and very important.

Let’s start with two basic definitions:

Ouch! That Stereotype Hurts demonstrates how easily stereotypes can enter into decision-making. It includes several techniques for moving past stereotypes.

Consider these questions: How do stereotypes surface in your work area? Have you considered the legal implications?

So, what does U.S. law say about stereotypes in the workplace? A stereotype is a thought. What a person thinks is not against the law. But, making employment decisions – or harassing a person – based on stereotypes about protected characteristics can be.

In a 1989 precedent-setting sex discrimination case, the Supreme Court explained: “[W]e are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they match the stereotype associated with their group.”1

In May 2007, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities. It references the 1989 Supreme Court’s findings and further states:2

The EEOC Guidance gives ten examples of relevant evidence in charges alleging disparate treatment of female caregivers. (Note: these examples apply to all job classifications.) Here are several:

Another situation described by Barbara Sloan and Dori Bernstein of the EEOC’s Office of General Counsel:

So, if there is evidence in a lawsuit that actions based on stereotypical beliefs contributed to:

According to Stephen, “The vast majority of hostile work environment lawsuits contain sexual or ethnic/race based comments, jokes and putdowns. These comments and jokes often escalate in seriousness, i.e., more sexual, derogatory and abusive, and involve more employees behaving the same way.”

In addition, Stephen notes there is a trend in hostile work environment court cases: “Courts are increasingly taking the position that the situation doesn’t have to be as negative, as pervasive, or as harmful to an employee – compared to five years ago – before they create a legally actionable hostile work environment.”

My conclusion: If you do not respond to stereotypes in the workplace, there are potential legal implications. Even when stereotypical behaviors do not cross the line into illegal territory, they can still be unfair, disrespectful, and unproductive. So, whether the concern is legal liability or how to create an inclusive workplace – or both – it’s worth being vigilant against comments, actions and decisions based on stereotypes – our own and those of others.

Quote

“No one should make the claim of being educated
until he or she has learned to live in harmony
with people who are different."

A. H. Wilson

Your Story

Submitted by Barbara Ceconi

Dressed for work, I am rapidly walking down the street with my guide dog on my way to facilitate a workshop at the museum. I worry, as always, that the mass transit will be late.

I run into a convenience store to buy some mints. The clerk rings up a few orders and I hear no one else in line. “Could you get me some wintergreen Tic Tacs, please?” I query. “On the left,” he responds, apparently not looking up. The boxes are recognizable by shape, but not the flavors. I ask him again, explaining that I am blind. With a surprised, “Oh,” he leans over the counter and grabs a pack for me.

I continue walking at a fast pace, deep in thought on the subject matter of the day’s session. Suddenly a man stops me. “Do you know where you are?” he asks. I jerk myself from my thoughts, momentarily confused by the interruption. “Yes, I know where I am and where I am going.” I walk on, annoyed by the interruption.

I am nearly at the subway station. Without a word, someone grabs my arm and drags me across the street. I struggle to pull my arm away from this stranger. “What are you doing?” I sputter. “I was just trying to help. Sorry.” The person walks away. Since the experience was disorienting on several levels, I now have no idea what corner I have been deposited on. I ask passersby where I am. “On the corner of Harvard and Beacon,” answers someone. It’s a four-way intersection, so that doesn’t situate me. I wait for someone else to pass. “Excuse me, what store am I in front of?” No response. Wait for the next person. “Can you tell me where the bank is?" hoping for information so that I can puzzle out my position. I feel frustrated and angry that others think they know what I need better than I.

After I receive the direction, I walk, reoriented, towards the subway stop. Once aboard, a pleasant woman offers me her seat. I respond with a curt, “No.”

My response was sharp and out of line. After the string of incidents, I am in no mood to be gracious. This well-intentioned woman must have been shocked by my hostile tone, and justifiably so. Others near her could have been as well. Interactions like these can cause people to jump to the conclusion that people who are disabled are angry. Normally, I would have thanked the woman and smiled. I snapped at her because of the accumulated frustration I experienced during my brief walk. And those emotions landed on her.

This is known as "cumulative effect." It’s the recurring small — and not so small — things that build up when people are discounted over and over again.

Why do I tell you this story? Because most helpful people don’t realize that good intent does not always equate with good impact. When unsure how to assist, ask the person what might be helpful or even if they need help. This gives the person their dignity – something we ALL need.