Posts

Posted on

High Tech, Low Inclusion: The EEOC Report on Diversity in the Tech Sector

New Whistleblower Program administered by the DOJ.

The high-tech sector, known for spearheading advancements in science and technology, seems to be lagging when it comes to inclusion and diversity. A report recently published by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) titled “High Tech, Low Inclusion: Diversity in the High Tech Workforce and Sector from 2014 – 2022” dissects the current state of diversity in this sector, offering a sobering insight into the extent of the problem.

Behind the Figures

The EEOC’s findings show a disturbing trend of underrepresentation for certain demographic groups in the high-tech sector. Women and Black workers, in particular, are being left behind. The figures reveal that despite being nearly half of the U.S. workforce, women make up only 22.6% of the high-tech workforce in all industries and a meager 4% in the high-tech sector. The representation of Black and Hispanic workers in the high-tech workforce has seen negligible progress over the years.

The Issue of Age Discrimination

The report also highlights age as a factor in employment discrimination within the high-tech sector. Interestingly, the high-tech workforce skews younger than the total U.S. workforce. In the high-tech world, over 40% of the workforce belongs to the 25-39 age group, compared to 33.1% in the overall workforce. Workers over 40 have seen their representation in the high-tech sector decrease from 55.9% to 52.1% from 2014 to 2022.

Moreover, the EEOC report notes that discrimination charges filed by tech professionals were more likely to involve issues of age, pay, and genetic information than those filed in other sectors.

The Call for Change

EEOC Chair, Charlotte A. Burrows, asserts that “America’s high tech sector, which leads the world in crafting technologies of the future, should not have a workforce that looks like the past.” The Commission is committed to identifying and resolving instances of discrimination that contribute to these disparities.

The EEOC report concludes with a call for employers in the high-tech sector to actively investigate and overcome barriers to employment. Proactive policies geared towards boosting inclusion are needed to ensure that everyone gets a fair shot at high-tech opportunities.

Were You Denied a Job In High Tech?

If you applied for a job in the high-tech sector and believe that you were discriminated against due to your age, race, gender, or ethnicity, it’s advisable to consult with an experienced employment attorney.

Discrimination is not just ethically wrong, it’s illegal. Your rights are protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal laws – laws that are in place to ensure everyone has equal opportunities in the job market. Don’t hesitate to stand up for your rights and seek legal counsel if you’ve been unfairly denied a job in the high-tech sector.

Posted on

How Your Data is Being Used Against You: The Privacy Risks of MAIDs

When websites sell your data it puts your life, your livelihood and your future at risk contact the lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

In our digital age, privacy has become a paramount concern for everyone. Data anonymity is often the key to safeguarding this privacy. However, what if we told you that companies can de-anonymize your data?

Despite tech firms’ constant reassurances that mobile user tracking IDs are anonymous, an entire industry exists that links these IDs to real individuals and their addresses, effectively dismantling this veil of anonymity. This industry accomplishes this by correlating mobile advertising IDs (MAIDs) collected by applications with a person’s full name, physical address, and other personally identifiable information (PII).

Simply put, your data could be used to identify you, leading to significant privacy breaches. This is particularly concerning for those who trust that their information is secure when signing up for websites or apps. Consider, for instance, the implications for users of a dating app like Grindr. People have been ‘outed,’ resulting in serious harm and discrimination, and, in the case of one Catholic priest, his life and reputation were destroyed.

So how does this work? A MAID is a unique identifier assigned to each device by a phone’s operating system. Apps frequently capture a user’s MAID and share it with third parties. Companies like BIGDBM and FullContact then link this data to full names, physical addresses, and other PII—a process known as ‘identity resolution’ or ‘identity graphing.’

These revelations underscore the urgent need for greater transparency and enhanced privacy regulations regarding data collection and handling. As users, we must advocate for our rights and urge tech companies to prioritize the security of our data. Before signing up for any platform, it’s crucial to read their privacy policy carefully, although even that may not be sufficient.

In a world where data is the new gold, let’s ensure our ‘digital selves’ remain uncompromised.

Posted on

Pregnancy Discrimination: Real Stories, Real Change Needed

Pregnancy discrimination lawyers Beverly Hills Helmer Friedman LLP.

In a nation that upholds equality as a core value, the fight against pregnancy discrimination remains a significant challenge. Recent high-profile cases, notably involving Frontier Airlines, highlight the ongoing struggles faced by pregnant and breastfeeding women in the workplace.

Frontier Airlines became embroiled in two substantial lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and local partners in Denver on behalf of eight pilots and flight attendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the airline penalized pregnancy-related absences and denied crucial accommodations for pregnant and breastfeeding employees, including prohibiting breast pumping while on duty. These discriminatory practices inflicted considerable harm on these women, affecting both their professional lives and personal well-being. Many were forced to take unpaid leave during their pregnancies and had their requests for breast pumping accommodations denied upon returning to work.

Fortunately, U.S. laws offer some protections against such discrimination. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employers from discriminating based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Additionally, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specific family and medical reasons, including pregnancy and childbirth.

Nonetheless, the struggle persists. The lawsuits against Frontier Airlines culminated in a settlement in the Freyer case, resulting in significant policy changes aimed at better accommodating pregnant and nursing employees. However, these developments underscore the need for further improvements and highlight the urgent necessity for progress on both corporate and legislative fronts.

As we pursue greater equality in the workplace, we must remember individuals like Erica Hayes, who made an unimaginable sacrifice while trying to maintain her income during pregnancy. Erica experienced a miscarriage after imploring her supervisors for lighter lifting duties while working at a Verizon warehouse.

In another instance, Dallas Barber and Stylist College, Inc., a barber shop and school in Dallas, found themselves the defendants in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit when a pregnant applicant applied for a hair braider position and performed a skills test successfully. Despite her qualifications, the owner informed her that they already had a pregnant employee and did not wish to hire another.

These experiences serve as a poignant reminder of the real and devastating consequences of pregnancy discrimination. They are not isolated incidents but rather reflect systemic issues that demand our attention and action. Together, we can work to eradicate pregnancy discrimination, foster workplaces that respect and support all employees, and build a fairer society for future generations.

Posted on

In the Face of Disability Discrimination: A FedEx Employee’s Tough Road

Refusing reasonable accommodations is disability discrimination and it is illegal. Contact the ADA Lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

In an era where inclusivity should be a given, it is disheartening to witness drastic violations of employees’ rights, particularly those who are differently-abled. Employees employed by FedEx, a globally recognized shipping and logistics company, found themselves unemployed due to the corporation’s stringent 100 %-healed policy.

The story that stands out in this murky tide of exploitation is the tale of a Minneapolis-based FedEx driver. The unnamed woman who motivated the launch of a lawsuit against her employer had been subjected to unfair treatment due to medical restrictions. Her job as a ramp transport driver involved driving a tractor-trailer and operating mechanical equipment to load and unload freight. An injury had limited her lifting abilities, invoking FedEx’s 100 %-healed policy. The policy forced the ramp transport driver into a 90-day temporary light-duty assignment. When her medical restrictions remained after 90 days, she was placed on unpaid medical leave. FedEx ultimately terminated her employment due to her inability to work without restrictions – a harsh reality for someone who could have done her job with reasonable accommodations.

According to Gregory Gochanour, of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office, “100%-healed policies, like the one FedEx has, cost qualified workers their livelihood without giving them individual consideration.” He further added, “Under the ADA, employers have an obligation to explore reasonable accommodations and not to screen out qualified individuals with disabilities who can do their jobs.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The act prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodations enabling employees to perform their jobs, and bars employers from policies that screen out qualified individuals with disabilities.

To FedEx employees and others stuck in similar situations, know that you are not alone and your struggles are valid. The “100 %-healed” policy that cost you your employment directly violates the ADA, a federal law enacted to provide you with rightful protection and accommodation. Don’t let corporations like FedEx undermine your rights.

Fellow workers, you are invited to step up, speak out, and report such ADA violations. Please reach out to an experienced Disability Discrimination Attorney who can help you navigate this legal terrain and ensure that your rights are upheld. Stand tall against discrimination. Remember, no one can strip you of your rightful place in your workspace, let alone your inherent dignity.

Posted on

Disability Discrimination at a 25-Year High

Reasonable accommodations required by ADA, Disability discrimination lawyers Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Over 29,000 charges of disability discrimination were reported last year alone.

As we delve into the pressing issue of employment disability discrimination, recent data reveals a startling trend: discrimination incidents have surged to a 25-year high. This spike raises critical questions about the systemic barriers faced by individuals with disabilities in the workplace. Despite advancements in legislation aimed at promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities, the gap between policy intentions and workplace realities appears to be widening. This investigation seeks to unpack the underlying factors contributing to this alarming increase by reviewing three employers in different industries facing lawsuits for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “No qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” This foundational principle underscores the Act’s commitment to ensuring that individuals with disabilities are afforded the same opportunities as their non-disabled counterparts. As the lawsuits unfold, examining how these employers allegedly neglected their responsibilities under this provision will be crucial to understanding the broader implications of their actions.

One of the cases involves the Ned NoMad hotel and members’ club in Manhattan. The hotel allegedly refused to accommodate an employee with a knee condition that limited her standing or walking to no more than 30 minutes at a time. Despite providing a medical note, the employee was not allowed to use a stool while performing clerical work at the host stand and was eventually terminated.

In another case, Smith’s Detection, Inc., a manufacturer of threat detection equipment, is being sued for demoting a disabled employee who requested personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect her hearing from manufacturing equipment noise. Instead of providing the PPE, the employer demoted the employee from her team lead position, resulting in reduced pay, and assigned her to a quieter area.

The third case involves Holsum bakery in La Porte, Indiana, which allegedly refused to modify a policy to allow an employee to use a walker, as required by her physician. The bakery’s failure to accommodate the employee made it impossible for her to access her workstation, restroom, and break room, resulting in her termination.

These alleged actions by the companies violate the ADA, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.

As these cases unfold, they not only shed light on the specific actions of these employers but also highlight a pressing need for accountability in the workplace regarding disability rights. Employees with disabilities face unique challenges, and it is essential that their rights are protected through appropriate legal channels. Therefore, the role of an experienced disability discrimination attorney becomes paramount. Such professionals not only bring expertise in navigating the complexities of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) but also ensure that the voices of affected employees are heard and valued. Engaging legal representation can be crucial in pursuing justice and fostering a more inclusive and compliant work environment for all.

Posted on

$2,125,000 Paid by Staffing Agencies in Discrimination Lawsuits

Disability discrimination laws protect blind employees accommodations for service dogs. Helmer Friedman LLP vigorously protects the rights of all employees.

The Cost of Discrimination: Analyzing Recent Legal Settlements in Staffing Agencies

Two recent high-profile settlements have spotlighted workplace discrimination, reminding staffing agencies of their legal obligations and encouraging employees to take a stand against unlawful behaviors.

Robert Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC Dallas District Office said, “Unfortunately, when a group of job seekers with certain disabilities is relegated to ‘For Future Consideration’ status, opportunities can be lost indefinitely. We are encouraged to see NTI’s earnest interest in committing to a more proactive effort, including working closely with other organizations that specialize in increasing opportunities for persons who simply need accommodations already known to be effective for blindness and low vision.”

In the first case, the National Telecommuting Institute (NTI), a Massachusetts staffing support company, has agreed to a $1.25 million settlement in a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination. NTI was accused of failing to accommodate and hire blind and low-vision job applicants, specifically those who used assistive technology such as screen readers. The ADA prohibits employment decisions based on an individual’s disability or need for reasonable accommodation.

In the suit, it was charged that NTI did not pursue placement or referrals for these individuals and also denied disability-related accommodations during pre-employment application processes. As part of the settlement agreement, NTI is committed to providing internal training on ADA rights, revising its policies regarding reasonable accommodations, and appointing an internal ADA coordinator and external monitor.

“The customer is not always right and, as EEOC’s guidance for employment agencies makes clear, staffing agencies violate the law when they comply with a client’s sex-based preference, or a preference based on any other prohibited characteristic,” said Nancy Sienko, director of the EEOC’s San Francisco District, which includes Washington. “Hiring and referrals should be based on a worker’s merits, not stereotypes.”

The second recent settlement involves SmartTalent LLC, a Washington-based staffing agency. The company will pay $875,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit. The allegations involved SmartTalent complying with clients’ requests for male workers. This has resulted in a pattern of discrimination against women in hiring and job assignments since 2015, which infringes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. SmartTalent will draft and implement anti-discrimination policies as part of the settlement, train staff on Title VII requirements, and actively monitor compliance.

These cases underscore the importance of equal employment opportunity rights and shed light on the severe implications of violating these rights. If you believe you have been discriminated against due to your gender or disability, it’s essential to consult an experienced employment lawyer to understand and protect your rights. Discrimination has no place in the employment sector, and together, we can strive for fairer, more inclusive workplaces.

Posted on

Courage Under Fire: How Qiqiuia Young Prevailed against Stanford Health in a Racial Harassment Lawsuit

Racial harassment, and discrimination in hospital - Helmer Friedman LLP.

A judge has ordered Stanford University and Stanford Health Care to pay $10 million to QIQIUIA YOUNG, an African American woman who valiantly stood her ground amid a protracted legal struggle. Young accused Stanford Health of fostering an environment marred by racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation for whistleblowing, for which she bore the brunt.

One of the many incidents involved a co-worker donning attire resembling that of a Ku Klux Klan member during a Halloween event. The photograph of this incident circulated widely through the office, leaving an indelible mark on Young. Even after reporting the incident, instead of receiving support, Young experienced retaliation from her supervisors, including denial of promotional opportunities and equitable pay.

In another shocking instance, Young said that co-workers used racial slurs and mistreated black patients, including using the N-word. Despite bringing this to the attention of her supervisor, no substantial probe was initiated.

In 2017, Young made the bold choice of filing a lawsuit, alleging not only personal racial harassment but also mistreatment of black patients. Following her audacious move, an email was circulated by Stanford’s Dean and Stanford Health Care CEO to thousands of recipients, misleadingly indicating Young’s dishonesty in reporting such misconduct. However, the Alameda County Superior Court jury brought justice to light by declaring the email as defamatory towards Young.

Following a nearly decade-long David versus Goliath battle, as Young’s attorney aptly put it, the jury awarded Young a hefty $20 million in damages, albeit later reduced to $10 million by the Judge. But the victory goes beyond monetary considerations. Young, undeterred by the size and reputation of her adversary, firmly held her ground, serving as an inspiration for many within and beyond Stanford’s walls.

In her own words, “I couldn’t turn a blind eye to what people were doing. I had to speak out. And when I did, they tried to silence me.” But silence her, they could not. Her indomitable spirit and courage led her to triumph over adversity, bringing to light the deeply entrenched systemic racism and inspiring countless others to stand up against injustice.

Stanford Health Care, despite the verdict, continues to defend its stance. Nevertheless, this remarkable case serves as a wake-up call for organizations across the globe, reaffirming the importance of fostering an inclusive, respectful, and equitable work environment for all.

Posted on

Stories of Resilience: Overcoming Wrongful Termination After a Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

Facing a breast cancer diagnosis is already an overwhelming experience, but the thought of losing your job because of it can add a significant emotional and financial burden. Many survivors worry about how their employers will react and whether they’ll be able to maintain their livelihoods. This blog aims to shed light on this challenging topic by discussing your rights, sharing personal stories, and providing actionable advice for those dealing with similar situations.

Understanding Your Rights

When diagnosed with breast cancer, it’s vital to understand your legal rights as an employee. Laws such as the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and various state disability laws are in place to protect you.

FMLA provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for serious health conditions, which includes cancer. This enables you to take necessary time off for treatment or recovery without the fear of losing your job.

ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, which can encompass cancer. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, such as modified work schedules or time for medical appointments, unless doing so would cause significant hardship to the business.

Despite these protections, there have been instances where employers have cited false reasons for termination following an employee’s breast cancer diagnosis. Understanding your rights is crucial in safeguarding your employment and taking action if discrimination occurs.

Navigating the Conversation

Discussing a breast cancer diagnosis with your employer can be daunting. However, open communication is essential for ensuring you receive the necessary support and accommodations.

Before initiating the conversation, prepare yourself by understanding what accommodations you may need, such as flexible hours or remote work options. Document everything—emails, conversations, and any agreements reached.

During the conversation, emphasize your commitment to your role and desire to continue contributing to the team. Be clear and concise about your needs, and work collaboratively to find a solution that benefits both parties.

It’s important to remain informed about your company’s policies regarding medical leave and accommodations. By approaching the discussion professionally and proactively, you’re more likely to receive the support you need.

Financial Resources

The financial strain of breast cancer treatment can be overwhelming, especially if your employment is impacted. Fortunately, several resources are available to help alleviate this burden.

Disability Benefits can offer financial support if you’re unable to work due to your diagnosis. Both short-term and long-term options may be available through your employer or government programs like Social Security Disability Insurance.

Insurance Coverage should be reviewed to ensure you’re receiving all benefits to which you’re entitled. Some insurance plans offer coverage for specific treatments, support services, or even transportation to medical appointments.

Additionally, community resources such as nonprofit organizations and cancer support groups can provide financial assistance, counseling, and other essential services during this challenging time.

Personal Stories

Real-life experiences of breast cancer survivors highlight the challenges and triumphs faced when dealing with job loss due to a diagnosis.

Kara Jorud was a store manager at Michaels when she was fired after being diagnosed with breast cancer. Despite the company’s claims of policy violations, a jury found that her rights under FMLA, the Florida Civil Rights Act, and ADA were violated. Michaels was ordered to pay more than $8 million in damages for wrongful termination.

Imelda Tamayo faced a similar situation when she was terminated from Oakland Children’s Hospital after requesting extended medical leave for recovery. The hospital eventually settled for $300,000 and revised its policies to better accommodate employees with medical conditions.

Megan Rizzo-Canny shared her fight against wrongful termination during breast cancer treatment. After being laid off, she pursued legal action and was able to secure disability benefits and maintain her health insurance, proving that standing up for one’s rights can lead to positive outcomes.

Linda O’Brien, another survivor, won millions in a discrimination suit after being wrongfully fired. Her story is a powerful reminder of the importance of advocating for oneself and the impact of legal protections.

Conclusion

While losing a job after a breast cancer diagnosis is a difficult and emotional experience, understanding your rights and seeking the necessary support can make a significant difference. Remember that you’re not alone—many have successfully navigated this challenging path.

If you face discrimination or wrongful termination, consider contacting an experienced employment lawyer to protect your rights. Connecting with support groups and tapping into available resources can also provide invaluable assistance.

Ultimately, your health and well-being should remain a top priority. By staying informed and advocating for yourself, you can move forward with strength and resilience, knowing that brighter days lie ahead.

Posted on

Empowerment Through Knowledge: Navigating Disability Rights and Employment Law

Disability laws protect employees from being fired for requesting reasonable accommodations while battling illness. Disability discrimination lawyers Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Breast cancer patient fired for requesting temporary accommodation during treatment

Waging a war against a major illness is one of the most challenging experiences anyone can face. The emotional, physical, and mental toll it takes can be overwhelming. At the heart of this struggle lies an issue that makes this battle even more daunting: the fear of losing one’s livelihood. Fortunately, laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are in place to ensure that women battling major illnesses have one less thing to worry about – job security.

The ADA unequivocally protects employees by prohibiting discrimination based on disability. It ensures women struggling with significant health conditions, like breast cancer, have the right to request reasonable accommodations that would allow them to continue performing their job efficiently and effectively. Fear of demotion, termination, or discrimination should never add to the immense stress these women face while battling for their lives.

A recent case underscores the importance of this protection. A surgical sales coordinator at Mia Aesthetics, battling breast cancer, requested telework as a reasonable accommodation while undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Telework would not have hindered the coordination role, and the employee provided medical documentation in support. However, the company denied this request and instead offered a part-time front desk role, resulting in decreased earnings and increased person-to-person contact. When the employee did not accept this role, her employment was terminated.

Mia Aesthetic’s actions were deemed a clear violation of the ADA. The law states that firing an employee because of a disability is discriminatory, which was the case here. The ADA also requires employers to perform an individualized assessment to determine if an employee can execute their roles with suitable accommodations.

The justice system stepped in to protect the employee’s rights, filing a lawsuit against Mia Aesthetics. This case is a potent reminder that no woman should have to worry about losing her job while she’s fighting for her life.

In light of the challenges faced by employees dealing with discrimination linked to their health conditions, it is crucial for those affected to know their rights and seek appropriate support. Anyone who has experienced such discrimination is strongly encouraged to contact an employment law attorney. These legal professionals can provide invaluable guidance, helping victims understand the complexities of their situation and navigate the legal landscape to secure the protections afforded to them under the law. Taking action not only empowers individuals to advocate for themselves but also contributes to a broader movement against discrimination in the workplace.

Posted on

Asphalt Paving Systems Case: Costs of Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

Racial discrimination in the workplace lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

The Asphalt Paving Systems Case

A Stark Reminder of the Costs of Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

In a society that aspires to achieve equality and justice, the allegations against Asphalt Paving Systems (APS) by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2023 serve as a stark reminder of the harsh realities of racial discrimination in certain workplaces. This case involved 12 Black workers who endured a hostile environment at APS, a company based in Zephyrhills, Florida. Their experiences included being denied basic facilities such as access to indoor bathrooms and enduring continuous racial slurs from co-workers and supervisors.

Such incidents underscore the critical importance of laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aims to protect employees from racial discrimination and harassment in the workplace. APS’s violation of this law created a hostile environment for its Black employees, undermining their rights to equal employment opportunities and adversely affecting their emotional and mental well-being.

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Title VII explicitly states, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” This vital provision emphasizes that employment should be free from discrimination, ensuring a working environment where everyone can thrive, regardless of their racial or ethnic background. It also sets the expectation for employers to foster a workplace devoid of harassment based on these protected characteristics, reinforcing the necessity of equitable treatment in all aspects of employment.

Beyond the moral and ethical dimensions, businesses that engage in racial discrimination face significant financial and reputational repercussions. In July 2024, APS was ordered to pay a hefty $1.25 million in damages to compensate the victims of its discriminatory practices.

Moreover, cases like these highlight the necessity of robust anti-discrimination policies within organizations. Companies must not only comply with laws like Title VII but also actively cultivate an inclusive culture, implementing practices that protect against racial discrimination and harassment.

While monetary penalties for racial discrimination are substantial—and rightly so—the hidden costs to businesses can be even greater. Companies that persist in such behaviors risk damaging their reputation, potentially deterring high-quality talent from applying, customers from purchasing their products or services, and investors from supporting their business.

As illustrated by the APS case, the costs of racial discrimination extend beyond financial penalties. It undermines employee morale and productivity, and in some instances, it can threaten the commercial viability of the company itself. This serves as a powerful reminder that businesses should strive to create an inclusive work environment free from racial discrimination and harassment—not only because it is the law but because it is sound business practice.