10. INCIDENT: THE CULTURAL DIVERSITY TRAINING PROGRAM
I. OVERVIEW:
Cultural diversity is a major human resource theme in most organiza,ons today. This emphasis
re.ects an increasingly diverse labor force and the consequent necessity to be2er u,lize a wide range of
heretofore underu,lized subgroups including racial and ethnic minori,es, women, elderly, handicapped,
foreign-born, religious minori,es, and homosexuals.
However, effort to “sensi,ze” managers and other employees to diversity issues have met with
mixed success. In some cases diversity training has resulted in less understanding and higher levels of
animosity and con.ict. Such programs may uninten,onally promote stereotypes and/or give the
appearance of “blaming” or “bashing” white males.
II. OBJECTIVES:
The <rst objec,ve is to create sensi,vity to the issue of cultural diversity, the various forms of
diversity, and the poten,al bene<ts of a successful program for promo,ng diversity. The second
objec,ve is to create an awareness of some poten,al pi=alls in programs established to promote
diversity. The third objec,ve is to help the student iden,fy some e7ec,ve methods of promo,ng
diversity.
III. DISCUSSION:
The major problem in this case is a poorly designed cultural diversity training program. The
result is a neutral or nega,ve reac,on from most employees. A number of modi<ca,ons of the program
will be necessary if the program is to be e7ec,ve in achieving its goals of promo,ng diversity and mutual
understanding. These are detailed below.
IV. ANSWERS TO INCIDENT QUESTIONS:
1. What is cultural diversity?
2. Why is cultural diversity an important issue for all organiza,ons? What are the
poten,al disadvantages of ignoring it as an issue? What steps should a proac,ve
organiza,on take to respond to this challenge?
offering broader perspec,ves, crea,vity, and .exibility. Ignoring the issue could result in “group think”
A proac,ve organiza,on needs to address a number of issues related to diversity. These include
top management commitment to diversity; balancing the rights of white males vs. those of
3. Evaluate the content and training method used by the university in this training
program. Do you have any sugges,ons for improvement? How might such
changes be implemented?
This program is de<cient in both content and process. The content focused on too narrow a
The process was de<cient because no employee input was solicited or used in the program
design. In addi,on, the one-way communica,on which occurred during the program was based on the
assump,on that the “experts” needed to “enlighten” and “sensi,ze” the unsophis,cated employees.
Sugges,ons for improvement and implementa,on of an enhanced program might include the
following:
The Legal and Regulatory Environment
11. EXERCISE: INVESTIGATING A SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE
I. Objec,ve
The purpose of this exercise is to help you understand the procedures for inves,ga,ng an
allega,on of sexual harassment in the workplace.
II. Out-of-Class Prepara,on Time
Read the material on sexual harassment in your textbook as well as the
background below before class.
III. In-Class Time Suggested: 20–30 minutes
IV. Procedures
A. This exercise should be done in groups of four to <ve students.
B. Each group should read the scenario and the sexual harassment policy.
C. Each group must develop a sexual harassment inves,ga,on plan that details how they
will go about determining if wrongdoing has occurred. AMer comple,on of the group
discussion, each group will present its inves,ga,on plan to the rest of the class.
Suggested Answer
In processing the students’ answers, the focus should be on determining the thoroughness of
their approach and the protec,on of all employees involved in the incident. There are no uniform
According to federal law, sexual harassment is any behavior that includes unwelcome sexual
• submission to, or rejection of, such conduct is used as the basis for promotions or other employment
decisions;
In terms of the second, hos,le work environment, the courts look at the dura,on and nature of
the harassment using what they call a “reasonable woman standard.”
The scenario in the exercise is based on Tess Endres vs. Techneglas, Inc. heard in the United
Some of the ,ps for inves,ga,ng sexual harassment claims in the workplace are:
1. Before proceeding with the inves,ga,on, a HR manager should consult with the legal counsel in
the organiza,on (if available).
2. All claims must be inves,gated in a ,mely fashion. Where the ma2er entails on-going abuse or ill
treatment, there may be a need to immediately move the complainant from possible further
abuse (e.g. grant leave) or move to another part of the workplace.
3. Review the company policy on sexual harassment. Most policies specify the procedure for
inves,ga,on as well as how they should be resolved.
4. Create a con<den,al inves,ga,on <le.
5. Make notes on factual issues (dates, ,mes, ,me of complaint—how complaint was lodged).
6. Prepare a list of possible witnesses
7. Source documents that may be per,nent to the inves,ga,on (work logs, ,me sheets, emails,
etc.).
8. Ask complaint for a written statement of harassment. If the complaint is anonymous, encourage
the complainer to give his/her name. If the complainer is not the vic,m, encourage them to get
the vic,m to come forth. It is virtually impossible to follow through on a complaint if the vic,m
does not cooperate. However, because of the way the law is written (a company can be liable if
they should have known….) then the inves,ga,on may have to proceed without the complainant
directly as long as there is a third party complaint.
9. Interview the par,es and witnesses and examine any documentary evidence.
10. When interviewing the complainant, make sure he/she is comfortable and also if they would like
to have another person present (not a lawyer). Do not make any judgements on what you heard,
simply get the factual informa,on and details. Ask for per,nent details: who, what, when, how
and frequency. Get speci<c dates and ,mes if possible. Ask the complainant for their preferred
resolu,on and expecta,ons. This is to show that you are sensi,ve to protec,ng them. Ask if
they have spoken to anyone else about the problem. Ask them to provide poten,al witnesses or
any documenta,on that would substan,ate their statement. Do not promise absolute
con<den,ality since it may be necessary to share the informa,on (legally if the issue goes
further). Me,culous notes should be taken during all interviews. All interviews should be
written up and reviewed by the complainant review for accuracy.
11. Promptly interview witnesses and get their statements.
12. Interview the alleged harasser and let them know of the allega,ons. HR will probably have to
disclose the name of the complainant but if the complainant has asked for con<den,ality advice
should be sought from the company’s legal counsel before interviewing the harasser. Make
notes during the interview and provide harasser the opportunity to review and verify the factual
content. The alleged harasser should be instructed not have any further contact with the
complainant.
13. Determine if there have been other complaints against the alleged harasser. Review his/her
employment record. Review record of the complainant also—has he/she made similar
complaints in the past? If so what, were the outcomes?
14. The HR inves,gator should not discuss the inves,ga,on with anyone except an immediate
superior or legal counsel. He/she should also instruct the complainant and alleged harasser to
keep the ma2er con<den,al and not to discuss it with anyone.
15. Evaluate the complaint based on the facts obtained and reviewing the evidence.
16. Determine what ac,on if any should be taken based on the decision as to whether or not the
sexual harassment policy has been violated. Possible ac,ons are reassignment, warning,
suspension, transfer, termina,on, demo,on, counselling, etc.
17. Analyze all of the informa,on and prepare a report that states factual <ndings, ra,onale for
views, and proposed disciplinary ac,on or other personnel ac,on to be taken. Submit the report
to the supervisor/top management for review and <naliza,on. The general counsel should
review the report before <nal submission.
18. Meet separately with complainant and accused harasser to discuss the report and its outcome. If
the complainant is found to have knowingly brought a false charge, then such a ma2er should be
dealt with in terms of appropriate discipline.
19. File documents appropriately (all should be stamped ‘con<den,al’).
Alterna,vely, the instructor may also want to have the students role play an interview with the
complaint in this scenario (Mary Booth) and/or the alleged harasser (Bob Simonsky).
12. CASE: ANALYZING PROMOTION DATA: APPLYING THE 80% RULE
I. OVERVIEW:
While much of the focus has been on dealing with discrimina,on in ini,al selec,on decisions, in
recent years there has been more a2en,on to treatment discrimina,on as minori,es and women seek
advancement to higher posi,ons. This case focuses on a black employee who accuses the company of
bypassing black employees for promo,ons in favor of white employees. The case includes both
qualita,ve and quan,ta,ve data for the students to analyze in determining whether or not
discrimina,on has occurred. Topics covered in the case include: race discrimina,on; promo,on policies
and procedures, and centralized versus decentralized staJng policies.
II. OBJECTIVES:
This case can be used for several purposes:
1. To illustrate the complexity involved in determining whether or not race
discrimina,on has occurred.
2. To examine the impact of Title VII on the design and implementa,on of promo,on
systems.
3. To explore methods of assuring equal opportunity in all staJng decisions.
4. To demonstrate how poor personnel/human resource management prac,ces
contribute to allega,ons of unlawful discrimina,on.
III. DISCUSSION:
The major issue facing Rutherford in the case is to determine whether or not black employees
are being discriminated against in promo,on decisions. Once a determina,on is made, Rutherford faces
the problem of changing a basically informal promo,on system to one that is more formal with less
chance for bias in decisions. It is also evident that the promo,on criteria are based on personality traits
and not job-related factors. In fact, this may be part of the cause for the black employees’ complaints.
Promo,on decisions are based largely on a supervisor’s subjec,ve assessment of employee performance
(par,cularly promo,ons within the warehouse). Such a system makes an organiza,on vulnerable to the
type of charges it is presently facing.
As part of their analysis, students should point out the need for a valid, job-related promo,on
process. This would involve Rutherford’s oJce developing job descrip,ons, performance standards, a
formal job pos,ng system, and a formal performance evalua,on process. Job pos,ng provides equal
opportunity for all employees and creates greater openness in organiza,on promo,on decisions. They
need to also re-examine the criterion that an employee had to be on the same shiM and in the same
department as the job opening. The ra,onale for this requirement is not clear. Since the skills needed
to perform the jobs in each department are probably similar, the company should rely on seniority and
job performance as the major criteria. There is also a need to develop a system where employees can
apply for promo,ons. The current system of supervisors determining who gets a chance to get
promoted is too restric,ve. A key part of the student’s analysis should focus on how Rutherford should
go about implemen,ng proposed changes. He may encounter some resistance to change because of the
previous autonomy enjoyed by supervisors in making promo,on decisions. Due to the geographical
dispersion of the company’s opera,ons, students will have to propose a method for monitoring
compliance with promo,on policies. Supervisors will have to be trained in how to conduct formal
employee evalua,ons. Finally, Rutherford will also have to consider the compa,bility between the
promo,on systems for the warehouse and stores.
The names and dates in this case have been disguised and the facts have been abbreviated, but,
in fact the case is loosely based on an actual court case. In the actual situa,on, black employees <led a
lawsuit against the company. The District Court found in favor of the plain,7s, but the United States
Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit reversed the lower court sta,ng the “evidence was insuJcient to sustain
<nding of class-wide discrimina,on with respect to promo,ons.” The case was remanded back to the
District Court to decide on the merits of each individual plain,7’s case. Subsequently, the District Court
found in favor of the ten black employees. The standard used was disparate treatment — each
employee’s situa,on had to be examined individually. An alterna,ve way of presen,ng this case is to
have a group of students “role-play” the posi,ons in the case. One group can present the employees’
posi,on and the other side can determine how the company should respond to Jackson’s allega,ons.
IV. ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS:
1. Analyze the data in Exhibit 1.20. What conclusions do you reach? (Is there evidence
of discrimina,on in promo,on decisions?).
Students should compare the promo,on rates for black and white employees to determine if the
promo,on decisions at Food Chain resulted in adverse impact (disparate impact de<ni,on of
*Disparate impact exists if the black promo,on rate is less than 4/5 of the white promo,on rate. In two
cases, the black promo,on rate is actually higher than the white rate. A major issue here is whether or
not the data should be looked at for individual years or in the aggregate. If the data is combined for the
n = total number of employees promoted
p = black percentage of the work force
Here, n = 341, p = .1600, 1-p = .8399, Q = 48, E = np = 341 x .16 = 54.56, s = 54.56, (.8399) = 45.8289 =
6.769, and the number of standard devia,ons = 48 – 54.56 = .97 6.769
The EEOC requires that the promo,on rate for the protected group be within two standard
2. Do you believe that Gemson, Thompson, LeBlanc, and Jackson were discriminated
against?
Since the sta,s,cs in Table 1 did not indicate class wide racial discrimina,on, students need to
evaluate each individual case under a disparate treatment de<ni,on of discrimina,on. The key issue
here is what part did race play in each of the cases presented? According to the McDonnell Douglas
Corp. vs. Green case to establish a prima facie case the employees would have to show: (1) they were
quali<ed for the promo,on; (2) a vacancy existed; (3) despite their quali<ca,ons they were not
promoted; and (4) a white employee was promoted. From the informa,on gathered it is not clear that
3. What are some of the poten,al disadvantages of a “word of mouth” promo,on
system?
The disadvantages of such systems are evident from the problems Food Chain faced. A word of
4. What should Rutherford do now?
Several sugges,ons were presented earlier. First, he needs to carefully analyze the data supplied
by his assistant. Once he has completed his assessment, he needs to develop a formal system for
promo,ons in Food Chain. Regardless of whether black employees were actually being discriminated
5. What kinds of policies can the company design to be2er integrate minori,es into
management posi,ons?
Answers will vary but should probably include centralizing the promo,ons policies, rou,nely
pos,ng job openings internally, crea,ng a formal system of performance evalua,ons for all employees,
13. CASE: BLOWING THE WHISTLE: ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AT GLENFAIR ELECTRONICS
I. OVERVIEW
This case centers on how human resource managers should respond to employee reports of
workplace conduct that may violate federal laws. The employee in the case believes that his supervisor’s
aggressive accoun,ng methods for forecas,ng and calcula,ng projected sales revenues is a deliberate
a2empt to mislead shareholders and the perceived valua,on of the company.
II. OBJECTIVES
The objec,ves of this case a twofold:
1. To make students familiar with the rights of whistleblowers in the workplace and
relevant legisla,on.
2. To explore the role of human resource managers in the managing whistleblowing.
III. DISCUSSION
Students should be encouraged to discuss both the protec,on of whistleblowers and the role of
human resource managers in such cases. It is important to point out to students that Anwar’s
statements are only allega,ons at this point. However, because he has come forward to share his
percep,ons with an oJcial of the company, he is protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
President Bush signed the law into effect on July 20, 2002. In light of a slew of recent corporate fraud
viola,ons (e.g. Enron, Tyco), the Act is intended to deter and punish corporate fraud and corrup,on by
protec,ng employees who report such ac,vi,es.
The Act prohibits publicly traded companies from taking any adverse employment ac,on against
an employee because of his or her whistleblowing ac,vi,es. The employee is protected if he or she
reasonably believes the ac,on involves a viola,on of federal securi,es laws, the rules or regula,ons of
the Securi,es and Exchange Commission or any federal law rela,ng to fraud against shareholders. The
employee is protected even if the allega,ons are incorrect or unsubstan,ated as long as the employee
reasonably believes that the conduct observed is a viola,on.
The Act places a burden upon any person with supervisory authority over the employee or any
other employee working for the company who has authority (e.g. human resource execu,ve) to
inves,gate, discover, or terminate the misconduct. This la2er requirement should push students to
discuss what obliga,on Bob Schein has as the Vice President of Human Resources. Obviously, Anwar
cannot take the allega,on to Bea2y.
IV. ANSWERS TO CASE QUESTIONS
1. If you were Schein, what would you do if anything? Explain.
This is not an easy situa,on for Bob Schein. Right now Anwar Patel believes that a viola,on is
taking place. Human resources is clearly a sta7 posi,on in the organiza,on. Nevertheless, the Sarbanes
Oxley Act has implica,ons for what Schein must do. First, Bob must inform Anwar of his rights under the
Act and assure him that he is protected. Anwar must be told that he cannot be discharged, demoted,
suspended, threatened, harassed or otherwise discriminated against because whistleblowing is a
protected act. These assurances must be given to Anwar to allay his fears. Even though Bob is in a sta7
2. What should Bob do about Patel’s claim that Bea2y has become hos,le towards
him?
In addi,on to reassuring Anwar that he is protected from retalia,on and harassment by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Bob should request Anwar to put the episodes of hos,lity in wri,ng indica,ng the
3. What rights and protec,ons do whistleblowers have in the workplace today?
Much of the answer to this ques,on can be found in the discussion above. The Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 greatly increases the protec,on of whistleblowers. It also gives whistleblowers the private
right of ac,on and even provides for the poten,al imposi,on of criminal penal,es (including