This summary provides an overview of key information from the document about reducing rankism in the workplace: 1) Rankism refers to how people are divided into "somebodies" and "nobodies" based on their position in a workplace hierarchy. This can lead to mistreatment of those in lower ranks. 2) Left unchallenged, rankism builds resentment among lower-ranked employees and hurts job satisfaction, performance, loyalty and commitment. It also limits communication across ranks. 3) To reduce rankism, a diversity leader would recognize the contributions of all employees, include lower-level employees in organizational events, avoid unnecessary distinctions between groups, provide opportunities for lower ranks to offer suggestions, and include multiple

1. Mgmt 3700
Chapter 11: Creating Inclusive Climates in Diverse
Organizations
Rank in the Workplace: An Unacknowledged "Ism"
Within almost every organization there is a hierarchy among the
employees that is based on position, title, role, and function. In
some organizations, distinctions are made between exempt and
non-exempt employees, union and nonunion employees, those
who work with their hands and those who work in an office
setting.
In university settings, the distinction may be between faculty
(tenure, non-tenured, lecture, visiting), administrative, and staff
positions. The hierarchy may relate to university-funded
positions and county-funded positions, and agents, program
assistant, and education advisor positions. Even in organizations
that claim to have a "flat organizational chart," there are still
three categories of employees--the "tops," the "middles," and
the "bottoms" (Esty, Griffin, & Hirsch, 1995).
Rankism
Robert Fuller in Somebodies and Nobodies (2003) suggests that
rank divides us into "somebodies" and "nobodies."

2. More than most care to admit, we treat others--and are treated
by others--based on our relative rank.
The truth is that each of us has felt like a somebody some times
and a nobody at others.
A key to feeling like a somebody is being recognized by others.
Without recognition from others, we may feel discounted,
disconnected, marginal, or even invisible.
Our position in the hierarchy
If you think about it, one of the first questions people ask when
they first meet you, both in and out of the workplace, is "What
do you do?“
Regardless of the answer, everyone from top to bottom has a
strong desire for dignity and a feeling of connection.
Rankism Has Consequences
Rank is an important and necessary tool in the management of
organizations. Within the area where it has been earned, rank

3. deserves and commands our respect. However, rank-based
mistreatment in the workplace can result in disrespect, inequity,
discrimination, ridicule, and exploitation of those at lower
ranks. Too often, classism in the workplace, or "rankism," goes
unchallenged.
Left unchallenged, resentment builds among those in the lower
ranks. For many, however, who simply work in quiet
desperation, their frustrations are translated into lower levels of
job satisfaction and performance, and lower levels of loyalty
and commitment to the organization.
Additionally, large class-like distinctions in the workplace limit
communication. Oftentimes, those in lower ranks possess
information that would be helpful to those at higher ranks.
Respect and open communication across levels may contribute
to the accomplishment of important organizational goals.
In class exercise
Please utilize the tools from chapter 11, to address how you
would as a diversity leader reduce rankism in the workplace.
What tools, policies or practices would you make a part of your
inclusion strategy.
You only earn points for accurate solutions that have been
discussed in class or throughout the textbook thus far.

4. Reducing Rankism in the Workplace
Recognize
Recognize the work that each employee contributes.
Include
Include lower-level employees in major organizational social
events.
Avoid
Avoid unnecessary distinctions that may make certain groups
feel like second-class citizens.
Provide
Provide opportunities for employees at lower ranks to offer
suggestions about how to do the work better. Listen to their
responses.
Include

5. Include several levels of employees on committees and task
forces, where appropriate.
References
Esty, K., Griffin, R., & Hirsch, M.S. (1995). Workplace
diversity: A manager's guide to solving problems and turning
diversity into a competitive advantage. Holbrook, M.A.: Adams
Media Corporation.
Fuller, R.W. (2003) Somebodies and nobodies: Overcoming the
abuse of rank. British Columbia, Canada: New Society
Publishers.
Mgmt 3700 chapters 9 & 10
Inclusive leadership requires an understanding of the civil
rights laws that govern the workplace.
Lawsuits
Let’s apply our knowledge of od development model of
inclusion
Federal laws prohibiting job discrimnation
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which
prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin;

6. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and
women who perform substantially equal work in the same
establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),
which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment
discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in
the private sector, and in state and local governments; Sections
501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit
discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities
who work in the federal government;
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of
2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based
on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former
employee; and
The Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things,
provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment
discrimination.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and
coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity
regulations, practices, and policies.
Directions:
State where you think the company is at when the lawsuit
occurred: exclusion, symbolic inclusion, prescribed inclusion,
inclusion.
Where do you think they are today?

7. Some of the most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013
taken from: http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/07/08/top-10-
most-expensive-discrimination-settlements-o?page=4
$160 million – McReynolds, et al. v. Merrill Lynch & Co.
The largest settlement of 2013 has its roots eight years earlier,
when in 2005, broker George McReynolds accused Merrill
Lynch & Co. of giving white brokers more lucrative accounts
while denying black employees equal pay and career
advancement opportunities. McReynolds filed a lawsuit on
behalf of 700 black brokers who worked for Merrill. Before the
suit was settled out of court in August, it had seen two appeals
in the Supreme Court and survived Merrill Lynch's acquisition
by Bank of America in 2009.
$39 million – Calibuso, et al. v. Bank Of America
In 2010, a group of female advisors lead by Judy Calibuso at the
newly acquired Merrill Lynch unit of Bank of America (BoA)
filed suit for what they alleged was systematic discrimination.
The plaintiff’s contended that policies and practices at their
workplaces were designed to pass over women for business
opportunities and advancements. In addition to the money paid
to the class, BoA was also ordered to have its programs
reviewed by an independent consultant for three years. The
settlement was finalized in December.
Some of most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013
$8 million – Ellis, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
A testament to the length of time it can take for a class action
lawsuit to work itself from certification to resolution, Costco’s
big settlement case last year took over a decade to complete. An
initial complaint about the way Costco selected potential
managers and allegedly discouraged females from applying was
filed in 2002, the actual suit was filed in 2004, and the class

8. was not certified until September 2012. In December, the
settlement, which was intended for those who had been affected
by the alleged discriminatory practices was finalized. Costco
also promised to reform its internal hiring process.
Some of the most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013
$7.5 million – Cogdell, et al. v. The Wet Seal Inc
Following an EEOC investigation in 2012, which found
evidence that executive management had sought to maintain the
"the Armani look" (code for blonde and blue-eyed) for its store,
the company quickly opted to settle in the class action
discrimination case. The lawsuit alleged that the company had
gone out of its way to fire black store managers in an attempt to
maintain that image. The company called the settlement a “no
fault resolution” but promised to evaluate it position as a result.
Some of the most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013
$4.5 million – Hubbard, et al. v. U.S. Postal Service
Disability discrimination is a growing area of litigation risk,
and perhaps as a sign of the times this case revolved around the
accommodations afforded to deaf and hard-of-hearing workers
of the United States Postal Service. The suit alleged that
workers with hearing problems were not provided with
technologies and services that would have helped them perform
their duties, and that they were frequently subject to scrutiny
from other workers at the postal service. The case was settled in
July of 2013.
Some of the most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013
$3.7 million – Vasich, et al. v. City Of Chicago

9. Firefighters need to be physically fit to do their jobs, however
this lawsuit alleged that the test was designed more as an
opportunity for the Chicago Fire Department to discourage
potential female firefighters rather than find new recruits. The
suit alleged that the test discriminated against women and was
unlawful because it was not related to job performance or
predictive of who would succeed as a firefighter. The city
settled with the class in December after two years in court.
$3.1 million – Easterling, et al. v. State Of Connecticut,
Department Of Correction
Similar to the Chicago case, this suit alleged that the a physical
fitness test composed of a 1.5 mile run required by the
Connecticut Department of Corrections was not a business need,
and that it discriminated against female candidates. As a result
over 200 women who applied for a Correction Officer position
in 2004 o4 2006, were certified for the class. The settlement
was finalized in July.
Some of the most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013
$1.3 million – Monroe, et al. v. City Of New York
Another lawsuit involving allegations of sexual discrimination
against a fire department, in 2006 five ranking female officers
alleged that they had been passed over for advancement because
they were women. Settled in June, the women alleged that
despite their outstanding service records they lost promotions to
other less qualified candidates that were men. They also
accused the Fire Department of New York of posting jobs where
they were not widely available for internal candidates to see,
discouraging application.
$1 million – Bradley v. City Of Richmond
Brought by eight of African-American pipefitters employed by
the City of Richmond, Va., this suit contended that the public
utilities department had categorically discriminated, harassed
and retaliated against the workers. An investigation by the

10. human resources department released five months later
confirmed the employees had been subject to open use of racial
epithets by white employees and supervisors, as well as
favoritism toward whites in hiring and promotion. The
settlement was completed in July.
Questions:
Were these companies diverse?
Were they inclusive?
Why did it take so long for some of the companies lawsuits?
What does an inclusive culture have to do with the cases?
Does sales and marketing strategies have to comply with
diversity?
Can businesses discriminate against individuals under the
auspice of a marketing strategy or a particular ‘look.’
Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch made headlines in 2003
after it was sued for discriminating against African Americans,
Asian Americans and Latinos. In particular, Latinos and Asians
accused the company of steering them to jobs in the stock room
rather than on the sales floor because Abercrombie & Fitch
wanted to be represented by workers who looked “classically
American.”
A & F
Minority employees also complained that they’d been fired and
replaced by white workers. A&F ended up settling the lawsuit
in 2004 for $50 million.
Do you think this moved them more toward inclusion?
A & F

11. Headscarf
Last words to ponder…..
Diversity is not enough, organizations must be inclusive
The retail industry and other industries need to know that
businesses cannot discriminate against individuals under the
auspice of a marketing strategy or a particular ‘look.’ Race,
religion and sex discrimination in employment are unlawful.”
Assignment Six
Using the powerpoints for chapters 9, 11 and 13 along with the
textbook complete the following work for the last five in class
points. Chapter Nine
1. On the powerpoint, complete slide four and state why you
chose your answer. Choose two of the companies that follow
beginning on slides five through nine. The powerpoint slide
four states to do the following: State where you think the
company is at when the lawsuit occurred: exclusion, symbolic
inclusion, prescribed inclusion, inclusion—see chapter nine/ten
for definition.
Chapter Eleven
After reading the chapter and the powerpoint, please do the
following:
1. What is rankism?
2. What are the three consequences to rankism?
3. Answer the question from slide six, utilizing information
from the textbook on leadership inclusionary practices and the
powerpoint.

12. Chapter Thirteen
After reading the chapter and watching the powerpoint
presentation, answer the following questions:
1. Take the test found on slide 3, what are your results and
what do you think?
2. Complete the exercise found on slide 12.
3. Complete the question on slide 17: Why train on this topic?
4. What does the business case on slide 18 state? (click on
support and if this embedded link does not work go to google
chrome and type:
HRC advocating for LGBTQ Equality in your workplace
The first article that comes up from hrc.com will be what you
need to read.