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; 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? 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 .

1. 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;
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

2. 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?
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

3. 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
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

4. 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
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

5. 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
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?

6. 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
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.”