Law Firm HR Decisions and Policies ARTHUR R EHRLICH GOLDMAN & EHRLICH 20 SOUTH CLARK STREET SUITE 500 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Follow me on

FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS ALSO PROHIBIT... GENDER STEREOTYPING GENDER STEREOTYPING ARREST RECORD ARREST RECORD MARITAL STATUS MARITAL STATUS UNION LIKE OR UNION RELATED ACTIVITIES UNION LIKE OR UNION RELATED ACTIVITIES FACEBOOK POSTS THAT DISCUSS WORK CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYEES FACEBOOK POSTS THAT DISCUSS WORK CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYEES “LIKING” PARTICULAR FACEBOOK POSTS DISCUSSING WORK CONDITIONS “LIKING” PARTICULAR FACEBOOK POSTS DISCUSSING WORK CONDITIONS

PROVING A DISCRIMINATION OR RETALIATION CLAIM A.DIRECT EVIDENCE 1.“You Are Just Too Old for this Job”

PROVING A DISCRIMINATION OR RETALIATION CLAIM B. DIRECT METHOD OR INDIRECT METHOD 1.YOU DON’T NEED A SMOKING GUN 2.COMBINATION VARIOUS STATEMENTS, ACTIONS AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THAT TOGETHER CREATES A “CONVINCING MOSAIC OF DISCRIMINATION.” ASKING AN OLDER EMPLOYEE WHEN HE PLANS ON RETIRING OR ASKING HIS AGE AND LETTING HIM GO SHORTLY THEREAFTER DISCOVERING HE IS 50

MOSIAC CAN BE CREATED IN MANY WAYS SUSPICIOUS STATEMENTS OR ACTS SUSPICIOUS STATEMENTS OR ACTS a.“YOU DON’T FIT OUR PROFILE” a.“YOU DON’T FIT OUR PROFILE” b.FAILING TO HIRE ANYONE OVER THE AGE OF 40 b.FAILING TO HIRE ANYONE OVER THE AGE OF 40 TREATING SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF’S PROTECTED CLASSIFICATION MORE FAVORABLY IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS

PRETEXT EMPLOYER’S ARTICULATED REASON FOR THE ACTION DID NOT ACTUALLY MOTIVATE THE ACTION THE ARTICULATED REASON HAS NO BASIS IN FACT THE ALLEGED REASONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MOTIVATE THE ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF

WHO IS SUBJECT TO DISCRIMINATION LAWS ONLY ONE EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED FOR ONLY ONE EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED FOR DISABILITY OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS UNDER THE ILL HUMAN RIGHTS ACT DISABILITY OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS UNDER THE ILL HUMAN RIGHTS ACT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS FILED BEFORE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS FILED BEFORE CITY CHICAGO COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS OR COOK COUNTY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

IMPORTANT MISCONCEPTIONS TO BE AWARE OF AS AN EMPLOYER ABOUT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS NUMBER 1:NOT EVERY PLAINTIFF IS LYING NUMBER 1:NOT EVERY PLAINTIFF IS LYING PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING

IMPORTANT MISCONCEPTION NUMBER 2 NOT EVERY PLAINTIFF IS OUT TO MAKE A BUCK NOR ARE THEY IN IT JUST FOR THE MONEY

IMPORTANT MISCONCEPTION NUMBER 3 EVERYONE IS PREJUDICED TO SOME DEGREE, EVERYONE IS PREJUDICED TO SOME DEGREE, THAT INCLUDES YOU, THAT INCLUDES YOU, THE EMPLOYEES WORKING FOR YOU, THE EMPLOYEES WORKING FOR YOU, AND YOUR SUPERVISORS AND YOUR SUPERVISORS

BUT I HAVE NO PREJUDICES!!! YES YOU DO

THERE IS NO LOGIC TO PREJUDICE IT IS NOT TYPICALLY AN ALL OR NOTHING PROPOSITION

BOTTOM LINE : A. BE OPEN MINDED TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAYBE SOME MERIT TO AN ALLEGATION OF DISCRIMINATION B.DO A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION AS WARRANTED BY THE ALLEGATIONS C.EXPEDITIOUSLY ADDRESS COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT DO NOT REJECT THEM OUT OF HAND

PROTECTING YOURSELF AGAINST THE PROBLEM EMPLOYEE WHO HAS AN INACCURATE PERCEPTION OF EVENTS A. FIRST RULE: CONSISTENCYCONSISTENCYCONSISTENCY

PROTECTING YOURSELF AGAINST THE PROBLEM EMPLOYEE WHO HAS AN INACCURATE PERCEPTION OF EVENTS B. SECOND RULE: DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT BE CONSISTENT AND DOCUMENT ALL EMPLOYEES AT THE SAME POINT

C. HAVING A STRONG DEFENSE TO A POSSIBLE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT MAY DISCOUARGE A PROSPECTIVE PLAINTIFF FROM TAKING THE CASE. SO... 1.PATIENTLY BUILD YOUR DEFENSE WHEN POSSIBLE UNLESS THE DECISION TO TERMINATE IS A NO-BRAINER