Care to guess the population of Houston, Texas? Here’s a hint: The same number of people are in U.S. prisons, about 2.2 million, and that is a world record.

That’s right, our country has more people in prison than any other, according to the United States Department of Justice.

Of that 2.2 million inmate population, about 150,000 are serving life sentences which means that the others will pay their debt to society by doing time and then released, stepping into the sunshine, finding a decent job, having learned their lesson, never to return.

Of course I was told that by the Tooth Fairy who apparently never heard of the terms recidivism rate or repeat offender. While the figures do vary depending upon the types of crimes committed, within three years, from 60 percent to 80 percent of people sentenced to prison will re-offend.

In many cases, because of something on a job application form, and, as we learned:

“They may have been released, but so many are, practically speaking, still locked up, inside an invisible prison due to a small box on a job application asking if they had ever been convicted of a crime,” we were told by an assistant warden who holds a law degree and has over 20 years experience at well known West Coast prison. We will just call him “Warden Jack.”

“We failed to anticipate the consequences of this growth industry”

“As a nation, we failed to anticipate the consequences of a nation which keeps so many people behind bars. When prison building became a growth industry, little thought was given to ways of helping inmates truly re-enter society through employment.

“Professionals in this field openly discuss the fact that the ‘lock’em up and throw away the key’ attitude is working well indeed as a round-trip ticket, back to prison.

“A huge problem is that many employers will not hire anyone who has a criminal record, even when the offense has nothing to do with the job. This attitude is fanning the flames of recidivism.

“If you want to know what drives wardens crazy, it’s seeing a guy who got an education in prison, has ability, grew up, and could become a productive member of society, but that job application form or a background check disqualifies him from employment. Add to that being a minority, and the deck is even more stacked against the inmate,” Warden Jack maintains.

Rejecting all applicants with criminal records can be discrimination

“The saying, Hire the best — Reject the rest, is something that most employers live by. It is common sense — employers only want to best employees. However, today, following this motto could become an expensive legal nightmare, as employers find themselves running afoul of federal laws prohibiting discrimination,” Nashville, Tennessee-based employment attorney Jennifer Lankford makes clear to the lawyers who attend her National Business Institute seminars.

“Dennis, you would be surprised at the number of employers who are engaging in employment discrimination without intending to or even aware that they are doing so,” she explains.

“We call this disparate impact discrimination and it often results from what on the surface appears to be a reasonable, neutral policy — treating everyone the same — but which disproportionately screens out a legally protected group, such as racial minorities.”

“It is well established that African Americans and Latinos are arrested and convicted disproportionately than their numerical representation in the population. When an employer has a blanket policy of not hiring anyone with a criminal conviction — even when the crime has no relation to the job — then more minorities than white applicants are being screened out. This is a classic example of disparate impact discrimination.”

We asked Lankford if this means that an employer must hire any minority who shows up, regardless of having a nasty criminal past.

“Employment attorneys hear that question often, and the answer is that you do not have to close your eyes to a person’s criminal past. But, you need to demonstrate that your policy of exclusion is job related and consistent with a business necessity.” Employers should consider:

• Requirements of the job
• What the person was convicted of
• The time that has passed since the conviction.

“These questions demonstrate whether the exclusionary policy is truly relevant to the underlying job position. As you might imagine, if the person has a history of theft offenses and is looking for a job as a cashier, the person is not suited for employment.

“However, if the applicant had a minor drug offense, years ago, the exclusion is less justifiable,” Lankford concluded.

For our employer-readers, we suggest a review of your hiring practices by an attorney who specializes in Employment Law. Running a business is no piece of cake.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post ‘Criminal record? Don’t apply for this job’ appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Appearance matters in hiring process appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Did ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ almost occur? appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

Today’s story will be of special interest to anyone who has been fired and encouraged to sue for wrongful termination.

“In our sue-happy society, where the boss is always wrong and employees think they have a right to a job — which they do not — few can even remotely consider that, just maybe, they deserved to be fired. Many are told that if it happens, they are a victim of wrongful termination and should sue for damages,” says Southern California employment attorney Jay Rosenlieb.

“In reality, ‘wrongful termination’ is being fired for an illegal reason, such as discrimination, violation of labor laws, retaliation, etc. And, yes, there are a small number of horrible employers who violate these laws and merit being sued, big-time. So often, angry employees go on the internet and find YouTube videos from lawyers all over the country begging to take their cases. The result is grief for the employee, who is often lied to about having a good case and endures massive amounts of wasted time over something that isn’t there. Employers become victims of legalized extortion, paying money that isn’t owed just to end the litigation.”

This woman was told she had a great case

Sarah Dunn was fired from her job as an overnight crew member at a California fitness center and phoned a Los Angeles law firm that advertises online: “We are wrongful termination lawyers and protect employee rights — no recovery, no fee.”

“I told one of their lawyers that, basically, my relationship with a new manager soured, and we just could not get along,” Dunn says. “(The lawyer) said, ‘This is a good case of wrongful termination.’”

Of course, “not getting along” isn’t a basis for a wrongful-termination claim, but that small detail did not matter to this law firm.

Dunn docusigned the retainer emailed to her, but in violation of California bar rules, the law firm failed to send her a copy of the signed agreement.

Had she read the firm’s many negative Yelp reviews — which used words such as “cons,” “predatory,” “scam” and “absolute trash” and also included, “If you’re looking for unprofessional representation, you’ve found it!” — this story would never have been written.

What does ‘no recovery, no fee’ really mean?

So-called no-recovery, no-fee terms are used in contingent-fee matters — such as auto accidents — and expressed as a percentage, such as 25% to 50%. But the firm’s retainer does not give a percentage. Rather, it states, “We bill on an hourly basis — $150 to $695 — and do not send out monthly billing statements.”

What? No monthly billings? No kidding.

So clients have no way of knowing how much their attorney fees will be as these cases progress — or if it is worth even pursuing the matter — because the firm hides its fees until the very end, violating California State Bar rules that require monthly bills to be sent to clients when fees are on an hourly basis.

Dunn didn’t know what she would be billed until after the case was over. Plus, the firm charged her to prepare the invoice — almost $600, at the attorney’s hourly rate, which is totally wrong. This is not only against bar rules, but the invoice was filled with double billing and outright bill padding. How much was the bill? Over $7,000! Though the firm magnanimously reduced that to $5,000.

She asked the firm to refund the settlement to her employer

Until Dunn met with our office, she had been led to believe that hers was a good case of wrongful termination, which was settled — I would use the term “extorted” — for $10,000 from her employer. The law firm kept half.

Because Dunn has a conscience, she wrote to her attorney, stating, “You fraudulently misled me into retaining your firm. But there was no wrongful termination in the legal sense. You caused my former employer to waste time and attorney fees based on your fraud. I want you to refund that money to them.”

The attorney hasn’t replied, and I’m sure he won’t. But this gets even worse. The settlement agreement has an NDA, also known as a nondisclosure agreement, that prevents Dunn from talking with just about anyone about this case or their firm.

But employees are free under California law and NLRB regulations to discuss any aspect of their employment or termination outside of protected things such as trade secrets. So, this law firm tries to scare its own clients to prevent them from discussing their cases with just about anyone.

And she filed a complaint with the state bar

Dunn filed a formal complaint about the attorney with the California State Bar. They slapped the guy on the wrist, putting him in a disciplinary program and admonishing him to be a “good lawyer” in the future. Also, these actions do not appear on his State Bar page, so potential clients are not warned of his ethics issues.

Disgusted, I wrote to the bar’s trial counsel, “Remember Tom Girardi? He’s the lawyer whom you guys enabled to embezzle millions of dollars from clients to fund his lifestyle as featured on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. Well, you’ve got something similar here and need to go in there, grab their files and see how much clients have been ripped off!”

The bar hasn’t replied, and I doubt it will.

How to not get taken by a lawyer or law firm

Here’s how you can avoid getting into Dunn’s situation with an unethical lawyer or law firm:

Before hiring any lawyer or law firm, use Google or any research method to learn as much as possible about them. Look them up on their state bar website, which should show disciplinary actions.

When reading reviews, focus more on the negative ones than the glowing, positive comments. Look for statements suggesting a failure to return phone calls, withholding settlement money, outright lying or making guarantees of an outcome (it is illegal for lawyers and doctors to guarantee results).

If it is in the area of employment law, educate yourself. Look up the definition of what the lawyer says you could sue for. Ask yourself if the facts of your case match the legal definition. If they do not, then consider the real possibility that you are being lied to.

It would be nice if the public could always trust the legal profession. Sadly, that is not the case today. “Buyer beware” applies just as much to hiring an attorney as in buying a used car.

Dennis Beaver Practices law in Bakersfield and welcomes comments and questions from readers,
which may be faxed to (661) 323-7993,
or e-mailed to Lagombeaver1 – at – Gmail.com.

The post Do You Think You Have a Great Wrongful Termination Lawsuit? appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

Does Nationwide Insurance Company have a policy of discriminating against people who are overweight? Do they care about fairly and honestly settling auto accident cases? It seems a very strange turn-around for what has historically been a very credible insurance company. After reading this story, you decide.

Our story begins in Bakersfield with a minor, three-car accident. Car 1, driven by Richard, stopped for a red light. He was rear-ended by car 2 slowing for the same red light when it was hit by car 3. As this accident was at low speed, there wasn’t a lot of property damage.

Low impact can still injure

In a low impact, slow speed accident, you can still be hurt, even if you car has sustained minor damage. While it is usually true that the more physical damage to the car, the greater injury to occupants, as a police officer for 10 years, I have seen many cases of significant injury, especially rear-end accidents where occupants have some health or physical condition — such as weight issues or disc disease — which makes them more likely to be injured.

A large person involved in a minor accident has a greater risk of striking the steering wheel with their chest and suffering whiplash symptoms. I have seen many cases of older drivers, symptom free, with serious disc disease, suddenly wind up with major neurological problems after whiplash accidents. They were what we call egg shells, fragile, yet feeling perfectly fine before the accident, according to Bakersfield private investigator Riley Parker.

Mr. Parker was quick to point out that “there are many insurance companies who try to wiggle out of their legal responsibility, using bogus-biomechanical science, claiming that no one could possibly be hurt in some of these low speed accidents, and to that I say, garbage!”

Our experts say you can’t be hurt!

Richard and his 9-year-old daughter were more than a bit shaken up. “We were both wearing seat belts, and thrown into the seat back. It was strange. There was such little damage to my car, yet my shoulder, neck and back hurt and so we went to a hospital emergency room to be checked out,” he told me. The Emergency Room physician wrote in his chart, “Myofascial neck and back pain. Bed rest and Motrin, 60 mg intravenous Toradol now.” Toradol is an anti-inflammatory, equivalent to morphine. It is never used unless there is a serious reason. He was also prescribed Ultram — a potent opiate pain medication — for “break through pain.”

But Nationwide — representing the third car — whose motto is, “we are the on-your- side company,” has a different view of things. They sent a check for Richard’s property damage, clearly accepting liability, and then two of the most uncaring adjusters I have met echoed the same story. “We had our bio-mechanic expert look at the physics of this accident and conclude that statistically, no normal person could ever be hurt. Therefore we are denying their injury claims.”

When I pointed out that Richard is somewhat overweight, and that could be why he was so banged up, both adjusters laughed. In fact, one Nationwide adjuster, Ted, said, “Our experts tell us that if you are fat, it provides extra padding so you won’t be hurt as bad!” And then, when I asked them if I should conclude that Nationwide has a policy of actively discriminating against overweight people, they both said “You conclude what you want to! We aren’t paying a cent.”

The higher you go the more stubborn they get

I have normally found that when a case of this nature is brought to the attention of a the Public Relations Department, common sense prevails and a solution is found. That’s what usually happens with ethical companies, but I have to wonder about Nationwide. I spoke with spokesman Mike Palmer, and it was like talking to a zombie. The poor guy can’t seem to answer any questions or talk.

Our conversation went like this: “Speak with the claims supervisor.”

“But they already said they were denying the claim!”

Mike refused to answer one important question: Does Nationwide discriminate against overweight people when handling claims? I repeated this several times, “Mike, it sure looks to me like Nationwide is actively discriminating against overweight people. Are you?” Silence was his response. I will take that to mean “Yes, we are.”

What does this mean for you if you are overweight?

By far the most maddening conversation I had was with a “director” of Nationwide Insurance, Greg Mareno, who was quick to tell me that he sleeps well every night, and denies claims routinely when his “biomechanic expert” tells him that there is a “statistically low chance of anyone being hurt.” Mr. Mareno said this without ever looking at Richard’s medical records. Instead of doing what California law requires — and paying for the medical treatment — Nationwide’s “Director” laughed. When I raised the issue of discrimination against people who are overweight, he hung up.

By the way, we are only talking of $2,700 in ER bills and x-ray charges, not a lot. Is there a message here from Nationwide Insurance for the 65 percent of Americans who are overweight and the 25 percent who are significantly overweight? The impression I get is that Nationwide can be seen as engaging in discrimination and in using questionable science to justify denying legitimate claims. While I am not overweight, if I were, seeing how they are treating this completely innocent man and his daughter, this is the last insurance company on earth I would ever want to insure my car.

There is something frightening about the way Nationwide approaches these cases. Regardless of the fact that you are actually injured, by using a paid-to-help-us-deny claims bio-mechanic “expert” their adjusters and management engage in the worst kind of discrimination; against people who are hurt, but who “just shouldn’t ever be hurt.”

So now Richard must go to Small Claims Court and sue the owner and driver of the car that caused the accident, resulting in a potential bad credit mark for them. Nationwide needs to change its motto. “We will get you sued!” seems much more fitting.

Over the years I have met and spoken with many responsible and decent claims adjusters working for Nationwide. I am sure there are many who still remain with the company. I’d just like to know where they are.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Does Nationwide Insurance discriminate against the overweight? appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

“There is a huge market – millions of people – that could be a missed opportunity for American business,” says author Susan Golden, who teaches at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the impact of age on our economy.

So, who are these people?

“The U.S. Census tells us they are the 10,000 people turning 65 every day. In the time it takes to read this sentence, another 20 will join that group. More importantly, in 15 years, Americans aged 65 and older will outnumber those under age 18,” she points out.

In her book, “Stage (Not Age) How to Understand and Serve People Over 60 – The Fastest Growing, most dynamic market in the World”, she urges American business to understand the importance of paying attention to groups of adults pursuant to their stage in life – not their age – and to discover where they are, what they are doing, their needs and desires.

“The objective of business must be to provide the products and services they need and want,” she underscores.

Stage (Not Age) is a fascinating read and makes clear that missteps can be costly. I sat down with her and she gave a by-the-numbers list of the mistakes–the flawed thinking, what not to do – that the American business community needs to be aware of and avoid.

1 – Think of older adults as one market and aging as a problem.

Why is this flawed thinking? Our aging population is anything but a problem to business leaders who see the market potential in people over 60 who are in fact a deeply diverse population. They are traveling through different life stages, want and need different products and services.

2 – Continue to look at all people as only going through three stages in life: Education, Work and Retirement.

Why is this flawed reasoning? Even today, we are living century-long lives. We will have much longer employment spans which will integrate career breaks for continuous learning opportunities and for caregiving.

Notions of working just so you can retire will be replaced with the goal of having a purpose in your community, not merely sitting back and watching television. As we live long, and retain the ability of being productive and contributing to society, fewer of us will consider leisure as a goal in itself.

Therefore, business must consider the population as having multi-stage lives that will not be defined by age and will produce a wealth of new business opportunities.

3 – Fail to develop user-friendly, age-focused products and services which will extend health span as opposed to life span.

Consequences? It is essential, faced with this ever-increasing population of older people, to design products with a multi-generation perspective. Those who only have a ‘one size fits all’ approach will lose business. One good example is Oxo kitchen utensils that are great for all ages, but were designed with ease of use for older people. BMW modified their dashboards to fit the needs of older drivers, which also benefit those younger.

4 – Fail to develop a longevity strategy for your employees.

Consequences: You will lose good people. Employees will have a 60-year career span. Employers need to integrate upscaling opportunities, continuous learning, career breaks, and financial planning assistance. Companies will potentially have five generations working for them. It will be a family who has been with the company for decades, enriching the bottom line.

5 – Think of your customers and employees as elderly, as seniors.

This is flawed thinking that minimizes their value! Embrace the new narratives around aging versus the simple concept of old. As our population ages, retaining physical and mental health, it is best to think of them as living a vibrant life. Call it, “furtherhood,” going further into new and productive stages of their lives.

6 – When hiring, be an ageist and show bias against the older applicant. Do not consider dignity or feelings of your older employees or job applicants. Refuse to support programs which promote health and longevity for older workers.

Consequences: Not only is ageism the last acceptable “ism” out there, bias against older applicants or employees is an engraved invitation to finding yourself as a defendant in an age discrimination lawsuit.

7 – Fail to support caregiving needs and refuse to offer paid family leave for all your employees.

Results? Expect enormous turnover. Unhappy employees. Lose the institutional knowledge and creativity that comes with people who are familiar with your business strategy, its needs and abilities.

8 – Establish a rigid obligatory retirement age for all employees.

Consequences: You will lose the opportunity to harness their wisdom and creativity that comes with it. This is the perfect recipe for hostility. Instead, realize that some employees might like the idea of greater flexibility on time commitments and want to remain employed.

The better approach is to help employees reset life priorities, re-purpose the direction of their lives, and transition into new opportunities within the company and externally.

An insightful employer should consider the older employees as moving into renaissance years where they have the ability to bring creative ideas to the floor with wisdom and experience.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Don’t ignore the fastest growing market in the world appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Employers can avoid age discrimination suits appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

Do you know someone who has forgotten that advice about “burying the hatchet and letting bygones be bygones”? Or who acts as if it’s much more enjoyable to remain angry at the people who didn’t vote the way they did or don’t agree with their political or religious viewpoints?

“In many instances, anger feels good, especially today, when political issues seem to dominate American life. ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ smothers all other moral and rational brakes that the brain has in place,” observes Dr. Luis Vega, professor of psychology and interim dean at the College of Social Sciences and Education at California State University in Bakersfield, Calif. “Additionally, anger can deliver a high similar to that experienced in thrill-seeking activities where danger turns on dopamine reward receptors in the brain and can become its own form of addiction.”

When this occurs on the job, it can become the basis for a toxic-workplace lawsuit. But there is something we can do to lower the temperature.

Confronting these destructive attitudes is one of the most positive, upbeat people I’ve interviewed — Juliana Tafur, the Bridging Differences program director at UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center.

Tafur and her team are leading the 7-Day Campaign for Connection Challenge that, as she says, “Brings together folks with differences in politics, race, religion, culture, all sorts of attitudes — and teaching how to talk with each other. The goal is to minimize othering, prejudice and division and expand our sense of care and shared humanity for others in this time of tremendous division the country is facing.”

Here’s what leads to trouble

I asked Tafur to describe what fuels conflict in our daily lives. What are we doing wrong? She shared these four things, along with some ways to address them:

1. We see a label rather than a person.

We assume that we already know everything about a person based on the label we give them, whether political, cultural, racial, identity. For example, because of their political stance, we might dismiss any unique aspect of their personality, and since we don’t agree, we shut ourselves off from learning anything else about them.

2. We stick to our assumptions and refuse to listen with compassion.

We assume that our truth is the truth and avoid people who think differently. We associate only with those who are in alignment with our views and don’t read anything that doesn’t match our beliefs or that might encourage us to question them.

When meeting someone who does not share our opinions, we focus only on our differences and reinforce the person’s otherness. We dismiss the idea that we could have any meaningful commonality and disregard any shared identities or experiences, such as being in the same PTO at our kids’ school, or both caring about a problem in the community that needs solving. We think, “They’re not worth my time and are so different that we cannot have anything in common.” In the extreme, we might even consider them an enemy.

Actively listening to what someone has to say, with compassion, with our mind and body language — being willing to consider the other person’s feelings and intentions while still disagreeing — is possible. Being engaged in a discussion is one of the most powerful ways of showing that we care about another person’s feelings and want to understand them and their position.

3. When faced with an issue on the job or at home, we shut down the person we don’t agree with.

Looking for a way to upset co-workers or family members when faced with an issue where we are certain of having the only valid opinion? All you have to do is and tell them, “I don’t need any more details. I’ve already heard this viewpoint from others. I know exactly what you are going to say, so don’t waste my time!”

When they get upset, we put them off instead of showing compassion and a desire to discuss the issue. We act like they’re overreacting and say things like, “I don’t get why this would bother you.”

When perspectives clash, we should ask for the other person’s help with a resolution. For example, say something like, “It’s pretty clear we are not understanding each other, and I would really appreciate your help in figuring this out.” This reframes the conversation as a shared effort rather than a confrontation. It also invites collaboration and shows humility, a cornerstone of bridging differences.

4. We approach prejudice the wrong way.

Rather than calling attention to another person’s apparent bias and prejudice by calling them a bigot, Tufar says, consider saying, “Someone might say that your comments reveal a prejudiced mind, which I don’t think is correct, and I’ve caught myself in that kind of a situation but realized it just isn’t really me and sends the wrong message to others.”

Tafur concluded our interview on a positive note that, in my mind, stands as a powerful motto for what her organization strives to accomplish: “By recognizing that anyone can teach us something valuable and approaching people with this mentality, we allow them — and they in turn allow us — to be seen and to feel heard.”

Dennis Beaver Practices law in Bakersfield and welcomes comments and questions from readers,
which may be faxed to (661) 323-7993,
or e-mailed to Lagombeaver1 – at – Gmail.com.

The post Feel Free to Disagree, But Here’s How to Bridge Differences appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

While it may seem unfair, appearance – and weight – play a significant role in hiring, promotion and retention decisions. With the exception of weight that comes under the protection of the Americans with Disability Act, only Michigan and a handful of cities such as San Francisco; Madison, Wisconsin; and Urbana, Illinois prohibit discrimination based on weight.

‘I Get that Look and know what it means’

“I am 24 and recently graduated nursing college. In job interviews, I know within seconds that I won’t get the job; I see it in their faces. Yes, I am fat, and it is because I just eat too much. But this is pure discrimination against me, isn’t it? Do I have any legal recourse?

“My professors say that appearance does not matter, only qualifications, and I should consider a lawsuit. Most of them are obese themselves. What should I do?” Karen, New Mexico.

“If You Ever Say This Again to our Students, you will be Fired!”

“I am an HR manager for a logistics firm in Southern Michigan and was offered a part-time job lecturing to business majors at a nearby college. For my first lecture, the students were told to dress as if they were at a job interview.

“Many were unkempt, needed a shave, wore cut off pants, had ugly tattoos and piercings! Almost all were obese. I told them that if they wanted to get a good job, they had to lose weight, look professional, cover the tattoos and remove the piercings! Some complained to the dean who warned me to never talk about this again or I would be fired!

“My husband is a cardiologist and feels that Michigan’s protection of the obese is all wrong, validating obesity and making this state one of the fattest – and sickest – in the nation.”

“Mr. Beaver, am I nuts, or is something not normal going on here?” Jennifer.

Response from Employment Law Attorney and an HR Consultant

Southern California employment attorney Jay Rosenlieb believes “The last thing a 24 year-old college graduate looking for employment needs is their name showing up on an internet search revealing that she has filed a lawsuit against an employer. Appearance, in the context of job interviews, has been and always will be one of the driving forces during the interview process and that is what she should have been told.

“For Jennifer, it is clear her dean is afraid of a teacher who dares to tell students the truth about the influence of appearance on hiring decisions.”

Rosenlieb’s colleague, HR Consultant Marinor Ifurung, added, “Hiring decisions should be based on ability to fulfill the job requirements and may require a pre-employment physical to establish you can meet the job’s physical demands. If you are not able to successfully pass the physical, the offer of employment may be rescinded. Jennifer is right – if you are unable to meet the requirements of the job due to being over-weight, you may lose out on a job offer.”

What Research Tells Us about the Impact of Obesity in the Workplace

Two years ago, management professor Michael Johnson of Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, published a comprehensive, peer-reviewed study of the effects of obesity in the workplace that was motivated years earlier by “seeing photos of myself at my brother’s wedding. I was 5’8″ and weighed 220.

“Realizing this was not only bad for my health, but socially and in terms of employability, I took off 70 pounds and have kept them off. It was my fault, as I had been eating the wrong things. I was one of two-thirds of the U.S. population struggling with weight.”

Here are some of his findings:

1 – Employers ask, “If I hire this obese person, what impact will it have on my bottom line?” Positions such as face-to-face customer service, or jobs where the obese person has direct contact with the public – customers do not like being waited on by them.

Research over the past several years shows that the general public is not tolerant of obese and morbidly obese people they encounter in the general economy, leading to a loss of income for employers. Additionally, co-workers report not wanting to work with obese colleagues.

2 – The effect on their long-term career is dramatic. Sales managers assign worse territories even when the obese person is more qualified by training and experience. They do not receive the same level of job training that people of normal weight do.

3 – Punishment for workplace infractions is worse for obese employees. They are subject to heightened punishment where a person of normal weight may have received no reprimand at all.

4 – Obese women receive worse treatment of any ethnic or racial group.

5 – Many people in the capacity of making hiring decision are unaware they have these biases and anti-fat attitudes.

So What Can be done about it?

Professor Johnson’s research found:

(1) Companies need to realize that there is no objective link between obesity and the common stereo types associated with it, such as: Laziness, being socially inept, incompetent, and lacking in self-control.

(2) Obese individuals must accept that these stereotypes and biases exist and have real world consequences. If you are obese, you are not going to change the world, but you can change your lifestyle and address the health, work and social issues that your obesity is causing.

(3) Being well groomed and prepared for a job interview will enhance an obese person’s chance of being hired. A positive attitude and proof that you have researched the employer goes a long way with an interviewer. Show enthusiasm!

Johnson concluded our interview with an observation that applies to all job applicants:

“No one owes you a job – you need to sell yourself.”

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post The real skinny on obesity in the workplace appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

“I am a recent college graduate with a degree in business administration and applied for a sales job at a black-owned insurance agency.

“Within seconds of meeting the owner for an interview, he said, ‘You will do well anywhere except here! Even though we are both black, you sound like a white TV anchor! Our clients come from the black part of town, and hiring you would cost me business. Some time ago, when I hired a black gal who sounded white, the other employees gave her the cold shoulder and my agency lost business. It’s unfair, but reality.’

“Mr. Beaver, I came from a family of teachers who respected the English language. They spoke Standard American English and over the phone you would never know their race.

“At my mostly black university, it was crazy – because I both spoke and wrote grammatically correct English, most black students shunned me, but I was welcome among the white and Hispanic kids. In fact, in my entire life, I only felt racism and bias from blacks, not from any other race! I have been accused of being a traitor to the black race!

“But what about this insurance company? This is discrimination, isn’t it? Friends have suggested filing a complaint with the EEOC. What do you recommend? Thanks, “Teddy.”

Can an Employer Base a Hiring Decision on Accent or Language Fluency?

I ran Teddy’s extremely interesting situation by attorney Ernest Haffer with the Office of Legal Counsel at the EEOC, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Washington, D.C.

“Can an employer base a hiring decision on poor language skills or accent?” I asked.

“You need to examine what language skills are needed for the job,” he replied. “A telephone receptionist would need much better abilities than a custodian, for example.

“When it comes to accents–typically foreign accents–the issue boils down to this question: Does the accent interfere with the applicant’s ability to communicate on the job? Does the person’s accent materially interfere with job duties?

“Teddy’s situation has one more significant element: Race. He is black and was facing racial discrimination by a black employer. It is illegal to base a hiring decision on the applicant having a black accent, or sounding white. Would it materially interfere with his job duties? We might find the employer’s assumption that it would to be illegal and file an action against him.

“Also, customer preference can’t be the basis for discrimination, or attitude of co-workers, even if the employer has been in a similar situation before. If Teddy were hired and did not perform–loses sales–and the criteria for who to keep and who to let go is applied neutrally–he could be let go, but not because of the way he sounded,” Haffer concluded.

To Business This is a Lose–Lose Situation

I spoke with a number of HR people in the worlds of insurance and media advertising for their opinion. All were sympathetic to Teddy, but felt, as did “Pete,” an advertising manager for a Northern California media group, who stressed common sense business realities.

“We buy from the people we like, trust and admire. If a job is primarily, or initially “over the phone, “your voice is a great tool. However, if you sound markedly different from the typical client, this could represent a difficult challenge.

“So, to a local insurance broker who works with predominantly black customers, it would be well within the realm of common sense to want to hire people who have a higher likelihood of identifying on a personal level with his prospective clientele.

“This is a lose-lose situation. If he hires Teddy, from experience he knows that his sales will not be as good as someone else who “sounds black.” End result: the owner loses money. If he doesn’t hire him for “not sounding black enough,” he will probably lose a lawsuit and lose money. Even if the employer wins, he has to pay legal fees. And voila, welcome to the paradigm of modern day American business where common sense has little place.”

What do Employment Lawyers Say?

I ran this by several employment lawyers and received varying recommendations for Teddy. Could be file a claim with EEOC? Yes, he could, or, if he were in California, with the Department of Fair Housing and Employment.

“But should he, that is the question,” Southern California attorney “Trisha” told me, asking that her name not be revealed. At his young age, this is not the time to establish a presence online as someone who sues an employer. If advised by an attorney to file a complaint, he must ask himself this question; “Who has more to benefit – me or the attorney who takes the case?”

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post You sound white – I can’t hire you appeared first on Dennis Beaver.