Muslim workers face increasing employment discrimination
A recent New York Times article examined employment discrimination against Muslims in the United States in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the controversy surrounding the proposed construction of a mosque near Ground Zero.
More than 800 Muslims reportedly filed discrimination claims through Sept. 30 of last year. That total was up 20 percent from the year before and up 60 percent from 2005. Figures from the past year aren’t available yet, but Islamic groups told the paper there has been a recent surge in complaints and that they anticipate the total for 2010 will set a new record.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has reportedly filed a number of prominent lawsuits on behalf of Muslim workers. Many of the claims involve the use of ethnic slurs, hate language and bans on head scarves and prayer breaks. Workers have received settlements in a number of high-profile cases.
The recent debate surrounding the site of a proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan (including the blatant propagandizing of the issue by some politicians), and corresponding anniversary of September 11, will no doubt contribute to an increase in discrimination claims. In fact, with mid-terms and a gubernatorial election season upon us it is likely that the demonization of Muslims by some sects of society will only increase over the next several months. Consequently, it would be very reasonable to assume that there will be a corresponding uptick in claims of discrimination.
Employees should be aware that they are protected by laws governing discrimination and hostility in the workplace. Further, not all discrimination takes place in the open halls of the workplace, and many times employees fall victim to subtle comments or actions by an employer in an isolated setting. Employees who feel that they have been subjected to discrimination should contact an attorney.
From an employer perspective the issue should be clear: treat all employees fairly and equally. New York remains an ‘at-will’ employment state, and employers can and should be able to terminate ‘at-will.’ Taking steps to ensure that any such action does not occur under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, however, will prove the much wiser strategy in the long run.
Scott M. Peterson focuses his practice on litigation, including civil, commercial, First Amendment, liability, medical malpractice, personal injuryand wrongful death areas for Tully Rinckey PLLC. He previously spent more than five years in a busy law practice at another Capital District firm, where he gained extensive experience in all aspects of litigation. He has litigated matters in a wide range of settings, including complex construction litigation, defamation, multiple party malpractice and large-scale municipal matters.
Scott received his Juris Doctor from Albany Law School, where he served as a Managing Editor of the Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology. He was also active in government affairs and negotiation and mock trial events. He received his undergraduate degree in Political Science from Potsdam College.
Scott is very active in his community and with local Bar Associations, and serves on the Board of Directors of the Saratoga Affordable Housing Group. He devotes significant time to encouraging young adults to become active and engaged in the law, politics and society, and frequently serves as a judge/advisor in various mock trials and constitution competitions. He has also lectured to various groups about the law and their constitutional rights.
Do you believe porn is going on in the workplace?
Originally published 04:45 a.m., October 18, 2009, updated 12:55 p.m., October 18, 2009
Workplace Porn Wastes Time, Cash
Cheryl Wetzstein
First of two parts
On Sept. 29, my Washington Times colleague Jim McElhatton led the paper with a story about National Science Foundation (NSF) employees accessing pornography at their work computers.
The porn problem was pervasive enough to trigger a massive internal investigation. One senior NSF executive, for instance, had “spent at least 331 days looking at pornography on his government computer and chatting online with nude or partially clad women, without being detected,” Mr. McElhatton reported, based on records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
The NSF executive retired once his pornography use was exposed, but investigators estimated that he alone wasted between $13,800 and $58,000 of taxpayer monies.
No one should imagine that the NSF scandal is isolated or rare. Workplace pornography is a major problem, according to the American Management Association (AMA).
Employers are fighting back with anti-porn filters on computers; as of 2007, about two-thirds of U.S. companies used such software, the AMA said. But there are still ways to evade the filters, and inexplicably, many employees seem determined to access porn at work, even if it costs them their jobs.
Listen to these comments, gathered by Idaho Post-Register reporter Corey Taule in an award-winning 2007 article on pornography.
Mark J. Holubar, a human resources executive, told Mr. Taule that his company is clear about its no-porn-at-work policy, but he still had an employee confess to him: “Yeah, I know I did it. I know it was wrong. I don’t know why, I was just doing it.”
And Gordon Boyle, a pastor at Calvary Chapel Church in Idaho Falls, Idaho, who counsels men for sex addiction, said it was “so bizarre” that employees would look at porn even when they knew they were being monitored. “I don’t think we understand the grip or the pull [of pornography],” Mr. Boyle told Mr. Taule.
That, I think, is the big question: What makes presumably well-educated, well-paid professionals risk everything they worked for just for another look?
The answer is simple — sex addiction, says Michael Leahy, author of the new book “Porn @ Work: Exposing The Office’s #1 Addiction.”
Mr. Leahy, a recovering sex addict, believes he was one of the first people to get involved with workplace porn. As an IBM computer specialist in the early 1980s, he and colleagues used porn at work years before online pornography and personal computers entered American homes. Later, as an executive with a private office and top-of-the-line computers, Mr. Leahy found even more ways to spend hours engrossed in porn.
“I was that person who is every line manager’s and HR professional’s worst nightmare — the sex addict at work who flew under the radar for years and never got caught,” Mr. Leahy wrote.
How does porn interfere with work? Initially, it just consumes countless hours (viewing images, concealing images, plus regular trips to private places to masturbate).
As the compulsive behaviors grow, porn-related rituals detract from work performance, Mr. Leahy wrote. A person preoccupied with porn, for instance, will miss meetings, fail to make calls or leave projects unfinished. They may seem to undergo a personality change, becoming easily irritated, unreasonably defensive or socially withdrawn.
It’s not uncommon for sex addicts to lose their spouses or their jobs, Mr. Leahy wrote. They also are prone to acting out sexually, exposing themselves to sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy, or legal problems “ranging from nuisance offenses to rape,” Mr. Leahy wrote. Business managers, he added, are particularly alarmed by sexual harassment or hostile workplace lawsuits filed over employees’ bad behavior.
Mr. Leahy has some solutions to offer, but first he wants to sound the alarm about college students.
Their college experiences are in a pornography-friendly subculture, he told me. “But the key is, when they have to stop — when they are made to stop — what will they do?”
Next week: Collision course.
• Send e-mail to cwetzstein@washingtontimes.com.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/18/wetzstein-workplace-porn-wastes-time-cash/?feat=home_columns&
Answer
Is this a serious question, or are you an outlet for the washington times?
Taking it as a question, yes. Pron is pervasive and for some reason, women especially, pron is a narrow minded viewpoint of looking at scantiness on a media (screen, paper, magazine) rather than it being a pervasive fact of life. So the front cover of Nuts magazine could be described as pronographic. So could most women in female orientated workplaces. But no, only Nuts gets the shotgun of objectivism.
The situation is wider than most women and the article suggests.
Bob
