Dollar Tree Subsidiary Hit With ADA Suit by EEOC Over Not Hiring or Deaf Applicant at Warehouse

Another employer has allegedly come up short in obeying the law when it comes to hiring a deaf applicant.

Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., violated federal law when it failed to accommodate or hire a deaf applicant for an entry level warehouse job at its Ridgefield, Washington facility, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged in a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

According to the EEOC, a Dollar Tree Distribution supervisor deliberately conducted the interview in a manner in which the applicant could not fully understand the supervisor, even though the applicant had clearly identified himself as deaf and wore visible hearing aids. The supervisor also failed to respond to questions from the applicant about potential accommodations that would enable him to do the work if  hired.  The company later notified the applicant that he had not been hired, even though records show that in the same month it hired many other applicants without hearing impairments.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it is illegal to ignore a deaf applicant’s request for an accommodation and to refuse to hire an applicant because of his disability.  After first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation, the EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., Civil No. 3:20-cv-05959) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the deaf applicant, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of notices at the work site, and other injunctive relief.

“The ADA is a promise that applicants with disabilities will be given the full opportunity to prove their capabilities and contribute to this nation,” said Nancy Sienko, director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office.  “To disregard an applicant’s request for an accommodation during the interview sabotages that person’s opportunity to compete on a level playing field.”

“Congress enacted the ADA to remove barriers that keep qualified people with physical or mental disabilities out of the work force,” said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney John Stanley.  “We hope this lawsuit will highlight the importance of ensuring that all staff involved in recruiting and hiring understand how to respond to a disability accommodation request.”

Dollar Tree Distribution is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dollar Tree, Inc., a nationwide retailer headquartered in Virginia with 15,237 store locations throughout the United States and Canada.  Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc. employed approximately 600 employees at twelve distribution centers in the U.S. in 2019.

Failing the Test: EEOC Sues Staffing Firm For Denying Option on Drug Screen to a Worker

Again, an employer’s alleged inflexibility has it in trouble under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Swift Technical Services, LLC, doing business as Airswift, a Houston-based staffing firm focused on the oil and gas industry, violated federal law when it refused to accommodate an employee with a disability who worked in a liquid natural gas facility in Gregory, Texas, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed last Wednesday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, at the start of his employment, the building superintendent told his employer that he had thyroid and prostate cancer in remission and that the prescription medica­tion he was taking could cause false positives for illegal substances on a drug test. He explained that he takes prescription medication to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease, which was a side effect of his cancer treatment. The EEOC’s lawsuit asserts that when the building superintendent later failed a urinalysis drug test, he requested the reasonable accommodation of a retest using either a blood or hair sample. Rather than allow this accommodation in testing, however, Airswift fired him.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on an individual’s disability or need for reasonable accommodation and requires them to make such accommodations absent an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-231 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. In this case, the EEOC seeks back pay, com­pensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including an order barring Airswift from engag­ing in discriminatory treatment in the future.

“An alternate form of testing, such as hair follicle or blood testing, would have given this building superintendent all he wanted — the opportunity to continue doing his job,” said Eduardo Juarez, a supervisory trial attorney in the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office.  “Barring an undue hardship, employers are required by the ADA to reasonably adjust their policies to accommodate individuals with disabilities.”

Philip Moss, a trial attorney in the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office, added, “Employers who disregard their employees’ rights to be free from workplace discrimination based on disability will be held to account by the EEOC

Bad Quest: Diagnostic Co. Illegally Cancelled Phlebotomist’s Sabbath Time Off, EEOC Says

Why would 10 years of accommodating an employee’s religion be acceptable–but not an 11th?

Quest Diagnostics, a provider of medical diagnostic information services that aid in the diagnosis and detection of diseases, violated federal law when it refused to accommodate the religi­ous beliefs of a long-term employee and subsequently fired her, the U.S. Equal Employment Oppor­tunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed Thursday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the employee, a phlebotomist, is a practicing Seventh-day Adventist who began working for Quest Diagnostics in 2008. The phlebotomist’s religious beliefs prevent her from working on her Sabbath from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Quest honored her request for religious accommodation not to work on her Sabbath for the first 10 years of her employment. But in her 11th year with the company, Quest told her it would no longer accommodate her. After the revocation of her accommodation, she was forced to call “out” on each Saturday shift she was scheduled to work until she was ultimately fired by Quest

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-02939, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. In this case, the EEOC seeks back pay, com­pensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including an order barring Quest Diagnostics from engaging in discriminatory treatment in the future.

“This dedicated employee was placed in the untenable position of being forced to choose between her religious beliefs and her job after 10 years of successful performance for the company,” said Meaghan Kuelbs, a trial attorney in the EEOC’s Dallas District Office. “The EEOC is fully com­mitted to enforcing laws that protect employees in the workplace from discrimination on the basis of religion.”

Suzanne Anderson, acting regional attorney for the Dallas District Office added, “This phlebot­omist’s reasonable accommodation request was granted for 10 years with no apparent problems. We do not believe Quest Diagnostics can show that continuing this situation would have suddenly created an undue hardship on its business.”

EEOC Says Subway Store in Indiana Violated ADA in Not hiring Hearing-Impaired Applicant

Having a hearing impairment does not mean being unqualified for hiring.

A southern Indiana fast-food sandwich shop violated federal law by rejecting a hard-of-hearing applicant because of his hearing and resultant speech impairments according to a lawsuit filed on September 23, 2020 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Wednesday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Ranrae, Inc., which owns and operates Subway Store #1005 in Bloomington, Ind., refused to hire a qualified hearing- and speech-impaired applicant for an open sandwich artist position because of his disability, citing “a communication concern” due to the applicant’s “hearing” and “speaking.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on disability. The EEOC asserts that the company’s actions were intentional and demon­strated a reckless indifference to the applicant’s federally protected rights.

The EEOC filed suit (Case No.1:20-cv-02450-JRS-DML in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the agency’s concili­ation process. The agency is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief from Subway, including a permanent injunction to prevent the company from engaging in future disability discrim­ination in hiring.

“The EEOC will remain vigilant in ensuring that qualified, disabled applicants are protected by the ADA, which is designed to eradicate barriers to employment,” said Kenneth L. Bird, Indianapolis District Office Regional Attorney.

The Indianapolis District Office of the EEOC oversees Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, and parts of Ohio.

$30K Settlement Ends EEOC Suit Against Grocer Over Treatment of Pregnant Clerk at Calif. Store

Here’s another instance where remedial education on the rights of pregnant women is necessary.

Ralphs Grocery Company, a national chain of retail grocery stores, has agreed to pay $30,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Oppor­tunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Wednesday.

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged Ralphs with subjecting a female courtesy clerk to discrimination based on pregnancy while she was employed at a store in the Point Loma area of San Diego. The EEOC said the store denied the employee’s request for a schedule change as an accommodation for her preg­nancy. As a result of the ongoing discrimination, the female clerk was forced to quit, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which prohibit discrim­ination on the basis of pregnancy. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No.: 3:20-cv-01802-WQH-MDD) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary relief, the two-year consent to settlement, which remains under the court’s jurisdiction during the term of the agreement, includes injunctive relief aimed at preventing further workplace pregnancy discrimination. Ralphs has agreed to review and revise its policies and procedures on discrim­ination and provide training to employees and managers on federal anti-discrim­ination laws, with an emphasis on pregnancy dis­crimination and handling employees’ accom­modation requests for pregnancy-related medical conditions. Finally, Ralphs will maintain all necessary records to demonstrate its compliance with this settlement.          

“The EEOC applauds Ralphs for agreeing to meaningful measures to protect pregnant employees in the workplace,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, whose juris­diction includes San Diego County. “Front line managers and supervisors must be educated on their obligation to properly handle accommodation requests for pregnancy-related medical conditions.”

Patricia Kane, acting director of the EEOC’s San Diego’s local office, said, “With the proper policies and procedures in place, employers can reasonably accommodate a pregnant employee. Employers should take stock and review their policies and practices to ensure they are compliant with federal law.”           

Bad Service: NYC Restaurant Fired Pregnant Worker as Not “Good Fit,” the EEOC Alleges

As we mourn the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, her life’s goal of fair treatment for women in the workplace still has a ways to go.

A restaurant group that includes Lucy’s Cantina Royale, a Mexican restaurant operating in Manhattan, unlawfully fired an employee because she was pregnant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Monday.

That restaurant group includes the managing companies Host Restaurants and Imian Partners; the Manhattan restaurants Bill’s Townhouse, Campagnola, Galli, Local NYC, Lucy’s Cantina Royale, and Printer’s Alley; and several unnamed restaurants in development.

The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that after becoming aware of a server’s pregnancy, Lucy’s Cantina Royale and Host Restaurants fired her. The server had had two pregnancy-related medical issues at work and then requested a day off for a medical appointment when they suddenly terminated her. They re­fused to tell her the reason for her discharge, the EEOC said, other than that she was no longer “a good fit.”

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. The alleged conduct by the restaurant group violates this federal law. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (U.S. EEOC v. Red One Plaza, LLC d/b/a Lucy’s Cantina Royale, et al.,Civil Action No. 20-cv-7766), after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settle­ment through its conciliation process.

The EEOC seeks injunctive relief requiring the restaurant group to revise its anti-discrimination policies to include Title VII’s protections against sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and childbirth. The EEOC also wants the restaurant group to train employees on those protections. The EEOC seeks lost wages and compensatory and punitive damages for the server as well. The agency’s litigation effort will be led by Trial Attorney Liane T. Rice, supervised by Supervisory Trial Attorney Raechel Adams.

“Labelling an employee as ‘not a good fit’ is an all-too-frequent pretext for discrimination based on protected characteristics, including pregnancy,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Jeffrey Burstein.

The EEOC’s New York District director, Judy Keenan, added, “Firing an employee because she is pregnant is plainly illegal, and can have profound emotional and financial effects, as occurred here, including the anxiety of providing for a growing family and finding new employment while pregnant.”

The EEOC’s New York District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in New York, northern New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.

EEOC: Firing of Promoted Sales Rep Who Refused Training on Sabbath Violated Law

If true, this is about as cut-and-dry a case of religious discrimination as you can imagine.

Frito-Lay, Inc., a Plano, Texas-based subsidiary of PepsiCo that manufactures and distributes snack foods, violated federal law when it fired a newly promoted route sales representative because he could not train for the position on Saturdays due to his religious beliefs, the U.S. Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed last Thursday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a West Palm Beach Frito-Lay warehouse employee applied for and received a promotion to route sales representative. The employee completed approximately five weeks of training without having to train on Saturdays. However, despite learning he could not work on Saturdays be­cause of his Seventh-day Adventist religious beliefs, Frito-Lay sched­uled him to train on Saturdays and terminated him after he failed to report to training on two consecutive Saturdays.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless it would pose an undue hardship. The EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division (EEOC v. Frito-Lay, Inc., Civil Action No. 9:20-cv-81689), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

“An employer is obligated to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs, for example, by providing a schedule change, when it would cause no undue hardship,” said EEOC regional attorney Robert Weisberg. “For an employer to only schedule the worker to work on Saturdays when it knows he cannot due to his religious beliefs violates fed­eral law.”

Bradley A. Anderson, acting district director for the Miami District Office, added, “Religious freedom is at the very heart of this country, and it’s vital to protect that right in the workplace. This lawsuit demonstrates that EEOC stands ready to protect employees against discrim­ination based on their religion.”

Emblematic of Trouble: EEOC Sues Store For Not Accommodating Religious Objectors to Uniform

Uniformity is fine in a dress code–up till the point it becomes religious discrimination.

The Kroger Company, doing business as Kroger Store No. 625 in Conway, Ark., violated federal law when it fired two employees who asked for a religious accommodation to avoid wearing an emblem they believed contradicted their religious beliefs, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed September 14.         

According to the EEOC’s suit, the Conway Kroger implemented a new dress code, which included an apron depicting a rainbow-colored heart emblem on the bib of the apron. The women believed the emblem endorsed LGBTQ values and that wearing it would violate their religious beliefs. According to the EEOC, one woman offered to wear the apron with the emblem covered and the other offered to wear a different apron without the emblem, but the company made no attempt to accommodate their requests. When the women still refused to wear the apron with the emblem visible, the EEOC charged, Kroger retaliated against them by disciplining and ultimately discharging them.           

Such alleged conduct violates the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-01099, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit seeks monetary relief in the form of back pay and compensatory damages, as well as an injunction against future discrimination.                       

“Companies have an obligation under Title VII to consider requests for religious accommodations, and it is illegal to terminate employees for requesting an accommodation for their religious beliefs,” said Delner-Franklin Thomas, district director of the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee and portions of Mississippi. “The EEOC protects the rights of the LGBTQ community, but it also protects the rights of religious people.”                       

The Kroger Company is the largest supermarket by revenue in the United States and the second-largest general retailer.

EEOC: Call Center Wrote Off Employee for Promotion to Due to His Visual Impairment

Because this employer had blinders on, a visually impairment employee was denied a fair chance for a promotion, the feds alleged.

National hotel giant Red Roof Inns, Inc. violated federal law when it refused to promote an employee because of his visual impairment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed last Monday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, an employee of the Red Roof Inns’ Corporate Call Center in Springfield, Ohio expressed interest in a promotion to a newly available position there. Red Roof Inns refused to accommodate the emp­loyee in his attempt to learn more about and compete for the pro­mo­tion, stating it would be a waste of his time to apply for the position because his visual impairment could not be accommodated.

Rejecting a qualified employee because of a disability, or failing to consider accommodations for employees with disabilities, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC asserts that the company’s actions were intentional and demonstrated a reckless indifference to the qualified emp­loyee’s federally protected rights.          

The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 3:20-cv-00381 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its administrative conciliation process. The agency is seeking back pay and com­pensatory and punitive damages against Red Roof Inns as well as a permanent injunction to prevent the company from engaging in future discrimination against its visually impaired employees.

“Denying a promotional opportunity to a qualified visually impaired employee solely because of his disability is illegal, and it should be,” said Michelle Eisele, district director for the EEOC’s Indiana­polis District Office.

Kenneth L. Bird, regional attorney of the Indianapolis District Office, said, “Protecting the employee’s right to receive a reasonable accommodation to apply for a promotion is central to the EEOC’s mission.”

The Indianapolis District Office of the EEOC oversees Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, and parts of Ohio.

Creating an Inclusive Workplace

When employees feel included, everyone benefits, says regular guest blogger Robin Paggi. Robin is the training coordinator at Worklogic HR. She is the author of a forthcoming Gen Z – Managing the Newest Generation in the Workforce scheduled for publication and sale on April 6, 2021.

Creating an Inclusive Workplace

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. Throughout the years, people have debated whether the founding fathers really meant “all people” and not just “all men” when they declared their independence from England. Regardless of their intent, what has been evident for most of our country’s history is that anyone who is not a white, Christian, able-bodied, heterosexual male has not been treated equally nor afforded the same rights as them, including in employment.

Although our country officially began in 1776, it wasn’t until almost 200 years later that federal laws began to be enacted to level the playing field in the workplace. A sampling of these laws include:

Equal Pay Act (1963) – prohibits sex-based wage discrimination between men and women in the same establishment who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) – prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978) – prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) – prohibits discrimination based on disabilities.

U.S. Supreme Court adds Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to Title VII’s list of protected classes (2020).

These laws prohibit discrimination, but they don’t necessarily prevent it from happening. Take a look at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website at https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/search for lists of lawsuits filed by the government against employers this year to get an idea of the discrimination that continues to take place in employment.

Discrimination is a way of excluding people from the workplace. However, allowing people to work doesn’t necessarily mean they feel included.

Have you ever felt excluded? I have. I was at a fundraiser, sitting at a table, and talking with two friends. Someone they know came up to the table, sat down, and proceeded to talk to my friends without acknowledging or making eye contact with me. My friends uncharacteristically did not introduce me to their acquaintance, and the three of them chatted away while I just sat there, feeling invisible. I left after a few minutes because the feeling of being excluded was so unsettling.

I’m not alone in this feeling. Research has demonstrated that being left out like that has the same effect on our brains as being punched in the gut – it psychologically hurts. If that situation regularly happened to me at work, I would eventually leave the organization because of it.

In her article “What to Do When You Feel Left Out at Work,” Katie Heaney said, “workplace exclusion isn’t just about hurt feelings — it’s often also an indicator of an office’s equity” and included this quote by Jessica Methot, an associate professor of human resource management at Rutgers University: “We know that people typically get promoted through referrals and their informal friendship networks, so it’s not only about the emotional feeling of being excluded or alienated, even though that’s a really big issue.”

Because of the previously mentioned employment laws, most everyone gets to have a seat at the worktable. Unfortunately, diversity does not equal inclusion (cultural change catalyst Verna Myers explained, “Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance”). Therefore, people who are not in the majority group (white, Christian, able-bodied, heterosexual, male) are frequently left out of the conversation leaving them feeling invisible and alone. Here are some examples:

Forty-eight percent of women surveyed felt excluded from the decision-making process at work, even when the decisions affected their job. Source: “Almost Half Of Women Don’t Feel Included In The Decision-Making Process At Work,” https://www.bustle.com/p/women-dont-feel-included-at-work- survey-finds-especially-in-these-areas-52931

Black and brown workers were more likely than whites to say they felt alienated and emotionally distant from their co-workers. Source: “Loneliness and the Workplace 2020 U.S. Report,”
https://www.cigna.com/static/www-cigna-com/docs/about-us/newsroom/studies-and- reports/combatting-loneliness/cigna-2020-loneliness-report.pdf

Many people of non-Christian religions don’t feel comfortable bringing their whole selves to work. Source: “3 ways to build a religiously inclusive work culture,” https://hrexecutive.com/3-ways-to-build- a-religiously-inclusive-work-culture/

Employees with disabilities tend to be less satisfied with their organization and its workplace climate and perceive fewer opportunities for advancement than their non-disabled colleagues. Source: “Inclusion of People with Disabilities in the Workplace,” https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=student

Seventy-five percent of LGBTQ employees reported having negative day-to-day interactions related to their sexual identity with co-workers last year. Source: “A New LGBTQ Workforce Has Arrived – Inclusive Cultures Must Follow,” https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/inclusive-cultures-must- follow-new-lgbtq-workforce

In an inclusive workplace, all employees feel welcomed, valued, integrated, and part of the team instead of feeling invisible and alone. Not surprisingly, it takes deliberate action to create this kind of environment. In her article “6 Steps for Building an Inclusive Workplace,” Kathy Gurchiek said these actions include:

1. Educating leaders about what inclusiveness is and why it’s important. Because daily interactions are the most telling sign of whether a company is inclusive or not, everyone (or at least employees in a supervisory position) should receive training on how to be inclusive (for example, introducing yourself and making eye contact with everyone in a group when you’re talking).
   While I’m not a fan of making people attend training they don’t want to attend, if it’s not mandatory, the people who really need it won’t show up. Also, people usually don’t change their behavior unless there are consequences for not doing so. So, supervisors especially need to be held accountable for demonstrating inclusive behavior.
2. Forming an Inclusion Council. You’re probably thinking, “oh great, another committee.” Here’s the reason for this suggestion: you’ve got to have a dedicated group of people who really want an inclusive workplace to make it happen. The council should be as diverse as possible, with members not only representing different ethnicities, genders, etc. but also different levels, departments, and locations of the organization. The primary responsibility of the council is to review organizational feedback, troubleshoot challenges, and relay information to the organization’s leaders.
3. Celebrating differences. “One of the most important ways to show employees that you respect their backgrounds and traditions is to invite them to share those in the workplace,” said Gurchiek. The sharing can be done through things like food, clothing, and holiday traditions.
4. Listening to employees. Employee surveys and focus groups are great ways to discover how employees feel about issues like inclusiveness. While listening, it’s important not to get defensive. After listening, it’s important to do something with the information you’ve obtained.
5. Holding more-effective meetings. There are a variety of ways to make meetings more inclusive, such as:

• distributing meeting material in advance so employees for whom English is a second language and introverted employees who like to process information before responding may be better prepared,
• ensuring employees working from home have the technology they need to participate,
• rotating meeting times to accommodate different time zones or shifts,
• ensuring meeting dates don’t conflict with religious holidays,
• ensuring employees are courteous to each other and don’t interrupt, have side conversations, or make rude remarks, and
• banning technology so employees aren’t distracted.

6. Communicating goals and measuring progress. Just like any other strategic initiative, it’s important to gather data about your company’s current level of inclusiveness, identify shortcomings, create quantifiable goals, and communicate progress on a regular basis.

Is all this work worth it? Research conducted by Deloitte Consulting that involved 245 global organizations and more than 70 client interviews revealed that organizations with inclusive cultures are twice as likely to meet or exceed financial targets and six times more likely to anticipate change and respond effectively.

Why do inclusive organizations get these kinds of results? It’s simple – when people feel included, they perform better. As Alexis Herman, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, said, “Inclusion and fairness in the workplace…is not simply the right thing to do; it’s the smart thing to do.”