Diversity

Please join us on February 29 for our 20th annual Cocktails and Conversations program, presented by the Women’s Network of Miles & Stockbridge and featuring Brooke Lierman — the 34th Comptroller of the state of Maryland and the first woman to be independently elected to one of our state’s constitutional offices. We’ll kick off Women’s History Month a day early — on Leap Day 2024 — with a fabulous group of women celebrating women. And, we’ll take this “extra” day of the year to focus on making new connections, sharing ideas and focusing on the WHM theme of “Women Who Advocate for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.” We look forward to networking with everyone while enjoying hors d’oeuvres and cocktails overlooking Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, capped off with a dynamic talk from our speaker. Register online at  

There is no “I” in team. It is a phrase often cited and not attributed to anyone. So, I am going out on a limb to say there is an “I” in team and it is the most critical aspect of a high-performing team. No, this is not a reference to Michael Jordan’s quote of “there is an “i” in win.” Common knowledge is that a team of self-focused “I” performers does not make for a high-performing team, because they never become a team. What do I mean that “I” is the most critical aspect?

By: Robert G. Brody   When considering religious accommodation, employers have enjoyed great latitude with accepting or rejecting requested religious accommodations. This was thanks in large part to the Supreme Court’s 1977 ruling in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, which held an employer need only show it would bear more than a “de minimis” cost/effort to demonstrate that a religious accommodation is an undue hardship under the law. However, in the recent Supreme Court term, the US Supreme Court upended the “de minimis” cost standard. In Groff v. Dejoy, the justices unanimously ruled that Title VII requires the employer to show they would bear a “substantial increase” in cost/effort to demonstrate that religious accommodation is an undue hardship.   The Case Gross v. Dejoy involved a dispute between the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) and former employee Gerald Groff. Groff, an evangelical Christian who observes Sunday as a day of rest, requested an accommodation to not work on Sundays. In response, the USPS granted the accommodation to the extent they could redistribute Groff’s Sunday shifts. However, on the days where the USPS could not redistribute Groff’s shifts, Groff was required to work. Groff refused to work on any Sunday and was subject to progressive discipline for failing to work until he ultimately resigned rather than be fired. Groff sued under Title VII but lost his case in the district court and the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Both courts applied Trans World Airlines to the case and found that USPS established it would bear “more than a de minimis” cost in granting Groff’s accommodation request.   The Plot Twist In a shockingly-not-shocking ruling, the Supreme Court upended the Trans World Airlines ruling, opting to substitute a “substantial” cost/effort standard for the “de minimis” cost/effort standard. The “substantial” cost/effort standard is a fact-specific inquiry. The Court provided some factors to analyze, including the accommodation being requested and the accommodation’s real-world impact on the Employer considering the nature, size, and operating costs of an employer. In contrast to the previous standard, some additional costs/efforts may be insufficient to rise to the level of an undue burden. Instead, the burden must rise to an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” level.   The Impact In light of this ruling, employers must revisit their religious accommodation policies. Employers should update their handbooks, communicate the heightened standard to Human Resources, and develop a strategy for analyzing the “cost” or “effort” imposed by future religious accommodation requests. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560    

By Robert J. Brody and Luis A. Torres   California passed two laws that require diversity for certain corporate boards.  The first required diversity based on gender and the second for “underrepresented communities.”  The  effective date and required amount of representation varies based on board size.  In two separate actions, each law was found unconstitutional. The underlying challenge is these laws violate the equal protection laws since each law is declaring different treatment of equal people based on sex or other protected characteristics such as national origin or ancestry.  For these laws to pass muster, they must be found to correct unlawful conduct, not merely a societal history of unfair under representation. This issue is far from over.  California’s Secretary of State has already announced these cases will be appealed.  Regardless of what happens in California, other states are likely to follow suit.  Of course, if the laws are ultimately upheld, the number of states to follow suit will likely increase dramatically.  Time will tell. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560

Embracing DEI as Part of Your Recruitment/Retention Strategy More employers have come to embrace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as a way to improve workplace culture and demonstrate they value their employees as people, not just workers. Harvard Business Review found that 65% of U.S. executives say DEI is a high strategic priority, and organizations on the leading edge report multiple organizational benefits related to their DEI work, including increased employee engagement, innovation and success in recruiting and retaining employees.3 Additional studies suggest that taking the right actions to improve DEI can also lead to better financial outcomes for the organization.

Popular

What's Trending

On September 18, 2024, a panel of three Third US Circuit Court of Appeals judges heard oral argument from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Starbucks on the matter of consequential damages. At stake is the NLRB’s power to award damages for direct and foreseeable pecuniary harms that go beyond lost pay and benefits. The award of such things as credit card late payment costs and uninsured medical costs, fees for not timely paying other expenses, etc. are at issue. If such awards are within the NLRB’s authority, the damage awards in NLRB wrongful discharge cases could dramatically rise. Here is how we got to this point. In 2023, the NLRB ordered Starbucks to pay consequential damages in a case of the wrongful termination of two pro-union employees. Damages included “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms incurred as a result of [the employees’ wrongful discharges.]” This case is one of many cases Starbucks faces alleging wrongful discharge of union supporters. If it losses, the monetary cost could be significant. By filing this appeal, Starbucks’s joins companies such as Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s in challenging the NLRB’s constitutional authority to exert such enforcement powers. Traditionally, the Board would order reinstatement, backpay and lost benefits in a case of wrongful termination, however this was expanded in 2022. A Board decision in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2021), held employees who are wrongfully terminated should also receive compensation for other pecuniary losses stemming from the termination. Examples include credit card cost, out of pocket medical expenses, mortgages related fees, etc. Such damages can quickly add up. In this latest Starbucks case, the Third Circuit considered Thryv  but also the US Supreme Court’s June ruling in Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and its applicability to the NLRB. In Jarkesy, the Supreme Court found it was unconstitutional for the SEC to impose civil penalties in administrative cases. Such awards need to be awarded in a court. The Third Circuit must decide whether the expanded remedies sought by the NLRB would be considered “legal remedies” typically imposed by the courts as in Jarkesy or “equitable remedies” typically imposed by administrative agencies. Such administrative remedies are intended to benefit the worker rather than unfairly punish employers. The NLRB argued they have the authority to impose the remedies regardless of their status as legal or equitable. Not surprisingly, Starbucks argued allowing the NLRB to issue damages beyond backpay would violate their constitutional right to a jury trial and therefore was unconstitutional. The outcome is pending and regardless, it may well be appealed to the Supreme Court where the authority of various agencies is being curtailed. We will keep you informed. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560  

Passed in June 2024 and signed into law by New York Governor Kathy Hochul on September 5, the Retail Worker Safety Act is set to take effect March 4, 2025. The law mandates protections for retail employees including panic buttons, workplace violence prevention policies, and training. Who is covered? The law explains: Covered employers: any person, entity, business, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or an association employing at least ten retail employees. Retail employees: employees working at a retail store for an employer. Retail Store: a store that sells consumer commodities at retail and which is not primarily engaged in the sale of food for consumption on the premises. The state, any political subdivision of the state, a public authority, or any other government agency is not covered by the law. Key Requirements The Act’s key requirements are the installation of panic buttons, implementation of workplace violence prevention policies, and training. The panic button requirement does not take effect until January 1, 2027, while the other requirements are effective March 2025. Panic Button Employers with more than 500 retail employees nationwide must provide employees with access to panic buttons across the workplace. Employers may opt for a physical button or mobile phone-based buttons. The requirements for each are slightly different. If the employer chooses to use a physical panic button it must contact the local 911 public safety answering point when pressed. Pressing the button must provide the answering point with the employee’s location and dispatch law enforcement. The button must be accessible or wearable. The mobile phone-based approach requires the button to be installed on employer provided equipment and is wearable. The mobile button may not track employee locations unless pressed.   Workplace Violence Prevention Policy Employers must adopt a written workplace violence prevention policy to be provided to employees upon hire and annually. The NY Department of Labor (NYDOL) will draft a model plan which will be evaluated every four years from 2027 onwards. Employers may adopt the NYDOL policy or create their own equivalent policy. The policy must: List factors or situations in the workplace which may increase the employees’ risk of workplace violence. Examples given include working late at night or early morning hours; exchanging money with the public; working alone or in small numbers; and uncontrolled access to the workplace. List methods of preventing workplace violence, including but not limited to establishing and implementing a reporting system. Provide information on federal and state laws regarding violence towards retail workers and remedies available for victims of workplace violence. Explicitly state that it is unlawful to retaliate against employees who report workplace violence or factors which place employees at risk of workplace violence. Workplace Violence Prevention Training Employers must provide training upon hire and annually. The NYDOL will provide interactive training which will also be evaluated every four years starting in 2027. Again, employers may opt to use the state provided training or provide their own equivalent. The training must: Include information on the Retail Worker Safety Act; Examples of steps employees can take to protect themselves; De-escalation strategies; Active Shooter drills; Emergency procedures; Instructions on how to use security alarms, panic buttons, and any other emergency devices; and A site-specific list of emergency exits and meeting places to be used in emergencies. Takeaways New York State retail employers should look at the state provided training and policies to adopt as their own or to ensure their own materials are compliant. For employers outside of New York it is important to keep your eyes peeled for creation of similar laws in your own state. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560      

Many consultants/advisors/coaches are serving business owners who resist the notion there might be significant, unrecognized issues in their company, or who believe they needn’t be concerned about issues they don’t know about.  Call it the Ostrich-Head-In-The-Sand Syndrome. As a consequence, consultants feel powerless to get their clients to take action in their own best interest.  From an exit planning perspective, being fully prepared for a future exit is one of those critical issues business owners may be inclined to ignore until it is too late. On Thursday, December 5th, join EvaluSys CEO Tom Bixby and XPX Charlotte founder in a discussion with Larry Gard, Ph.D., XPX Chicago member, executive coach, former longtime clinical psychologist who will help attendees get inside the head of business owners to: Feel confident in your ability to reach clients who resist identifying and confronting issues in their business. Generate client curiosity in your approach and interest in your recommendations. Have a significant impact on your clients’ success in ways they hadn’t anticipated. This program is scheduled for 45 minutes, to include significant opportunity for Q&A with Dr. Gard.  Don’t miss this important program helping you grow your power to create value for your advisory clients!

If you’re looking to attract an investor or an acquirer one day, expect them to dig into your sales and marketing process. If you’re a company that sells to other businesses, an investor will want to know where you get your leads from and how much each costs you to generate. They’ll want to know what technology you use to support your sales team. They’ll want to understand how your sales reps get meetings and how many appointments a good rep has each week. They’ll want to know the close rate of a high performer and how it compares to an average performer. The investor’s questions aim to gauge the scalability of your sales model under significantly higher investment rather than to assess your past performance. Acquirers love stumbling over a business where capital is the primary constraint to growth. They fall over themselves for a company with an efficient sales engine that needs more fuel (i.e., money). Most investors have lots of capital but struggle to find businesses with a sales system that won’t collapse under the weight of more money. How Gregg Romanzo Built a Sales System In 2004, Gregg Romanzo started an old-school freight brokering business. Most freight brokers are nothing more than a handful of people arranging shipments in return for razor-thin margins, but Romanzo realized his sales model had the potential to grow into something much bigger. Romanzo’s model involved hiring high-potential people with a relatively modest base salary of between $40,000 and $60,000 per year and teaching them the business from scratch. He armed them with a computer and access to the best scheduling software and tied their variable compensation to the gross margin of the jobs they booked. Romanzo knew if he could get a rep to clear $100,000 per year in total compensation, he could keep them for the long run. Romanzo took his very best talent—the top one or two percent—and built a team around them so they could earn even more. This cohort of salespeople could clear three, four, or even five hundred thousand dollars in an exceptional year. Since Romanzo paid a relatively low base salary and his people didn’t need much equipment, he could hire many salespeople. By the time he sold his company, he had 200 employees, 190 of whom were salespeople. That’s 95% of his headcount dedicated to sales. How does that compare to your company? If you have a winning formula you think would hold up if you doubled or quadrupled your sales team, consider monetizing the sales model you’ve created. Either hire more reps or show a deep-pocketed investor or acquirer how durable your sales model is and how all you need is their capital to grow it.

Halloween isn’t just a time for ghosts and goblins; it’s also a perfect moment to explore those spine-chilling hiring stories that haunt every small business owner’s dreams. At FIREPOWER Teams, we’re all about turning fears into cheers by empowering actionable strategies and strengthening teams. Let’s face the horrors—a bad hire can lurk in the shadows, embodying the kind of nightmares that disrupt teamwork and stifle growth. But fear not! As you learn about these ghastly characters, remember that each horror story comes with a silver lining: a powerful lesson to enhance your hiring process and bolster your team dynamics. The Vampire – The Energy Drainer Traits: This hire sucks the positivity and energy out of your team, often leaving colleagues drained. Impact: Reduced team morale and productivity. Prevention: During interviews, ask behavioral questions that help you gauge a candidate’s influence on team dynamics. Consider including team members in the hiring process to assess chemistry. The Zombie – The Disengaged Traits: Goes through the motions but lacks initiative and passion. Impact: Minimal contribution to team goals and lack of contribution to goals. Prevention: Look for candidates who ask questions about company culture and show enthusiasm for the role because the job description accurately reflects the role’s responsibilities and opportunities for growth. The Mummy – Stuck in the Past Traits: Resistant to change and new ideas, insisting on doing things “how they’ve always been done.” Impact: Hinders adaptation and progress. Prevention: Look for candidates willing to learn new things. Ask them about situations where they had to adapt quickly or change their approach to succeed. Hiring Doesn’t Have To Be A Nightmare Each of these eerie archetypes teaches us that hiring is not just about filling a vacancy but about enriching our teams and aligning with our core values. Hiring should be strategic, and at FIREPOWER Teams, we understand that the right people are the lifeblood of any thriving business. Each new hire should contribute positively to the team’s dynamics and the company’s mission. Remember, hiring doesn’t have to be a nightmare. With the right tools and insights, you can spot red flags early and attract talent that fits the role and elevates your entire team. Let’s turn these horrors into opportunities. Happy Halloween, and here’s to making every hire a treat, not a trick! Maria Forbes and 

Sometimes the most sensitive question in family succession planning is “Who gets the office?” Dad’s (or Mom’s) office is usually perceived as the center of authority by the employees and other family members. That is where you got called on the carpet, where you were informed of promotions, or where you took an insolvable problem. When a parent/CEO is handing off operating responsibility, there is often a lag, sometimes measured in years, between stepping back from the daily decisions and completely separating from the premises. There is great value in having that experience available for coaching, mentoring, or just to lend perspective on new problems, but where should they sit? Timing The question of the appropriate timing for an owner to surrender his or her seat of power can be sensitive. The retiree often worries about becoming irrelevant. The fear ofappearingirrelevant is just as strong. The boss’s office is a symbol. Often the owner who is stepping down would rather have no office at all rather than a smaller, less prestigious location. I’ve seen owners elect to use the conference room as their “temporary” post. That can create other issues of its own. Are scheduled meetings now subject to last-minute relocation if the boss (who will always be the boss, regardless of title transfers) commandeers it for his own use? Equally distracting is when the conference room is scheduled as before. Then the boss arrives planning to do some work and winds up wandering through the offices looking for a place to camp out. Perception The situation is exacerbated when multiple children are assuming ownership. Who getstheoffice? Parents often have a vision of equality among their children. Ricky will handle sales, Peter does the accounting, and Ellie takes care of inventory and purchasing. The three will make business decisions jointly. Regardless of voting rights, or any amount of explanation to the employees, one of the children will be perceived as functioning at a higher level of authority by assuming possession of the boss’s office. As in George Orwell’sAnimal Farm, all are equal, but some are more equal than others. Family Succession Planning Settling who gets the boss’s office is an important part of any transfer. Too often it is treated lightly, only to be more seriously addressed after the issues are recognized. The symbolism of moving offices is strong, and sends a message to everyone. In some cases, remodeling to change the whole office configuration may be the best solution. New drywall is a cheaper fix than lingering resentment among shareholders or confusion in the ranks. It’s often the little things in family succession planning that matter. One owner who was continuing in his office after his son was named President asked what he could do to make their shared space better reflect the change. “Well Dad, “the son responded, “maybe you could take down those pictures of our fishing trip when I was 11 years old.”   This article was originally published by John F. Dini, CBEC, CExP, CEPA on

Previous
Next

Explore the Knowledge Exchange

Search