Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Labor Talk Blog: Confederate Flags in the Workplace: How Should an Employer Respond?

Publications

December 17, 2015

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that Confederate flag displays in the workplace constitute evidence of a racially hostile work environment; some courts (but not all) have agreed. In light of these developments and the public debates regarding the Confederate flag and other (potentially) offensive symbols, how should an employer respond? We advise employers to do the following:

  • adopt a policy barring employees/invitees from wearing or displaying, while on company property, any symbols that are designed to, or have the effect of, harassing, demeaning, intimidating, or disparaging any legally protected minority; and,
  • consider the Confederate flag as such a symbol.

While we recognize the "slippery slope" this policy may create, we believe it to be the wiser approach.

Discussion

After the rioting in South Carolina last spring, concerns have grown over the display of the Confederate flag not merely in public places but also on the property of businesses. Employers face the issue of whether they can (or should) prohibit employees from displaying those flags either on automobiles parked on company property, or inside of the workplace, such as on clothing, lunch boxes, tool boxes, etc. Some African American employees understandably consider the Confederate flag as contributing to a "hostile work environment" – meant to demean, intimidate, or harass them on the basis of their race. Of course, many (perhaps most) who display the Confederate flag espouse doing so not for inappropriate reasons but rather for reasons of heritage.

Some private employers have adopted policies to prohibit such displays. Some denounce such policies as chilling "free speech," a right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Yet, this argument does not apply. Private employers are not subject to the Constitution's limitations on the "state" or "state actors." Nonetheless, employer policies in this regard sometimes seem to "stir up more snakes than it kills."

So, how should an employer respond?

The EEOC takes the position - and some courts have accepted the argument - that displaying the Confederate flag constitutes evidence of a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Other courts have been reluctant to find the display of the Confederate flag in the workplace as sufficient to constitute a hostile work environment claim absent other, more egregious conduct of a racially hostile nature.

Some employers have expressed concern that policies aimed at banning "offensive" symbols, such as the Confederate flag, could mandate ridding the workplace of a host of symbols, based solely on a vocal group claiming to take offense. Might some complain to be offended by the "fish symbol" displayed by some Christians on their automobiles? Or, what about bumper stickers for a particular political candidate or party? Or, stating a position on abortion or other "culture war" issues?

We believe those concerns do not inform employers to avoid policies barring displays designed to harass, or intimidate, or demean, or disparage. Rather, these concerns inform employers to be cautious in the enforcement of such a policy. And, the symbols associated with religious or political views do not have the same history of association with racial bigotry and oppression as the Confederate flag.

Thus, in our view, the wiser course for a company is to adopt a policy as noted above, namely a policy which

  • prohibits employees/invitees from wearing or displaying, while on company property, any symbols that are designed to, or have the effect of, harassing, demeaning, intimidating, or disparaging any legally protected minority;
  • and consider the Confederate flag as such a symbol.

For more labor and employment information, visit www.BassBerryLaborTalk.com


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.