Be Our Guest (Some Conditions May Apply …)

Be Our Guest (Some Conditions May Apply …)

Parenting a toddler means a steady diet of animated shows. Practicing employment law means I overanalyze the $%^! out of things. Writing this blog means I turn those overanalyses into weird parallels. Which is why we’re talking about Beauty and the Beast and the opening number, “Belle.”

For those of you with actual lives who either don’t know or remember, “Belle” introduces our heroine as well as her small village – and the chorus of villagers who think something must be terribly wrong with her because she reads books and dreams of something bigger. And while independence and intelligence may fly for ugly people, Belle also happens to be attractive.

Which brings us to stereotypes and assumptions. In the movie, they’re in the form of catchy – if cringey – chorus numbers. In the workplace, they’re in the form of lawsuits. In this edition, we’ll look at two very different workplaces where the villagers had plenty to say . . . and the consequences that followed. So sit back, enjoy, and be our guest . . .

A Most Peculiar Mademoiselle

Munchkin Inc. is a baby products company. And if you’re thinking that a baby products company would never be accused of waging a “war on families” and having a culture “plagued by discrimination, cruelty and retaliation”, well . . .

Ex-Munchkin GC Sues Over ‘War on Families’ at Baby Co.

Munchkin’s former general counsel says he was fired after raising concerns about a culture where working mothers were disparaged, pumping breaks were mocked, and employees who brought kids to “Bring Your Child to Work Day” were berated, and later terminated.

The GC claims he tried to do what lawyers are supposed to do: fearmonger investigate potential violations, document concerns, and encourage leadership to correct course. Instead, he alleges the company launched a “pretextual investigation” into him as cover for firing the messenger.

From a legal standpoint, while caregiver bias doesn’t have its own neat checkbox under federal law, the behavior described here and in similar cases neatly overlaps with well-worn claims: pregnancy discrimination, sex discrimination, lactation accommodation failures, and retaliation. Moreover, depending on jurisdiction, caregiver bias is absolutely protected under certain states’ fair employment practices laws. And speaking of state laws being more protective than federal law, did we mention that this Munchkins case is in California??? This may come as a surprise, but California law does in fact go further.

The GC’s complaint details a pattern of hostility, impropriety, and intimidation, particularly against employees with families. The Chief Brand Officer allegedly made derogatory remarks about working mothers, complaining that they could never be as committed to their jobs as she was. And the CBO apparently tried to “conscript” the GC into her “discrimination campaign” by telling him that she was “grateful that he was there to protect her from lawsuits when she fires moms”. Pretty sure even Gaston would tell this CBO to tone it down a notch . . .

There are so many lessons and takeaways from this case – don’t discriminate against individuals because of their protected characteristics; don’t retaliate against whistleblowers; try, try, to be decent – but let’s also remember the point about bias claims stemming from assumptions and stereotypes. When leadership’s chorus line is “mothers can’t have it all” or “commitment”, you don’t need to be an employment lawyer to hear the lawsuit coming.

Something There That Wasn’t There Before

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is the federal agency tasked with enforcing anti-harassment and discrimination in the workplace. And if you’re thinking the EEOC would never be accused of harassment and discrimination in the workplace, well . . .

Transgender Ex-EEOC Worker Accuses Commission of LGBTQ+ Bias

According to the complaint, the Acting Chair ordered the dismantling of LGBTQ+ protections and resources. Employee resource groups like EEOC Pride were dissolved overnight under the Office of Personnel Management’s guidance. The agency disabled a widely used app that allowed employees to display pronouns in Outlook and Teams. References to gender identity and sexual orientation were scrubbed from the EEOC’s public materials. And perhaps most significantly, case processing for gender identity complaints was allegedly put on hold.

The complainant, a transgender man, says he was not just affected by the policies but forced to build the very IT tools used to erase references to LGBTQ+ workers from EEOC materials. The result, he alleges, was not just a hostile environment but one that cut to the core of the EEOC’s mission: enforcing civil rights laws.

Strange days, indeed . . .

While the EEOC’s political leanings may ebb and flow, and its guidance may be “scrubbed,” the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County currently stands, and it clearly protects employees from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation under federal law. Moreover, many states and local jurisdictions have their own anti-discrimination laws that explicitly protect these groups, regardless of what’s happening at the federal level, including recent actions by the EEOC and DOJ perceived as rolling back broader DEI enforcement. So, while the EEOC’s internal policies might feel like a signal to let up on these issues, they really shouldn’t be.

And if you find yourself confused by all of this, and/or just want to decompress and watch some animated musicals, we’re here to help. Hope everyone has a great weekend. As always, if you’ve got questions, you know we’ve got answers.

~ The W + K Team