Analyzing HR Representative Memorandum

HR Representative Memorandum / Twitter: HR Memorandum

From: Mr. Brown

Re.: Addressing Emotions in the Workplace Culture at Twitter

I wish to make a number of suggestions in connection with handling emotions at the workplace, which, in my view, we must be aware of. One of my biggest concerns is the way we have dealt with the latest situation involving one of our employees, Aria Perkins. Unless I haven't gotten to know of any additional documentation or information with this regard, my chief issue is with Perkins' supervisor, by whom she was warned against expressing any sort of negative emotion, whether nonverbally or verbally. I feel a grievous mistake has been committed here, which needs urgent remediation. This directive hasn't been given to any other staff member, as far as I know, and may be regarded as a case of incongruous, unequal treatment. The employee in question may consider this directive to be harassment or bias based on her gender, as no individual belonging to the opposite sex has received it. A large number of other staff members have been witnessed committing aggressive acts like yelling, raising their voices, hanging up in the middle of a heated conversation, cursing, or slamming doors when angry; yet, none of them were dealt with in this manner, which means an issue of consistency is clear, in this case. The reasons behind Ms. Perkins' anger need to be examined, comprehended, taken into consideration, and solved. Furthermore, job-related opportunities and promotions, as well as the salary and compensation package for this employee aren't the same as that received by her male counterparts (Redibleactivist, 2015).

Relying on gender-centered, biased and/or arbitrary conditions, employed by a managerial team comprising of almost entirely males, when making organizational decisions, is a key issue. Ms. Perkins, during a meeting with the company's human resource team, appeared to be extremely furious about this incident; she even considered suing the organization on grounds of deliberate gender inequality. This may have a negative impact on the organization's goodwill and reputation (Price, 2015).

Clearly, this incident with Aria Perkins is a case of job discrimination based on pay and gender. Employers aren't allowed to discriminate while enforcing privileges or work conditions, or determining salaries, time-off, and bonuses. Discrimination at the workplace may also assume the shape of worker harassment, or retribution if a worker reports any improprieties to a company authority, or exercises his/her legal rights. The 1964 Civil Rights Act's Title VII represents the most important source of U.S. employment-related anti-discrimination legislation. Originally, this law incorporated discrimination on grounds of race, religion, gender, nationality, or color; succeeding legislation has included more elements. Title VII is applicable to enterprises having at least 15 members on their payroll, in addition to other private and public organizations. The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) implements this law (HG Experts, 2015). Additionally, the employee in question (i.e., Ms. Perkins) may also apply the 1963 Equal Pay Act, for the inequality faced by her with regard to promotion opportunities and compensation. It may be compared with the Betty Dukes case; Dukes was, formerly, a Walmart employee. The case also brought to light the general issue of unequal pay and gender discrimination plaguing Walmart. The U.S. Supreme Court launched a large-scale class-action employment discrimination case against the retailing giant, seeking several billions of dollars for about 1.5 million women employees (Liptak, 2011). Both the above cases can be said to have numerous similarities, as Betty Dukes also filed a suit against Walmart on issues of pay and gender inequality. In both instances, it is the supervisor who is to blame for landing the organization in such a situation that garners negative publicity for the company.

The organization is legally liable to provide both freedom of speech and equal compensation and opportunities for promotion, under the job discrimination legislation. If the company is found liable, Twitter might have to recompense Ms. Perkins for earnings lost and non-pecuniary losses like emotional distress, under the most widely-used remedy -- a claim for compensation. That is, Title VII allows employees to request the jury or judge for lost income, as well as compensation for their suffering and pain (compensatory damages). The latter aren't offered under Equal Pay Act, but the employee may request a doubling of original salary amount as a form of employer penalty (Nolo, 2015).