Here's what Florida employers need to know if DeSantis approves new 'anti-woke' law

[Leroy N. Soetoro]

https://news.yahoo.com/florida-employers-know-desantis-approves-
100000337.html

Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to soon sign legislation that will open a
new front in how employers will need to think about workplace activities
and set new state guidelines for what would constitute “unlawful
employment practices.”

House Bill 7, titled “Individual Freedom,” was one of the most contentious
pieces of legislation considered by lawmakers during the legislative
session that ended in mid-March. While much of the attention focused on
the restrictions that would be applied to the classroom, the bill could
also alter Florida businesses’ labor practices — in particular restricting
how employers present programs aimed at promoting diversity, equity and
inclusion at work.

READ MORE: The “anti-woke” bill has potentially negative impact on Florida
universities, too

Ellen M. Leibovitch, an employment lawyer based in Boca Raton, says
employers who offer training to employees on discrimination and harassment
should be prepared to tailor the curriculum and presentation of their
training programs.

“I think that employers are maybe not going to be doing these trainings
anymore, or they’re going to do these trainings so neutral as to really
not have the intended impact that they are supposed to have,” Leibovitch
said.

The push comes as DeSantis and Florida Republicans take aim at “corporate
wokeness” and publicly clash with The Walt Disney Company over the
company’s opposition to a bill banning the teaching of gender-related
issues to kids younger than third grade — and potentially higher grades.

How the law changes
In practice, the bill would amend the Florida Civil Rights Act and make it
unlawful for employers to subject workers to “training, instruction, or
any other required activity” that promotes or compels them to believe the
following concepts:

That virtues such as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality,
objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were
created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to
oppress members of another race, color, sex or national origin.
That members of one race, color sex, or national origin are morally
superior to members of another race, color, sex or national origin.
That an individual’s moral character or status as either privileged or
oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or
national origin.
That an individual, by virtue of their race, color, sex, or national
origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously
or unconsciously.
That members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should
not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or
national origin.
That a member of one race, color, sex or national origin cannot and should
not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex or
national origin.
That an individual, by virtue of their race, color, sex, or national
origin, bears responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other
forms of psychological distress because of actions committed in the past
by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
That an individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national
origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to
achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
Potential fallout for employers
If an employee believes their employer has violated any of those
principles when delivering a training program, they can sue and pursue a
claim for relief, including damages and attorneys’ fees.

The potential of lawsuits as an enforcement mechanism are likely to have a
chilling effect on how employers convey certain diversity and inclusion
goals in training sessions, according to some labor lawyers and
consultants in the human resources field.

Supporters say the bill is meant to protect workers from being told they
should feel bad about historical wrongs committed by people of their same
race, gender or national origin.

The bill sponsor, Rep. Bryan Avila, R-Miami Springs, acknowledged part of
the intent is to eliminate workplace programs that promote the concept of
“white privilege” and broadly singled out training programs promoted by
Walt Disney Co., Coca-Cola, American Express and Google, that he said
would be in violation of the bill.

“Whether it is training on how to be less oppressive, or less white, all
those things should not be occurring,” Avila said in a committee hearing
in February. “All of those things are counterproductive to where we want
to be as a nation, state, as a community.”

A solution for ‘a problem that doesn’t exist’
Penny Morey, a human resources executive and consultant with more than 30
years of experience in the field, said she has never encountered a
training session curriculum that espouses the concepts the bill seeks to
ban.

The problem, she argued, is that the bill could trigger lawsuits based on
how someone perceives the delivery of a training program.

“This law is trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist,” she said. “But
please know that when I say bogus lawsuits exist, they do. People can find
an attorney that works on contingency now and then, who will take
something like this because it may make them some money on a contingency
basis. They may get some publicly, they may get some attention — and that
is going to be the chilling effect.”

Morey said she believes most companies and employers will likely “wait and
see” how the bill is rolled out and what the reaction is among employees.

“I think the danger is that a lot of employers — and I don’t particularly
blame them — will say ‘let’s step back away and take that out for now and
let’s tackle it later when we know better about how this is going to be
enforced,’ ” she said.

Unintended consequences?
Another issue is that part of the reason why employers have training
programs in the first place is to insulate themselves from liability,
Leibovitch said. Training sessions can offer employers a layer of
protection to say they tried to prevent wrongdoing in the workplace if an
employee acts inappropriately. The company can still be liable, but those
programs can show they tried to tell employers not to act in a certain
way.

“If you don’t do the training then you really have no defense that you
were trying to prevent,” said Sen. Tina Polsky, D-Boca Raton, a labor and
employment attorney.

If an employer goes through with a training program that could put them at
risk of a lawsuit, they will also need to take into consideration their
insurance policies.

“The insurance that employers buy may not cover this yet because it is so
new. So if they are sued, it could be that their insurance company who
covers them for employment liability may say, ‘look this isn’t on your
policy, so you’re on your own,’ ” Morey said.



--
"LOCKDOWN", left-wing COVID fearmongering. 95% of COVID infections
recover with no after effects.

No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.

Donald J. Trump, cheated out of a second term by fraudulent "mail-in"
ballots. Report voter fraud: sf.n...@mail.house.gov

Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.

President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.