We're Going International!

While researching for my paper in this class, I stumbled upon an interesting article (the link can be found at the end of this post under "Articles on Interest") that touches on sexual orientation discrimination, sexual harassment, and employment at will. While the incident takes place in London, try to focus on the main issues presented here and how they apply to the U.S. workplace.

Summary:

In 2004, Peter Lewis was fired from his job as Global Head of Equity Trading for HSBC (the world's 3rd largest bank). HSBC claims that Lewis was fired for "gross personal misconduct," stemming from an incident that resulted in another employee filing a complaint of sexual harassment towards him. The incident in question is when Lewis was caught masturbating while staring at his coworker in a shower stall adjacent to him. A second incident was added to the case recently, claiming that Lewis once removed his towel in an "excited state."
Lewis vehemently all denies the accusations, saying:

Those allegations would have received the ridicule that they deserved' if they had come from a heterosexual employee… I was dismissed from the firm for reasons and beliefs which were not based on facts or evidences but for `preferences' which resulted from innuendo, assumption, false stereotype and homophobia.

The true story, rather, Lewis argues, is that he was a victim of sexual orientation discrimination and harassment from Day 1. He argues that some members of the financial community felt uncomfortable having a gay executive. He claims he was a victim of homophobic comments (both directly and indirectly), “threatening and abusive” phone calls, and being called a “faggot.” Furthermore, Lewis states that he complained to the bank’s human resources department about the calls but no action was taken to stop them.

He is suing the bank for $8.8 million.

Questions:

1. If you were the judge hearing this case, how would you rule?
2. Do you agree with Lewis' argument that had he been straight, or perceived straight, the locker room incidents wouldn't have been taken so seriously?
3. Suppose this case happened in the U.S., in a state that does not recognize sexual orientation discrimination. Thus, technically Lewis' firing would be fair under the "employment at-will" doctrine. Does this change your opinion/attitude towards at-will?
4. If you believe sexual orientation should be protected, how so and to what extent? In other words, should Title Vii be amended to include sexual orientation or should it be the individual states' responsibility (as is the case now)? Furthermore, what should be protected (i.e. wrongful termination, pension, "spousal" and children coverage, etc.)? Who should be protected (i.e. gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and/or transsexuals)?
5. If you do not feel there needs to be any changes, how would you suggest the GLBT community seek compensation or justice (i.e. possible claims of harassment, battery, etc.)? Does granting protection impede on people's religious freedoms?
6. In lieu of today's class discussion, and slightly off topic, where do we draw the line on protection? Should we allow for social status discrimination, left-handed discrimination (I'm being facetious here, but you get the point)? When is "enough is enough"?

Personal Opinion:

*NOTE*: Because the trial has only just started, I am taking things at face value. Thus, I am going to assume the alleged locker room incidents did occur as well as the phone calls, name-calling, etc.

If I were to be the judge, I think I'd have a very hard time deciding the case. I think in some ways, both parties have valid points. Ultimately though, while I do think Lewis was harassed because he was gay, I do NOT think he was fired because he was gay.

I think that HSBC truly fired Lewis based on his questionable locker room decorum. Despite what Lewis may say, I would be extremely uncomfortable is a woman flashed me her breasts (the female equivalent of showing your "excited state") or was masturbating in the shower next to me (regardless of whether or not she was looking at me), and sexual orientation would not even be a factor. As a top executive, 1) I don't think this is acceptable behavior for leading an example or motivating your employees; and 2) I would see how workers would feel uncomfortable working with him and/or not be able to take direction.

This is not to say that Lewis' claims were entirely wrong. I believe that he was a victim of harassment, and thus, if he were in the US, should consider seeking compensation through some other means, like company negligence. I suppose I would award Lewis some monetary compensation, just not the full $8.8 million.

If sexual orientation were not to be protected, it would severely impact my opinion of employment at will. I believe you cannot change your sexual orientation any more than you can change your skin color. Furthermore, I do not see how it can severely affect you work performance (except for extraordinary cases). Thus, you should not be punished for your sexual orientation.

Considering the times, I think we should move to include sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. There needs to be national unity on the issue—letting the States decide will pretty much not result in a uniform consensus. Furthermore, companies should offer the same rights and privileges that their straight employees get—pension, protection from harassment/wrongful termination, spousal/children support, etc.

Articles of interest:

Sacking of gay banker 'inevitable' - A link to the article directly related to this post; *NOTE: The article uses the slang term "nonce". According to an online slang dictionary, this is a popular term the British use to refer to pedophiles.

Ex-HSBC Executive Denies `Ludicrous' Harassment Claim--Another related article that discusses the alleged sexual harassment incidents in more detail

Sexual Orientation in the Workplace - A quick overview of the states that have laws regarding sexual orientation discrimination

The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 - A copy of the law adopted in UK to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. The law has be amended to address the issues of pension and civil partnerships