The Code Section To be Interpreted:
Code 4.1 – Any employee shall be guilty of misconduct if, while in the performance of their work for the company, they discriminate amongst persons by any other measures than price, proficiency, availability, willingness, and/or adherence to this code of conduct.
Note: To insure compliance with US Code, it is further noted that making rules about the effects of differing races, creeds, sexual orientations, religions, etc on price, proficiency, availability, willingness, or adherence to the code of conduct shall be avoided. For instance, one shall not conclude nor act upon an assertion that whites cost more because they demand fancier coffee.
Examples of Misconduct Under This Code Section:
- Employee A is choosing amongst a set of applications for a new job that needs to be filled. Employee A was once embarassed by mispronouncing a difficult name, so Employee A, before reviewing any qualifications, sorts out all of the applicants with names that Employee A doesn’t immediately recognize. Then Employee A uses The Company’s discriminatory decision form to rank the remaining candidates in terms of price, proficiency, availability, willingness, and adherence to the code of conduct. Employee A then selects the highest ranked candidate. Upon review of the decision, it is determined that following Employee A’s ranking process, one of the set aside candidates should have been highest ranked candidate. Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 4.1. By setting aside a group of the candidates, employee A discriminated based upon a criteria that is not allowed.
- Employee A is choosing amongst employees to find a person to give a presentation on safety to new hires. The preparation and presentation will take a significant amount of time. Amongst those that are willing, there is an employee that is more productive than the others. Foreseeing issues with meeting deadlines if that employee wasn’t working normally, Employee A chooses a less proficient employee. Employee A is fuilty of misconduct under code section 4.1. It is against the interests of The Company to deny opportunities to the most meritorious employees on the grounds that they are meritorious.
- Employee A is choosing amongst employees to assign a temporary position as an assistant to Employee A on an important business trip. Numerous employees express willingness, but employee A picks Employee B because Employee A knows that Employee B shares interest in hockey. Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 4.1.
Examples That Are Not Misconduct Under This Code Section:
- Employee A is choosing amongst a set of applications for a new job that needs to be filled. Employee A was once embarassed by mispronouncing a difficult name, so Employee A, before addressing any of the candidates, asks them to verify the pronunciation of their names. Then Employee A uses The Company’s discriminatory decision form to rank the remaining candidates in terms of price, proficiency, availability, willingness, and adherence to the code of conduct. Employee A then selects the highest ranked candidate. There is no misconduct.
- Employee A is choosing amongst employees to find a person to give a presentation on safety to new hires. The preparation and presentation will take a significant amount of time. Amongst those that are willing, there is an employee that is more productive than the others. Foreseeing issues with meeting deadlines if that employee isn’t working normally, Employee A postpones the presentation to a time when that employee’s production won’t be as critical. Employee A selects the highest ranked employee based upon price, proficiency, availability, willingness, and adherence to the code of conduct.
- Employee A is choosing amongst employees to assign a temporary position as an assistant to Employee A on an important business trip. Numerous employees express willingness, so Employee A decides amongst them based upon price, proficiency, availability, and adherence to the code of conduct. The CEO is amongst those that express an interest, but Employee A selects another candidate because the CEO’s effective hourly price is much too high to make it useful for the CEO to fill the position as an assistant. There is no misconduct.
