WEEK 3 EOC: People Management

I believe the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) sponsors the Work Place Fairness site because as explained on their webpage, "Workers will be paid at least a living wage in an environment free of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and capricious employment decisions; employers will fulfill their promises to provide retirement, health, and other benefits; workers' safety and livelihood will not be compromised for the sake of corporate profit and interests; and individuals will have effective legal representation to enforce their rights to a fair and just workplace, adequate remedies, and a right to trial by jury." I quoted them exactly because I heavily believe that this is the reason for why a brand like NELA sponsors companies as such as the Work Place Fairness website. Resources that are available on this site are, Affiliates in which NELA has 69 circuits spread across the world. Other resources such as Committees and List servers are also engaged with NELA. Some specific work-related issues I feel would compel an employee to seek out the type of information on such a site would be, racism and sexism. Which both alike are very serious touchy subjects among our current state of civilization. How a hospitality manager should best address these issues to me is not at all.
"To see how a legal policy, improperly applied, could create difficulties, and as a result, to illustrate the importance of a thorough legal review, consider the case of Latisha. She is a food service director for a local hospital. Latisha's operation prepares and serves more than 500 meals per day. Despite some managers' thoughts to the contrary, Latisha knows that the law allows her much discretion in setting appearance standards for her staff, and she wishes to do so by creating and implementing a department-wide dress code.

In nearly all cases, hospitality managers such as Latisha can (and often do) legally impose rules and guidelines that have a basis in social norms, such as those prohibiting visible tattoos, body piercings, or earrings for men. While tattoos and piercings may be examples of employee self-expression, they generally are not recognized as signs of religious or racial expression (and thus are not typically protected under federal discrimination laws). For example, in Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004), the First Circuit Court considered whether an employer was required to exempt a cashier from its dress code policy prohibiting facial jewelry (except earrings) and allow her to wear facial piercings as a reasonable religious accommodation. The employee claimed that her religious practice as a member of the Church of Body Modification required she wear the piercings uncovered at all times." -Chapter 3: Human Resources in the Hospitality Industry