HR teams are typically tasked with the prevention of discrimination and bias in the workplace, but what happens when an HR manager claims to have experienced the bias first-hand? Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry is now facing a workplace sex discrimination lawsuit, bringing attention to the problem of discrimination in the workplace, as well as the struggles that HR teams often face in clearing up claims of workplace harassment.
In a recent decision made by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a former HR employee at Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry has been cleared to proceed with the sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit she had filed against her employer, alleging unfair workplace practices directed towards her and other employees at the organization. The Pratt v. Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry lawsuit has not only alleged misconduct within the workplace but also claimed that much of it was perpetrated by company leaders, making it more difficult to enforce corrective measures to rectify the situation.
Neither employee nor employer enjoys absolute freedom without an organization, and their conduct is always subject to the rules of the workplace and the laws that govern the region. The lack of consequence faced by seniors within an organization risks establishing a culture where no employee is beyond reproach, and such practices are damaging to the health of an organization as a whole.
A former HR manager at WAF can proceed with her bias claims, but the lawsuit exposes a serious flaw in how we handle workplace discrimination. (Image: Freepik)
An HR Manager Raises Bias Claims Against Her Former Employer: What We Know About the Lawsuit
Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a part of a ruling that had previously terminated a lawsuit filed by a former HR manager who worked at an aluminum foundry in Wisconsin, allowing her case to proceed with her lawsuit on the sex discrimination and retaliation claims. The employee claimed that between 2017 and 2018, she brought multiple employee complaints of discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, and disability that had been reported by various employees. The company’s Vice President of Operations had been accused of many of these claims, and the plaintiff herself had witnessed some of these issues.
Other than the VP directing sexist, derogatory language and sexual innuendos at the employees, he was also accused of treating Pratt and other members of the all-female HR department as secretaries, asking them to perform tasks unrelated to their job duties. When the HR manager submitted a report on the case, she was presented with additional training on conducting and documenting HR investigations due to her failure to maintain confidentiality around the report. The VP allegedly saw no disciplinary activity other than additional training.
Pratt also submitted a report on another shift leader, whose behavior raised concerns about treating his minority employees differently from his white employees. Multiple other instances of harassment and derogatory behavior were similarly reported.
Employer Claims the Decision Was Based on Performance, Not Retaliation
The plaintiff alleges that for her efforts to bring in accountability, her performance report labeled her a “very [divisive] figure at WAF” following an audit that had been conducted by a third-party consulting group, Utech. The report acknowledged that she had worked hard to make improvements within the organization, but she was accused of lacking the trust of other employees and being labeled a gossip. The report was followed by a low performance rating that caused her to lose out on a bonus for the year.
A week after the employee questioned the score and claimed that she was being retaliated against for her reports, she was fired. While the HR manager remains adamant about the bias claims, the employers stated that she was let go due to her poor performance as seen in her review, and for the confidentiality concerns that emerged with her earlier reporting. The employer also indicated that she was at the center of much distrust within her department, as was suggested by the third-party report.
A trial court previously ruled on the case via summary judgment, but the appeals court reversed the ruling on two parts of the judgment, thus allowing for a jury to decide the outcomes of the case, as “summary judgment is not the time to decide which narrative to believe.” The fact that the plaintiff was the only one to be terminated following the report also added to concerns around the case.
The HR Manager’s Retaliation Claims Are One of the Many Barriers to Performing the Role Within an Organization
A jury may soon have the deciding power on upholding or dismissing the bias and retaliation claims made by the HR manager, however, this isn’t the first case brought forth by an HR representative, and it’s unlikely to be the last. The allegations of harassment and sex discrimination evoked by the HR manager represent a growing problem within the workplace, where HR is seen as the enemy by both employers and employees. While it typically falls to HR teams to unearth and address problematic behaviors, without organizational support, it can turn into a culture devoid of accountability.
When credible complaints are brought to light, it falls to the leaders to investigate the reports and determine their validity, setting corrective measures in place to ensure it does not evolve into a cultural problem. When HR teams lack the backing of the employer to perform their roles, other employees grow mistrustful of them and cease to report unwelcome behavior. This allows a culture of dissent to grow. Legitimizing the ability of HR teams to collect, process, and address such claims in the workplace is the role of the employer, ensuring that their relationship with the employees is preserved in the process.
Subscribe to The HR Digest for more insights on workplace trends, layoffs, and what to expect with the advent of AI.
