News
Employment Doom in the Boom Boom Room
One of Bill Murray's greatest moments must surely be his superb portrayals of Bob Harris in Lost In Translation.
There he is, an American movie star, stuck in Tokyo filming a whisky commercial - treated to the trappings of Japanese society?which at point involves a visit to his hotel room by a call girl. "I want you lip my strocking" she says - to a look of both confusion and disdain. What does one do? Tell the girl to go away - or humour one's host (and business colleague) by indulging in his corporate gift?
In most workplaces in the western world, moral dilemmas such as this would be unheard of. A prevailing culture of morality - together with the effect of gender discrimination legislation - seem to make this type of situation unusual.
There are, however, some exceptions. Certain employers - and indeed even industries - seem to allow a culture of this type. And in doing so, suffer the criticism of female employees about inherent discrimination.
The financial services industry has traditionally be seen as a male dominated (and male oriented) profession - and over the years, there have been several high profile discrimination claims in the United States.
For example, in 1996 a group of female employees from Smith Barney shocked Wall Street with claims of discrimination and sexual harassment - centring around events which were said to take place in a basement nicknamed "the Boom Boom Room".
Earlier this year, Merrill Lynch & Co was order to pay US$2.2 million to a former broker in response to claims of a "practice and pattern of gender discrimination".
The most recent incident, however, is a landmark sex discrimination suit brought by the Equal Opportunity Commission against Morgan Stanley.
The claims against the financial services firm were effectively broken down into two distinct areas - first, that the firm tolerated groping, lewd comments and male only outings with clients to strip clubs and golf courses - and, secondly, a more general claim of discrimination against female employees (including such things as failing to provide appropriate job opportunities and promotions to women).
On the eve of trial - before a jury - the firm settled the claims by agreeing to pay US$54 million. That money is to be applied to a variety of different things, including the following:
- The lead plaintiff will receive US$12 million to settle her claims.
- US$40 million will be put towards a fund to be dispersed to as many as 340 women who worked in the institution equities division of the firm since 1995. A retired Federal Circuit Judge will decide the amount, if any, each claimant will receive from this fund.
- US$2 million will be put towards what was described as "workplace visibility" programmes, designed to promote gender equality in the workplace, and to increase women's visibility within the firm.
- Any remaining money will be used for scholarship programmes for female students pursuing careers in the financial services industry.
This settlement is regarded as a landmark for a variety of different reasons.
Most significantly, it represents an acknowledgement by a financial services firm of the need to take active steps to address gender inequality in its workplace. Based upon the number of other similar claims in this industry, one might conclude that the issues being confronted by Morgan Stanley are not unique to it.
It is, of course, possible that similar claims could be brought against an employer in New Zealand. Claims of discrimination such as this could be brought either as employment relationship problems - or as complaints under the human rights legislation.
Under New Zealand law, similar issues would be considered to those at the centre of the American claims. As one might expect, however, it is unlikely that similar awards of compensation would be generated in this country - although monetary awards could be available to successful claimants in a gender discrimination case.
It is perhaps of more significance that a part of the settlement in the Morgan Stanley case was an agreement to institute workplace programmes to promote women's interests. This could be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the need to confront a workplace culture which was inappropriate - and disadvantageous to women employees.
In New Zealand, issues such as this might be addressed by way of equal opportunities programmes - which many organisations already have.
This recent decision highlights the consequences which may follow for an employer which tolerates unfair and discriminatory employment practices. Put another way, it may just be bad business to have someone "lip their strockings" in the Boom Boom Room.
