Search results for: antisemitism

Listen to this post

I’ll admit that it can sometimes be hard to talk about the political ramifications that elections have on employers because some might think you’re taking sides.

Like everyone, I certainly have my own feelings but as I’ve said on this blog for over a decade, this blog has tried to take a decidedly apolitical bent. Instead, I think it’s more important to focus on the practical implications for employers.

And so, on Day Two of the second Trump administration, the confusing picture for employers is starting to become just a little clearer.

For example, earlier today, President Trump appointed Andrea Lucas as the acting EEOC chair. Ms. Lucas made clear in a release today what her priorities will be — and they include “rooting out” Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives.

[M]y priorities will include rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination; protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination; defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single‑sex spaces at work; protecting workers from religious bias and harassment, including antisemitism; and remedying other areas of recent under-enforcement.”

This will certainly cause more than a few private-sector employers to scratch their heads and figure out whether their programs will survive scrutiny under this new initiative.

But beyond that, we’re just at the start of seeing other changes for employers. I sat down recently with my partner Gabe Jiran on our From Lawyer to Employer podcast, to talk about what employers can expect in this second Trump term and how employers might react. You can download the podcast wherever you get your podcasts from.

We talk about other issues such as immigration, DOL compliance, and more. My thanks to Gabe for joining me.

For employers, this is going to be a challenging time filled with lots of changes. Some might appear to be favorable to employers; others not so much. But regardless, it’s worth paying attention to.

Listen to this post

The other day I came across the strange realization that I had not written about anti-Semitism in the 15 years that I’ve been writing this blog.

(I also came across the realization that automatic e-mail links to recent posts had also not been going out properly, if you’re wondering why you’re getting e-mails again now.)

In the early years, that was perhaps just a sign of the times — anti-Semitism in the United States was openly denounced by political leaders even if there was still a segment of the population that trafficked in it.

But over the last five years, there’s been a noticeable change. I’ve felt it on a personal level — at our synagogue we now have a security guard for every Shabbat service.

Then there was this troubling article: A recent survey of over 1000 hiring managers revealed that 26 percent of them are less likely to move forward with a candidate if they are Jewish.

According to a Jerusalem Post article, “When asked why, 38% said that “Jews have too much power and control,” which is also tied to another 38% who said, “Jews claim to be the ‘chosen people.'””

But it gets worse: 23% said that their company is trying to limit Jewish presence in the workplace while 17% said that their bosses said not to hire Jewish people at all.

Those are shockingly high numbers. You can read them all here. And yet the numbers aren’t altogether surprising. Time and again, the ADL has found similarly high numbers of Americans with anti-Semitic views — 28 million Americans.

For employers, it should obviously go without saying that such views and actions are illegal. But beyond that, the new numbers (as well as recent headlines) provide employers with an opportunity to speak out.

Having anti-discrimination policies and sexual harassment prevention trainings are vitally important but so is eliminating anti-Semitism in the workplace.  Reminding managers and your employee population of your values and openly denouncing anti-Semitism isn’t just paying lip-service to the issue; rather it sends the message that the message is to be taken seriously.