重返辦公室工作的樂趣之一就是和同事開玩笑。但新的研究表明,工作者們可能需要對他們在工作場所的調(diào)侃內(nèi)容更加謹慎。
根據(jù)總部設(shè)在英國倫敦的雇傭律師事務(wù)所GQ Littler的數(shù)據(jù),2021年英國雇傭法庭關(guān)于工作場所 “玩笑”的案件數(shù)量增加了45%。據(jù)該律師事務(wù)所稱,英國雇傭法庭涉及雇員和雇主的與“玩笑”有關(guān)的案件數(shù)量從2020年的67起上升到2021年的97起。
該律師事務(wù)所寫道:“在雇傭法庭上,律師越來越多地援引‘玩笑’作為涉嫌歧視和騷擾的辯護?!?/p>
據(jù)該律師事務(wù)所稱,一名員工認為是玩笑或輕松的調(diào)侃,在法庭上,這個玩笑可能被另一名員工解釋為欺凌或騷擾,特別是當(dāng)歧視性的評論是針對某人的年齡、性別、國籍和/或種族。
這不僅僅是部門經(jīng)理和老板的問題。據(jù)該律師事務(wù)所稱,即使員工在工作時間外發(fā)表不恰當(dāng)?shù)脑u論,公司也會被認定對員工在雇傭過程中發(fā)表的言論負有替代責(zé)任。
GQ Littler律師事務(wù)所的高級合伙人麗莎·里克斯說:“工作場所的幽默很重要,它有助于鼓舞士氣和減輕壓力。然而,員工應(yīng)該保持警惕,不讓玩笑變成人身攻擊。但這并不意味著工作場所樂趣的終結(jié):員工們可以開笑話,只要這些玩笑不構(gòu)成騷擾!”
開玩笑出問題了
最近,工作場所的玩笑成為頭條新聞。
2021年9月,巴克萊銀行(Barclays)的女員工安娜·拉卡圖斯對該銀行的雇傭訴訟勝訴,因為她說她的部門經(jīng)理多次稱女性為“鳥”。在她建議他不要使用這個詞語后,她表示部門經(jīng)理詹姆斯·金霍恩繼續(xù)使用這個說法,讓她感到不舒服。金霍恩、第二任經(jīng)理阿弗納沙·辛格和巴克萊銀行被告上法庭,在法庭上,金霍恩說自己認為拉卡圖斯已經(jīng)認識到這些笑話是“輕松的玩笑”。
法院支持拉卡圖斯,認為金霍恩的玩笑包含“性別歧視語言”。巴克萊銀行在判決后發(fā)表聲明稱,金霍恩使用的語言“不恰當(dāng)且不可接受”。
根據(jù)GQ Littler律師事務(wù)所的說法,還有其他一些涉嫌歧視性言論的案例,這些案例通常違反英國的《平等法》(Equality Act)所保護的民眾權(quán)利。除了性別,這些涉嫌歧視性言論還包括在工作場所發(fā)表的對性取向、宗教、種族、殘疾和年齡的歧視性言論。
該律師事務(wù)所指出,如果公司制定了“關(guān)于平等、多樣性和包容性的最新而全面的政策”,這些案件是能夠避免的,并補充說雇主還應(yīng)該關(guān)注他們的工作場所文化,以確保工作場所文化專業(yè)、適當(dāng)而有趣。
總而言之,該律師事務(wù)所對在工作場所開玩笑的建議很簡單:己所不欲勿施于人。
里克斯說:“人們應(yīng)該想一想,如果把這個笑話反過來講給他們聽,這個笑話聽起來怎么樣?如果被問及這些言論,他們是否會因為試圖為這些言論辯護而感到不舒服?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
重返辦公室工作的樂趣之一就是和同事開玩笑。但新的研究表明,工作者們可能需要對他們在工作場所的調(diào)侃內(nèi)容更加謹慎。
根據(jù)總部設(shè)在英國倫敦的雇傭律師事務(wù)所GQ Littler的數(shù)據(jù),2021年英國雇傭法庭關(guān)于工作場所 “玩笑”的案件數(shù)量增加了45%。據(jù)該律師事務(wù)所稱,英國雇傭法庭涉及雇員和雇主的與“玩笑”有關(guān)的案件數(shù)量從2020年的67起上升到2021年的97起。
該律師事務(wù)所寫道:“在雇傭法庭上,律師越來越多地援引‘玩笑’作為涉嫌歧視和騷擾的辯護?!?/p>
據(jù)該律師事務(wù)所稱,一名員工認為是玩笑或輕松的調(diào)侃,在法庭上,這個玩笑可能被另一名員工解釋為欺凌或騷擾,特別是當(dāng)歧視性的評論是針對某人的年齡、性別、國籍和/或種族。
這不僅僅是部門經(jīng)理和老板的問題。據(jù)該律師事務(wù)所稱,即使員工在工作時間外發(fā)表不恰當(dāng)?shù)脑u論,公司也會被認定對員工在雇傭過程中發(fā)表的言論負有替代責(zé)任。
GQ Littler律師事務(wù)所的高級合伙人麗莎·里克斯說:“工作場所的幽默很重要,它有助于鼓舞士氣和減輕壓力。然而,員工應(yīng)該保持警惕,不讓玩笑變成人身攻擊。但這并不意味著工作場所樂趣的終結(jié):員工們可以開笑話,只要這些玩笑不構(gòu)成騷擾!”
開玩笑出問題了
最近,工作場所的玩笑成為頭條新聞。
2021年9月,巴克萊銀行(Barclays)的女員工安娜·拉卡圖斯對該銀行的雇傭訴訟勝訴,因為她說她的部門經(jīng)理多次稱女性為“鳥”。在她建議他不要使用這個詞語后,她表示部門經(jīng)理詹姆斯·金霍恩繼續(xù)使用這個說法,讓她感到不舒服。金霍恩、第二任經(jīng)理阿弗納沙·辛格和巴克萊銀行被告上法庭,在法庭上,金霍恩說自己認為拉卡圖斯已經(jīng)認識到這些笑話是“輕松的玩笑”。
法院支持拉卡圖斯,認為金霍恩的玩笑包含“性別歧視語言”。巴克萊銀行在判決后發(fā)表聲明稱,金霍恩使用的語言“不恰當(dāng)且不可接受”。
根據(jù)GQ Littler律師事務(wù)所的說法,還有其他一些涉嫌歧視性言論的案例,這些案例通常違反英國的《平等法》(Equality Act)所保護的民眾權(quán)利。除了性別,這些涉嫌歧視性言論還包括在工作場所發(fā)表的對性取向、宗教、種族、殘疾和年齡的歧視性言論。
該律師事務(wù)所指出,如果公司制定了“關(guān)于平等、多樣性和包容性的最新而全面的政策”,這些案件是能夠避免的,并補充說雇主還應(yīng)該關(guān)注他們的工作場所文化,以確保工作場所文化專業(yè)、適當(dāng)而有趣。
總而言之,該律師事務(wù)所對在工作場所開玩笑的建議很簡單:己所不欲勿施于人。
里克斯說:“人們應(yīng)該想一想,如果把這個笑話反過來講給他們聽,這個笑話聽起來怎么樣?如果被問及這些言論,他們是否會因為試圖為這些言論辯護而感到不舒服。”(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
Part of the fun of going back into the office means joking around with colleagues. But new research indicates workers may need to be more careful about what they quip about in the workplace.
The number of U.K. employment court cases concerning the use of “banter” in the workplace rose 45% in the last year, according to GQ Littler, a London-based employment law firm. And the number of employment tribunals—court cases in the U.K. involving employees and employers—related to ‘banter’ went from 67 in 2020 to 97 in 2021, according to the firm.
“‘Banter’ has increasingly been invoked in employment tribunals as a justification for alleged discrimination and harassment,” the firm wrote.
What one employee thinks is banter or light-hearted teasing can be construed as bullying or harassment by another in a court of law, according to the firm, particularly when the discriminatory comments are directed at someone's age, sex, nationality, and/or race.
This isn't just a problem for line managers and bosses. Companies can be found vicariously liable for comments made by staff in the course of employment, even if the comments deemed inappropriate were made outside working hours, according to the law firm.
“Humor in the workplace is important—it can help boost morale and reduce stress. However, employees should be wary of making jokes that stray into offensive territory,” said Lisa Rix, senior associate at GQ Littler. “But this doesn’t mean the end of workplace fun: It is possible to make jokes which don’t constitute harassment!”
Banter gone wrong
Workplace teasing has made headlines recently.
Last September, Ana Lacatus, a female Barclays employee, won an employment lawsuit against the bank after she said her line manager repeatedly referred to women as “birds.” After she suggested he not use that phrase, she says the line manager, James Kinghorn, continued to use the expression to make her feel uncomfortable. In the tribunal brought against Kinghorn; a second manager, Avneesh Singh; and Barclays, Kinghorn said he thought that she had recognized the jokes were “l(fā)ight-hearted banter.”
The court sided with Lacatus, concluding that Kinghorn's attempt to be ironic “used sexist language.” Barclays later released a statement after the ruling saying that said the language used by Kinghorn was “inappropriate and not acceptable.”
There are several other cases of derogatory references often made at the expense of characteristics protected under the U.K.'s Equality Act, according to GQ Littler. Beyond gender, these include discrimination in workplace against sexual orientation, relgion, race, disability, and age.
The firm notes that these cases could be avoided if companies institute “up-to-date and comprehensive policies on equality, diversity, and inclusion," adding employers should also keep an eye on their workplace culture to make sure it is professional and appropriate, as well as fun.
All in all, the law firm’s advice about workplace banter is simple: Treat others the way you want to be treated.
“People should think about how that joke would sound being repeated back to them and whether they would feel uncomfortable trying to justify the comments if questioned about them,” Rix said.