Can a Business Just Say No?

“No shirt, no shoes, no service.” It is not uncommon to see signs like this marking a clear line when a business will refuse to serve a customer. But are there other times that a business can say no to a potential customer?

A recent court case highlights the potential risks. A New Mexico photographer turned down a job to take wedding photos. The wedding was a same-sex marriage and the photographer reportedly stated that she only did traditional weddings. The same-sex couple was quickly able to get another photographer, but then filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

The New Mexico courts found that the photographer violated anti-discrimination laws in turning down the job. Regardless of your personal views of same-sex marriages, it does pose a very real question about when businesses can say no to customers or situations that either go against a business owner’s personal beliefs or could be a situation that the business has other concerns.

In the case of a wedding, what if the couple was incorporating some type of satanic elements and the photographers were religiously opposed? Or what if the couple was Neo Nazi and the photographer did not want to be part of that ceremony?

Perhaps more typical, would be situations where a customer just seems too difficult or demanding and it seems like a better business decision to walk away rather than risk creating a bad business relationship. We have all seen on some level examples of businesses struggling to deal with a difficult or challenging customer. These could be on a large scale with big business operations or even small businesses turning down a single customer. In one case, a home estate seller walked away from a pending client after a brief argument about access to the home during the sale, leaving the homeowner high and dry. The estate seller apparently felt that the potential arguments and aggravation was worth less than the potential income.

The problem with turning a failed non-deal into an anti-discrimination case means that individuals who are told no could crowd the legal system with accusations of discrimination whether that was the reason or not. In the case of the photographer, the owner could have walked away and simply lied, stating that she was overbooked that date. By being honest, the photographer opened herself up to the anti-discrimination case. On the flip side, if the photographer had backed out for truly being overbooked or not available, the would-be customers could still file an anti-discrimination complaint, if the customers are considered some protected group.

This poses a very valid risk of false accusations and intrusive government compliance. More importantly, is the impact on the individuals who make up a business, especially small businesses. Ultimately, businesses are comprised of individuals with their own beliefs, values and sense of right and wrong. There will be grey areas, but businesses do not need more obstacles in the form of regulation and individuals, even as business owners, should not lose their rights or liberties.   

 

Get a Business Black Belt for your organization – visit www.businesskarate.com/karate-belts.

Eric Smith, CPP is the leading authority on organizational self-defense. He has extensive experience in law enforcement as well as security management. Eric is available for staff education and security awareness training as well as business coaching to help organizations provide safe workplaces. To learn more email Eric at businesskarate dot com.

 

 

If you would like to reprint this post, please contact Eric at Eric at businesskarate dot com.

Distraction or Good Sense for School Security?

Ohio Teacher Melissa Cairns is in trouble for Facebook photos of her middle school students with their mouths covered with duct tape. The photo includes the caption, “Finally found a way to keep them quiet.”

The school administration acknowledges that the tape was part of a joke, but are considering termination. Two concerns are that there was duct tape present in the classroom and that the students’ privacy was jeopardized.

At a time when so much attention is focused on school security and safety, this seems like something of a diversion. By all accounts, the students willingly participated and it probably made the day more interesting and school a bit more fun. The presence of duct tape is hardly a concern – I’d be more concerned about the screening and background of the teachers and school employees. While the tape could be used for harm, so can many other normal household items if someone were so inclined.

Visit Business Karate on Facebook (and hit the "like" button)!

As for privacy violations, I would wager that those students involved probably post far more on their own social media websites than what was on the teacher’s photo. They probably were connected via Facebook as friends. The real question is whether or not there was a harmful privacy violation. Were the students’ grades exposed or personal information on home addresses or medical allergies, etc. put online? That is probably the real intent behind whatever policy the school has in place and should be the focus of any hearings to determine the teacher’s employment at the school.

As a society, we allow ourselves to be sidetracked and distracted from our primary goals far too often. It seems that some issues that really pose no threat become a major concern that outstrips common sense. There was a student in a kindergarten class a few years ago that was expelled or nearly so for bringing a tiny Lego person to the class with a little Lego gun. There are the cases of students bringing plastic knives for their lunch being suspended or in trouble.

 This incident should have been a straightforward matter to investigate without the media attention. The focus should be on any policy violations as well as any real harm done. It would be interesting to know what the students involved actually think of this case. Knowing my own kids and their teachers, I imagine that the students enjoyed the prank and are upset that their teacher is no longer part of the classroom.

Remember to keep your focus on the true intent of your security and safety policies and not to be distracted by the minor bumps that come along.

 

For more info on bad policies or procedures, click here.

 

Eric Smith, CPP is the leading authority on organizational self-defense.  He has extensive experience in law enforcement as well as security management.  Eric is available for staff education and security awareness training as well as business coaching to help organizations provide safe workplaces.  To learn more email eric@businesskarate.com.

 

 

If you would like to reprint this post, please contact Eric at eric@businesskarate.com. 

Are Bad Policies Making You a Liability Target?

Risks come in all shapes and sizes – and more importantly from any direction.  Typically, we think of risks as those dangers or hazards that are coming at us from others, maybe employees, but usually from outside our organizations.  Sometimes, however, we may be our own worst enemy.

One way we cause ourselves to stumble is through poorly written policies.  Policies and procedures are the backbone of many organizations and embraced by HR departments.  Policies should be guides or even educational tools letting employees know what the company expects for a given situation.  The procedures should outline how the staff will do that.

However, there are times when a policy causes more harm than good.  In fact, it can put an organization in a dangerous situation, exposing it to more loss than is necessary.  Bad policies can increase the risk of liability at the worst end of the spectrum.  At best, a bad policy can create inefficiencies, be unproductive or simply misguided.  Somewhere in the middle could be employee dissatisfaction when a policy attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

A poorly written or thought-out policy is an unnecessary risk and creates increased liability.  This may sound dramatic, but is not as infrequent as you might think.  When an organization faces a lawsuit, the courts will quickly look to policy manuals and whether or not the company followed their own policy.  This means that if a policy is more restrictive or requires acts above and beyond typical case law, you increase the risk of losing a lawsuit.  

As a police officer, we were expected to know the law as well as policies for a wide-variety of situations and had to be able to act in seconds.  I was surprised at one point in my career to find that the policy for use of force was more restrictive than state law.  One example had to do with the use of deadly force to defend yourself or someone else.  Under state law, an officer would be justified to use deadly force to stop an attack that could cause death or serious bodily injury.  Per policy, an officer could not respond to an imminent attack involving serious bodily injury with deadly force.  That would mean that a suspect wielding a baseball bat swinging at your knees threatening to cripple you or a victim would not justify a deadly response per policy.  If an officer did face that situation and shot an attacker to stop harm to them self or another, the department could be sued for failure to follow its own policy.

Police pursuit policies are another potential hot topic.  An overly restrictive policy, as compared to local laws, could increase the risk of liability if it is not followed.  On the other hand, limiting pursuits may reduce accidents and injuries to innocent bystanders and, presumably reduce the chance of a situation that would generate a lawsuit.

You might be thinking that these examples have nothing to do with your own situation.  However, you might be in a position increasing liability inadvertently through other, more mundane, policies.  For example, if you have a policy of doing a background check on all new hires and the policy states that it is supposed to include a reference check.  The screening includes a criminal history check or a verification of past work history, but no one ever calls a reference.  In the event that an employee commits a crime and it is discovered that the company was not following their own policy, there could be an increased possibility of failing to act as promised.  

There is also the correlation to compliance issues.  For many different industries, there are compliance or accreditation concerns.  In health care, for example, most hospitals choose to be accredited through The Joint Commission.  One TJC requirement is that an organization follows its own policies.  It follows then, that the policies need to be realistic to ensure that employees do, and are, following the policy.  If a policy is overly cumbersome or not practical, then the hospital could be out of line and be found to be out of compliance during an audit or survey even though the policy exceeds the Joint Commission standards.

Policies and procedures are necessary and when well written help employees perform their jobs more effectively and to understand what is expected.  Good policies also help organizations protect themselves from mistakes and avoid legal pitfalls.  The wrong or poorly written policy can do the exact opposite.  Each policy should be carefully thought out, with the goals identified and any potential legal risks evaluated.

              

Eric Smith, CPP is the leading authority on organizational self-defense.  He has extensive experience in law enforcement as well as security management.  Eric is available for staff education and security awareness training as well as business coaching to help organizations provide safe workplaces.  To learn more visit http://www.businesskarate.com. 

If you would like to reprint this post, please contact Eric at eric@businesskarate.com.