What Category of Wrongdoing Is This?

[egrizzly]

Jurisdiction

Texas

My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: Texas

At the workplace we recently got a new technology manager. His patterns are somewhat odd. What he does is that in a team where there are two employees of the same rank/role he lays out more projects for one employee than he does the other. One employee is african-american (Employee A) while the other is hispanic (Employee B). One relevant factor to note is that the manager had previously worked with Employee B in a previous organization.

In the present company where they all work together Employee A has more experience with the set of technology tools used in the workplace while Employee B, although having experience with similar tools, does not have direct experience with the specific brand name/model of tools in their current workplace.

Still, another behavior this tech manager exhibits is that when Employee A presents reasonable projects ideas he dismisses them as "not useful" but then takes the same exact idea and uses it to assign a project to Employee B crediting him with the completed goal and experience.

Yet another behavior shown by the tech manager is that whenever a normal discussion arises he "injects" unrelated words that change the narrative of the discussion to something that makes Employee A look incompetent. (hope I'm using "narrative" correctly here.). Anyway, an example would be the example conversation below:

- Employee A: "Hi guys. Which computer do we use for receiving external email. Is it computer1 or computer2?"
- Tech Manager: "Be sure you're not installing Adobe Photoshop on computer1. It's strictly for email only"
- Employee A: "I don't get your meaning? Where does Adobe Photoshop come into the picture?"
- Tech Manager: You have to be careful which software goes into Computer1 and computer2
- Employee B: "Yes. Adobe Photoshop would absolutely cause a lot of problems."

The discussion is now driven from a legitimate question about which computer is used for external email to Employee A being coached on an activity that never took place, with the Tech Manager and Employee B being on one side and Employee A on another.

Anyway, I certainly don't know much about employment law but since the previous two tech managers did not do any of this and coordinated work fairly between employees I thought to post this here to the legal community that has deeper insight on such things. A dozen hi-fives all for your suggestions, comments and contributions.

 

[army judge]

How are you able to ascertain and attribute racial identities by merely observing others?

Nothing you've described is illegal.

There is no law that commands a manager apportion work equally, or that work be apportioned fairly.

That is to say, a manager could appear to give a larger volume of work or a difficult assignment to Mollie, while Megan sits at her desk reading periodicals, playing games, or drinking herbal tea all day.

Yes, mate, conferring preference on some doesn't mean that behavior is outlawed.

Observing something alone isn't proving it, even if you record it.

It may be deemed unprofessional, but not illegal.

Heck, for all you know Larry is said to work remotely, while he's actually at home abusing drugs all day and ensuring Ms. Boss Lady receives her FREE supply of illicit substances regularly.

I learned many decades ago, if I'm not involved, I see nothing, say nothing, and do nothing. I'm not the "company police". No matter my title, I'm an employee, too!

 

[mightymoose]

You would need information that tends to prove that the employee was treated unfairly because of the employees race. Scenario you have provided here does not clearly indicate that race was the reason for the behavior.

 

[Zigner]

@egrizzly Why does any of this matter to you?

 

[adjusterjack]

One employee is african-american (Employee A)

You wouldn't happen to be Employee A, would you?

 

[egrizzly]

How are you able to ascertain and attribute racial identities by merely observing others?

Nothing you've described is illegal.

There is no law that commands a manager apportion work equally, or that work be apportioned fairly.

That is to say, a manager could appear to give a larger volume of work or a difficult assignment to Mollie, while Megan sits at her desk reading periodicals, playing games, or drinking herbal tea all day.

Yes, mate, conferring preference on some doesn't mean that behavior is outlawed.

Observing something alone isn't proving it, even if you record it.

It may be deemed unprofessional, but not illegal.

Heck, for all you know Larry is said to work remotely, while he's actually at home abusing drugs all day and ensuring Ms. Boss Lady receives her FREE supply of illicit substances regularly.

I learned many decades ago, if I'm not involved, I see nothing, say nothing, and do nothing. I'm not the "company police". No matter my title, I'm an employee, too!

Thanks for your well written explanation @army judge This has 0.00 to do with race but opportunities each employee gets to complete tasks for promotion.

When the case is presented to promote Employee A vs Employee B the question will be posed "Well, what has this employee done that warrants the promotion". The tech manager will then list all the tasks completed by one employee which outnumber the tasks completed by the peer employee resulting in promotion of one over the other due to the projects completed.

Just objectively trying to learn any provisions (or lack of) made by law be it state federal, municipal, etc when it comes to this type of scenario.

Again, race/nationality/etc not involved here just the same opportunity to complete tasks/projects that lead to promotion.

 

[Zigner]

This has 0.00 to do with race but opportunities each employee gets to complete tasks for promotion.
.
.
.
Again, race/nationality/etc not involved here just the same opportunity to complete tasks/projects that lead to promotion.

Then why did you even MENTION race?

Nothing illegal has been occurring.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Thanks for your well written explanation @army judge This has 0.00 to do with race but opportunities each employee gets to complete tasks for promotion.

When the case is presented to promote Employee A vs Employee B the question will be posed "Well, what has this employee done that warrants the promotion". The tech manager will then list all the tasks completed by one employee which outnumber the tasks completed by the peer employee resulting in promotion of one over the other due to the projects completed.

Just objectively trying to learn any provisions (or lack of) made by law be it state federal, municipal, etc when it comes to this type of scenario.

Again, race/nationality/etc not involved here just the same opportunity to complete tasks/projects that lead to promotion.

In the future, I'd strongly suggest unless race is an issue don't bring it into a conversation. This isn't just true on this forum but in life in general.

Now to your question. Are there not people in your life that you like better than others and are more willing to help? Do you think there should be laws that require you to like everyone the same or must be willing to help? Work is no different in this respect.

 

[egrizzly]

How are you able to ascertain and attribute racial identities by merely observing others?

Nothing you've described is illegal.

There is no law that commands a manager apportion work equally, or that work be apportioned fairly.

That is to say, a manager could appear to give a larger volume of work or a difficult assignment to Mollie, while Megan sits at her desk reading periodicals, playing games, or drinking herbal tea all day.

Yes, mate, conferring preference on some doesn't mean that behavior is outlawed.

Observing something alone isn't proving it, even if you record it.

It may be deemed unprofessional, but not illegal.

Heck, for all you know Larry is said to work remotely, while he's actually at home abusing drugs all day and ensuring Ms. Boss Lady receives her FREE supply of illicit substances regularly.

I learned many decades ago, if I'm not involved, I see nothing, say nothing, and do nothing. I'm not the "company police". No matter my title, I'm an employee, too!

This is actually the most detailed insight I got on this. Thanks for taking the time to share this info.