Remote or In Office? Changing How We Communicate and Resolve Differences.

Episode Notes

Transcript

Nieves Bolanos:

Workplaces are people. It’s all people listening, hearing, making people feel valued and understood, or at least heard I think is going to eliminate a lot of issues at the forefront.

Matt Greer:

What happens when individual diverging viewpoints collide on the job? Sometimes they create what might appear to be irreconcilable workplace differences that labor and employment lawyers are called in to address. On this episode, we are joined by Nieves Bellanos and Chitra Gawda to discuss those dynamics and resulting conflicts. Chitra and Neevas explore the legal implications that arise when handling those situations and provide practical tips on ways to resolve them before they become truly irreconcilable. Hello and welcome to the ABA Labor and Employment Law Podcast. I’m your host, Matt Greer. In my day job, I work for the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission, where I spend most of my time serving as a public sector labor relations mediator, hearing examiner, arbitrator, and trainer, always as a neutral. Probably like you, my focus area is one small piece of the bigger labor and employment law universe. I enjoy broadening my horizons through this podcast and learning about what’s going on in the wide world of labor and employment law from experts in the field.

On today’s episode, I’m honored to welcome Nieves Bolanos and Chitra Gowda to discuss how to navigate the legal and practical implications of diverging perceptions in the workplace that result in what might appear to be irreconcilable workplace differences. Chytra represents employers as a shareholder at the law firm of Baker Donaldson based in Baltimore. Nevas represents employees as a shareholder at the law firm of Hawks Quindle based in Chicago. Chitra and Neevas were part of a fascinating panel discussion at the ABA LEL Section Conference in Denver last year and I really appreciate them joining us to share their wisdom on the podcast. Be sure to check out their full bios in the show notes. Thank you so much for joining us, Nievas and Chitra. Welcome to the show.

Nieves Bolanos:

Thank

Chaitra Gowda:

You. Thanks, Matt.

Matt Greer:

It’s great to have you both here. So this is a really fascinating topic and I think it’s obviously very timely as well given our current world, so I really appreciate you coming on to share that. So I thought maybe to start off our conversation, in case it is a surprise to any of our listeners and ha-ha, I think probably most of us know that these are issues that come up a lot these days, but what are irreconcilable workplace differences? And do you sense that they’re on the rise these days? So maybe Chaitra, if you want to start off?

Chaitra Gowda:

Sure. I definitely think it’s on the rise. I think traditionally both as attorneys and probably employees and employers, you were probably thinking of more those classic whistleblower cases or discrimination cases. And what’s been on the rise, in my opinion, since really COVID when we had this big break from being in the office to now going back is the trickier issues that come up, which is sometimes it’s not really a legal issue and it’s more about a personality clash or something of that nature and how do you deal with that? There’s been an uptick in that and it’s fascinating having to work with my clients at least trying to figure out what is the best way to move forward when it’s clearly a disruption, but what do you do next? Because at the end of the day, if you’re taking some kind of action, it’s impacting someone and you want to be making the right sound decision and it just gets trickier and trickier these days.

Matt Greer:

Yeah. What do you think, Neevas?

Nieves Bolanos:

Yeah, I’d agree that these sorts of issues are on the rise and I think that we’ve also sort of lost a sense of, I guess, politeness. I think in all areas of society, and that includes the workplace, the workplace is another social interaction. And I think things have changed a lot in the last several years with respect to what becomes acceptable ways to speak to each other, react to each other. And I think we’re driven more by extremes now more than ever and that creates problems everywhere, including the workplace. This has always been the case. It’s a workplace. There are friendships that are developed. There are alliances that are created, people support each other on projects and switch teams. And so it’s always going to be complex socially. And I think that you have to just really be careful about what the root of the issue is and whether it’s driven by some sort of bias in which case it does become a legal matter.

Matt Greer:

Yeah. And I think that is a fascinating kind of piece that I’m certainly curious about is where these kind of, I don’t know, awkward conversations that are driven by those differences kind of rise to a level where they do become legal and more implications there. So I’m curious if you get any further thoughts on those pieces. I know you touched on those during your panel discussion that was fascinating. So curious to hear more about that.

Chaitra Gowda:

Yeah, it definitely touches on the legal aspect too. I mean, kind of what Nieves mentioned, it’s not just even the COVID of it all and people are now trying to maybe reenter and relearn how to communicate with one another. We’re also coming up with massive generational gaps. We have the New York generations who’ve almost been taught virtually for their more formative adult years and now being thrown into the workplace. And then you also have the much older generations who’ve only known how to work and it’s the old saying of butts in seats or whatnot. And I think when you’re trying to navigate that space, you also come across people who employees, at least from my perspective or my observations of an age issue, or now there’s a lot more anxiety and stressors like that and mental health is so much more at the forefront and people are not shy to discuss that and raise awareness to their employers.

So I think what starts with maybe some difference in opinion in terms of communication style or treatment ends up rising to the level of a legal analysis, whether it’s a disability or an accommodation, things of that nature, at least from my perspective.

Nieves Bolanos:

Stereotyping, a number of the laws that are in place to protect employees from bias are premised on the idea of stereotyping, including the Age Discrimination Employment Act. So I think that we have to be really conscious about, is this an issue between two individuals who just don’t see eye to eye, or is this something that as Chitra’s pointing out is a generational gap? And then if that’s the issue, is there a stereotyping based on age that’s occurring? And these analysis, they’re not easy and they’re tricky and you’re dealing with people with feelings and emotions and perspectives. And so it can be really, really difficult to navigate the root of some of the workplace issues that arise. I think with respect to the mental health piece, we see the EEOC put out a guidance talking about stereotyping folks who say, “I need an accommodation due to a mental health issue.” And we see the courts recognizing that then you can’t treat this person like they’re the unibomber just because they said, “I have bipolar disorder and I need to take time off from time to time.” And I really do think that those ADA accommodations are where you really see friction between management and employees with respect to being in the office.

We now know it’s not totally necessary. We can function and people are technologically set up to work remotely. I see it sort of as this power struggle. We can require you to be in the office and then the question becomes, but should you and at what cost?

Matt Greer:

That’s interesting. I was kind of curious if you had any thoughts as you were talking with your clients about if there is less in- person, more virtual interactions in the workplace these days. So there’s that piece that you just referred to. But I’m always curious though, if that is perhaps in some ways exacerbating the workplace differences, if you’re communicating mostly through virtual, is that different than if you’re in the workplace dealing more in person? I’m just kind of curious from a practical matter if that seems to be part of the source for an increase in these irreconcilable differences of that part of it is at play at all.

Chaitra Gowda:

For me personally, representing employers, I do see that as an uptick, Matt. It’s funny you say it because as much as we have learned that we can operate virtually all the time, I think there’s also this component of the workforce spends the majority of their days speaking to their colleagues or working with their colleagues. And this is truly part of it is a personal opinion but also a professional opinion of I think when you have to see each other and interact with each other and messages are exchanged in person, I think they hit differently than on a Teams message or a Slack message or an email where a lot of miscommunication happens solely because it’s being interpreted the wrong way. I’ve had recent cases where I’m either investigating them or handling them pre-litigation and I’m going through these documents, speaking to the different individuals and it almost always seems to be a case of just not understanding each other because all they’re doing is communicating via email or via Teams when it’s necessary.

And there’s a sentiment of we’re just a number, we’re just doing this as a business. And of course that’s an element of it. We’re all working for the purpose of providing services in exchange for money. But I think when you spend the whole day with someone and you’re with them, it creates a different relationship. You get to know each other on a personal level, it humanizes one another and we see that we all have faults and we can excuse it as opposed to constantly being behind a computer. So yeah, I think you kind of hit it at least from an employer perspective, but even in my own office, I see it. Those who come in, the younger attorneys, I think they’re learning more and gravitating towards getting mentored in a better way than those who don’t. So maybe I’m totally old school, but I definitely think that’s something I’ve made an observation on.

Matt Greer:

What about your experience, Nievis? Do you see that with your clients? Is that kind of playing into this at all, the virtual versus in- person dynamics?

Nieves Bolanos:

I don’t know. I see a lot of folks who come to me because maybe an accommodation is to work from home. A lot of times that is the preference or the necessity depending on what they’re dealing with as far as a disability or a leave that’s needed. What I do think and I wonder about often is collective action and whether working from home makes it more difficult for workers to collectively come together and say, “We need a change in the workplace,” or, “We don’t like a particular policy,” or, “We need support from management on X.” When you’re having lunch together or meeting in the same conference room, there’s inevitably discussion and talk about workplace issues. And it’s really, really important in improving workplaces and ensuring that workers and employees have a voice and feel empowered to take action in order to protect their rights. So I do wonder how that’s being affected and if we’re going to see less collective action as a result.

Matt Greer:

Interesting. Yeah. Certainly an interesting dynamic. And I mean, I don’t know, I guess this may be this topic that’s more interesting to me than to both of you, but I’ve heard in my work as a mediator, especially when I deal with perhaps grievances that are coming up and there’s an interpersonal dynamic at play where maybe an employee or a supervisor and their relationship is a little bit off for whatever reason and the virtual piece actually helps because they don’t have to necessarily see each other as often. So some of the irreconcilable differences seem to have been maybe lessened because there’s less the opportunity to meet together. But then I also hear that maybe that you don’t get to explain the context of your communications maybe in some of the ways that you were indicating Chidera. So I was curious, we don’t have to go too far down that rabbit hole if you don’t want to, but it has been something that’s been on my mind.

So I guess I would just throw it out there if there’s anything else that you thought would be interesting there.

Chaitra Gowda:

Yeah. And I think Navis and I also spoke about this in advance of this meeting, but it takes something as simple as feedback and evaluations. I think something like that, if you’re virtual, you’re not seeing each other and then once a year or every six months you just get this documented evaluation and it goes both ways. From the manager side, they’re probably just going through it and just taking off above average, above average, above average, or it’s the alternative where it’s being really picked at and a employee’s looking at it like, “What are you talking about? I’ve done all the work.” And I think when you’re in the office together or wherever you get together, that kind of feedback, you’re probably going to get more consistent, frequent feedback because you’re working together, it’s a lot easier to have built a relationship to say, “Hey, that thing that you did last time, if you could just change a few of these little nicks, it would be better.” And I think that kind of consistent feedback also not only improves someone’s performance, but also builds a completely different relationship where people understand each other.

Whereas if you’re just waiting for that six-month or 12-month marker, there’s such animosity that builds up because there’s two different perspectives. And from a manager standpoint, they’re like, “We just gave them exactly what they’ve done.” And from an employee standpoint, they’re like, “Wait, they’ve never spoken to me. That’s insane that they’re writing all of this. ” So at least from a manager standpoint for me, again, and in a sense, it’s required, whether it needs to be written or spoken about, some kind of feedback. And I think it gets harder and harder to do that when you’re not seeing each other, you’re not understanding what the core issue is, but you’re kind of struggling with these really broad moments that maybe it’s things that happened six months ago and the employee is asking, “Why are you talking about something that happened six months ago?” But yeah, that’s a simple example of where I still think the personality clashes or differences could be heightened when you’re not seeing each other and you’re just kind of hiding behind a screen.

Nieves Bolanos:

Yeah. I think a key point that I see, Checha, is the communication. I think whether we’re in person or virtual, it’s a really key factor and I think everybody’s sort of afraid of it. Management doesn’t want to say too much because they’re worried about how it’s going to be used going forward. And I think employees and workers are worried about it because they don’t want to later have it used against them in evaluations or otherwise or face retaliation for not agreeing with something. I see a lot of times, for example, I was talking to Chetra in preparation for this podcast about how often I see people who say, “I made complaints and I told my managers or I told HR, I filed a report, I did all the things, and then I just never heard anything.” So that person’s assumption is that nothing was done or it fell through the cracks or it’s ongoing.

They never get a follow-up or some sort of closure or they’re just told, “We closed it out. We did an investigation and we closed it out and nothing more.” And that doesn’t feel like a resolution. It doesn’t feel like you’ve been heard. It doesn’t feel like there’s anything that you can sort of take and say, “Okay, well now this problem that I complained about this has happened or this is going to change or it wasn’t a violation.” And even just having that, you can be upset about the result, but at least you know there was a result and at least you know something happened. I understand a reticence on the side of management or an employer to say, “This is exactly what we did,” because they may be subject to feedback on that from the worker who had the grievance, but at the same time to say nothing, it really does give workers a sense of, “You don’t really care about this.

You’re just going through the motions and nothing’s going to change. I took the risk of coming to you with this problem of potentially being retaliated against and you don’t even care.” Better communication in circumstances like that I think can really nip things in the bud because a lot of times people just want to know that it was taken seriously, something’s going to happen, maybe something will change, but at a minimum that they’ve been heard.

Matt Greer:

Excellent points. Thank you both. I wanted to take a pause here for a quick break to give our listeners an opportunity to hear about some upcoming opportunities from the ABA Labor and Employment Law section. So try to any of us. If you can maybe talk a litle bit more, I know you mentioned it before about some of the specific laws, the ADEA, some of the collective bargaining labor relations laws that might be implicated here. I wonder if we could maybe come back to some of those specifics and see if you have any thoughts on those. So we’ll be right back after a quick break. All right and we’re back. Okay. As we left off, I thought maybe if we wanted to circle back to maybe some of the specific laws that we talked about and see if there are any of those that kind of present unique issues where those irreconcilable differences come up in that more legal sense.

Chaitra Gowda:

Yeah, I think as based on recent history and political administrations, I think one of the bigger challenges are microaggressions. It all boils down to what we’ve been talking about, about communication and are people hearing each other, but microaggressions have become more and more prevalent and how do you handle that? Because you’re going to be triggering Title VII most particularly, but a lot of the other statutes that come into play and there’s such an assessment, at least from the manager side, is this someone who is intentionally causing havoc in the workplace and intentionally and knowingly making microaggressions or stating microaggressions towards others or whatnot? Or is this someone who simply doesn’t know better and how do you navigate that space? Because those are two different assessments, right? Someone who’s intentionally knowingly doing something versus someone who had no idea but still caused the same kind of harm to an employee or group of employees.

And I don’t know any of this if you’ve also seen a lot of that in a lot of matters with your clients.

Nieves Bolanos:

Yeah. I hear about microaggressions quite a bit. I almost hate the word because I don’t think they’re micro. When you’re in a workplace and people are making comments or treating you a certain way because of the way you look very often and I’ll say, I see it happens to Black women more than anyone and they’re perceived as being angry or whoa, whoa, take the temperature down or they’re being perceived as being aggressive simply for doing the things that from another person would be completely acceptable or just passionate about their work or they feel strongly about this project and it’s perceived in a completely different way. And it’s really frustrating when someone’s having to deal with that consistently and also being denied opportunities for leadership in ways that other folks aren’t and then to hear it called micro because it doesn’t feel micro, particularly since it’s probably not just happening at work.

It’s something you’re dealing with in your life all the time and then it happens at work and it feels sometimes more unfair because you’re there in a professional capacity, right? As long as you’re doing your job, you shouldn’t have to deal with any of the extras. But yes, I see people coming forward about these things more often and I think that’s good because people feel empowered to and realize like this isn’t acceptable. I shouldn’t have to just take it. I think it’s happened for generations, but we’re just now seeing that people are feeling empowered to bring it to the fore and to say, “This is unacceptable. I don’t feel like I’m being treated fairly or the same as my colleagues because of my skin color, my gender, my religion, whatever the case may be. ” And I think it’s important to remember that Title VII deals with severe or pervasive.

So when these things are happening consistently and all the time and when they’re not changing because maybe people don’t know how to deal with them or because they don’t know that it was on purpose, then I think this kind of an environment absolutely can lead to legal liability and courts have found that. They’ve found that ongoing comments about texture of hair or complexion or request to tone down certain qualities that those are examples of conduct when it’s occurring over and over can rise to Title VII liability.

Matt Greer:

I guess I’m curious, and just following up on a couple of things you mentioned. So to me, it sounds like a good thing, Nieves, if people are feeling that there is more of opportunity to addres some of those things, microaggressions that might rise to that level, or maybe even not, maybe they aren’t rising to that level, but there’s an opportunity to bring them forward. Is that an opportunity to resolve some of these things that are irreconcilable workplace diferences or does that kind of present a new maybe difference that kind of has to be resolved in a different way? And has it been in your experience, a more positive way to have those forums to resolve some of those differences and maybe a less than litigation forum?

Nieves Bolanos:

I think it depends. Shitcher makes a good point about, well, what’s driving the conduct and employers have to sort of figure that out and it can be really difficult because again, we’re dealing with people who have backgrounds and families and histories of their own that drive the way they feel or perceive things. I think that when employers were encouraged to engage in DEIA that it provided a really unique opportunity to sort of educate everyone about the things that are and aren’t acceptable and microaggressions, unconscious bias, all sorts of things that will then now we know. Maybe somebody didn’t realize that what they were doing was offensive to someone else, to another coworker, but now maybe you do, maybe you understand that. You can have a conversation, learn a safe space where people are able to sort of grow and understand each other in a different way.

So I think it’s a huge disservice that those programs have been threatened and discontinued in the way they have because I do think that it’s key to addressing workplace issues and allowing management and employees to grow their knowledge base and interact with each other in a way that’s going to be more productive and civil.

Chaitra Gowda:

And I’ll just say to add to that, at least from my observations, I do think even with certain programs perhaps no longer being active, I’m still seeing that most companies have several avenues or paths to try to resolve these issues from lodging an anonymous complaint to both going straight to HR or going straight to your manager or having a hotline, but then they also offer an ombundsm to kind of step in and play this mediator because as we’ve kind of discussed, it sometimes boils down to communication and how people were raised and what they know and it really quickly can be something that not to downplay really offensive language that can be harmful, but it can be something that can be nipped in the bud when someone’s educated on it. And from a manager standpoint, even though it might not seem like it all the time, they also want to assess a situation like that.

At least in my experiences, if there are folks that are creating problems intentionally and knowingly, companies want to deal with that too, because at the end of the day, they do want a workplace where people are getting along and even one person can create a ripple effect. And even if you want to look at it from a very black and white standpoint, if one person’s causing a ripple effect, operations are going to slow down. So if you even want to look at it from a number standpoint, managers don’t want that. Maybe I’m being a little naive about it, but I do think managers truly want people to get along and they want people who support each other to be working in a workplace. So in all the different avenues that exist, I think managers also encourage employees to identify problems because they can’t be everywhere.

And if there is a problem that really exists, whichever path you take, whether it’s an internal investigation, hiring attorneys to look at it or having an internal ombundsman process, I do think it does have an impact. And I think the vast majority of employees, at least I might say it from my perspective, are appreciative of that even with some of these programs that have been deactivated or put on the back burner right now.

Nieves Bolanos:

I’ll say another disservice to all in making employers fearful to engage in DEIA and training related to diversity, equity, and inclusion is that when you pull away from those programs and you say, “We’re not going to do that because it’s too big a risk, maybe they’re federally funded or don’t want to be targeted in a particular way,” that kind of education and work and training is a great piece of evidence that employers can point to to say, “No, we have been proactive in trying to create a workplace that’s devoid of discrimination. Here are all the things we’ve done. Here are the trainings.” And a pulling back of that I think could potentially create an inference of the opposite, that we’re not concerned about a workplace that’s equitable and inclusive and doesn’t engage in discriminatory conduct. So you probably can tell where I stand on the issue pretty clearly, but I think it was such a great moment where we were all sort of embracing this idea that we all need to work to understand the biases that we all have and recognizing them and then working to really learn about how to be better and to view the world and the people around us in a way that’s more inclusive.

Matt Greer:

Great points. It is kind of a difficult to have this conversation without acknowledging that there are bigger things going on. We’re recording this. There was some news, I think just last week about the EEOC kind of taking some certain actions that I think some people were interpreting as showing a different focus, which I’m guessing Titus, some of your clients especially might be looking at and thinking through their legal liability potentials and how they interact and resolve these, what tools they have to hopefully resolve these in the lower level that any of us I think was indicating. So we are getting relatively close to the end of time. So I was going to turn it to you all for tips. And maybe one of the tips if you have them is like, how do you navigate in this current environment where things maybe feel like they’re changing and maybe are actually changing, I’ll leave that to others to interpret.

But as you’re faced with those challenges from your clients and the questions they might have, do you have any thoughts for them or for our listeners who might be having those same questions as they navigate our current environment?

Chaitra Gowda:

I think it boils back down to the same keywords like communication. You hear something or you learn of something, have a conversation from a manager standpoint or from an employee standpoint because that conversation could quickly tell the story of what needs to take place next. And trust that the system will work at least attempt to hope.You have to hope that the internal systems in place in your workplace will work and go to HR or go to … To your manager, because I think if you take the proper steps, I have to believe that the right changes or processes will be put into place to ensure the vast majority are happy and content. Because I still go back to the point of without having that conversation, it creates a ripple effect. And even from a manager standpoint, they don’t want that. They want a copacetic environment because they want everyone to work and get along.

I think that’s the biggest point. And also Nieves mentioned it early on about how I don’t think people even realize I’m a litigator. You give me a litigation issue, I can probably drill it down in 30 minutes. Every time the client calls about advice and counsel, I’m sure they’re thinking, why is this taking four hours? And I’m looking at everything again. I’m talking to my mentors saying, “This is another wackadoodle case. What do we do here?” Because it’s so much more intricate. And so involve the folks that have an expertise on this because it really is a nuanced assessment of what needs to be happening and what should be done in the next steps.

Nieves Bolanos:

Yeah. Communication is, I think, absolutely key. I agree with that 100%. I also think it helps to step back and remind ourselves that workplaces are people. It’s all people listening, hearing, making people feel valued and understood, or at least heard I think is going to eliminate a lot of issues at the forefront. Not everyone’s going to get along all the time. It’s just an inevitability. But I think creating spaces and ways to communicate when there are issues is going to eliminate a lot that could otherwise really build up and boil over. One of the cases we looked at during the panel, one of the facts was that this employee had been working for the company for decades. I want to say it was over 20 years and then had an issue and it was pretty egregious the things that were going on and got in trouble, was involved in a disciplinary process and said, “Hey, let me have one more chance.

I’ve been here a really long time. This isn’t the norm. Let me have a second chance and it’ll be the last chance and I’m not going to mess up.” And the employer said no. And they terminated this employee and now we have this case that went up to the appellate court and backed down in a jury trial. And you kind of wonder if they just said, “Yeah, look, you’ve been here a long time. One more chance. One chance we’re going to give you a shot at making it right. And maybe the employee would’ve done it, maybe not. Maybe we’d still be in the same place.” But I don’t think anybody likes to see someone with decades of loyalty and work for an entity thrown out without consideration or seeming to have due process even when it’s not required. It’s not a public employer. You don’t have to give due process, but I think it could help.

Matt Greer:

Great. Thank you very much. I mean, we are getting close to the end of our time here. I do want to thank you both for your time and having this conversation. Very fascinating. So I learned a lot and again, thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. I guess as we close out, I just want to give you one more chance if there was anything that we didn’t discuss that you wanted to just quickly touch base on as we close out. Any final tips that you have? And I’m always kind of curious if you have any, you both represent a certain constituency in terms of employers and employees. I don’t know, do you have any tips for the other side? If you say, “Hey, I wish that the employee plaintiff bar might be thinking about this when they’re looking at their advice to their clients and vice versa, any advice that would go for the employers.” I’m kind of curious if you have any thoughts there as we close out the conversation.

Chaitra Gowda:

I’ll say, I mean, even for managers, sometimes I’m like, “Just take a breath. Let’s play this by a little more slowly and see what goes on. ” Because another hot topic that we talked about is that at the end of the day, we’re all human and I think sometimes managers hear certain conduct or hear certain statements and they want to take immediate action. And I think sometimes just taking a step back and evaluating the whole scenario is helpful and talking towards employees or their counsel, it’s also looking at the big picture. I think it’s really easy to focus on those last minutes or those last days that led to whatever alleged action that took place, but are we looking at the bigger picture of what’s happened? And Nieves mentioned one of the cases that we talked about and I was smiling when she was talking about how maybe give that employee one more last chance they’ve been around for 20, 30 years.

But if I remember correctly, the record actually showed that there had been other issues and the employer had gotten to a point of like, will another chance actually result in this person changing in a positive way? And again, I wasn’t their attorney, so I don’t know if that question was asked and that wasn’t part of the assessment, but that is a question to be asked. So I think for the other side, I would say just look at the bigger picture and maybe ask what else has been taking place? Has there been anything that their clients have also done or not done that may have led to the place that they’re in right now?

Nieves Bolanos:

One thing I always think about is why does it have to … I mean, obviously liability and legal liability is going to be the driver for whether we reach a settlement or increase the severance or win summary judgment, things of that nature, the litigation. But I get so many calls from people about things that aren’t necessarily illegal but are terrible. So I think about culturally, what do you want your workplace to look like? And bullying is not necessarily illegal unless it’s rooted in some sort of bias, racism, discriminatory intent, but it’s still really terrible. And so I think maybe just sort of a larger focus on the culture of a workplace as opposed to a fear of liability as the focus for how you want people to feel when they’re coming into work every day.

Matt Greer:

Great. Very thoughtful comments there at the end. I really appreciate that. Hopefully people found that as interesting and insightful as I did. So thank you both again, Nieves and Chetra for joining us today. Really great conversation. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this episode. I also want to thank our listeners also for taking the time to listen. If this is your first time listening to our podcast, make sure you give us a follow on your favorite podcast player and feel free to rate us if you would like to and feel free to give us some suggestions for podcast episode ideas if you have any. All right, thank you. Talk to you next time.