Are Bro Hugs At Work Sexual Discrimination?

Not every workplace slight or incivility -- or exclusion -- is actionable, unless...

Hmm. What is this about?

A bro hug … sexist?  How?  Why?

Huh?

Well, it turns out that at least one person may feel this way. A female reader of The New York Times “workologist” wrote this past week that at her blue-collar job “[n]o one ever touches me, and it’s not that I want anyone to. That would be weird.”

So far so good. Right?

The Question

But the “workologist” was told of her concern of “almost feel[ing] left out” when the males at her job “constantly hug and grab and bump each other in a friendly way.” She asked: “Should I let this ‘bro contact’ bother me?”

Sponsored

Should she?

(The headline in the Times’ online edition referred to an “extremely chummy” workplace, while the hard copy edition headline “equivalent” speaks of “when the bros hug it out.” Seems to me there is a difference as it relates to the reader’s question — and different tenor to each of the headlines — which changes the meaning significantly. What do you think?).

The Workologist Responds

After pondering the issue, I then read the response of the workologist to compare my response. He said that “[i]t can be irritating or even troubling to feel left out at work — even if whatever you’re being left out of doesn’t appeal to you.” He noted that “[i]nformal social rituals from happy-hour gatherings to the office Oscar pool can improve an office’s culture — unless they leave some people feeling that they just don’t fit in.”

He also quoted a psych professor who said that this can become a “coded way of excluding people. We don’t want people like you because you don’t fit our culture,’ can turn out to mean, ‘You’re not our race, or our gender.’”

Sponsored

Good point. Channeling Justice Scalia, not every workplace slight or incivility — or exclusion — is actionable, unless it involves things like gender, race, religion, age, etc.

Is A Bro Hug Exclusionary?

But what about a bro hug … is it exclusionary? And if so, is it a “coded way of excluding people” by gender? What if a bro tried to hug the female reader? She said that she wouldn’t like it. Is that harassment?

After setting out the basics, the workologist concluded that “[t]he good news is that it doesn’t seem as if your colleagues are trying to exclude you. In fact, they seem to be behaving respectfully, and they probably don’t suspect their ‘bro contact’ might be bothersome, and almost certainly don’t intend it to be.”

Happy Ending? Or Not??

I tended to agree with the workologist, but then I recalled the famous Dialogues (published here) that I had with my widely known employment partner, the “Notorious AEG” (you may know her as Amy Epstein Gluck, but I like the “notorious” moniker). In them, she gently deconstructed my (enlightened?) males-eye view of workplace gender issues, and provided her view from a female’s perspective. This view was eye-opening, and I re-learned that “you gotta walk in someone’s shoes” …

Maybe The Dialogues Hold The Answer?

I therefore consulted the Dialogues to see if I could get a better handle on the reader’s question and the workologist’s answer. However, it did not provide me with anything directly on point; the closest I got was this exchange:

RBC: Don’t treat co-workers as friends, confidants, or potential dates. They are there to do a job — to make a career — to support a family. Being friendly and supportive is one thing — and a good thing; but being “a friend” is a slippery slope that can land you into trouble. …

AEG: It is a slippery slope to advise “don’t be friends” … this can’t be understated, saying “don’t be friends” would likely lead to male-dominated workplaces and cliques — especially where men are the arbiters of a woman’s promotion or partnership potential. … Bottom line: I don’t think you want to tell men not to be friends with women. It could have unintended and unfortunate consequences.

Amy’s point was a good corrective to my initial view. It is a “slippery slope to advise ‘don’t be friends.’” But this did not quite answer question posed to the workologist.

So, in Talmudic fashion, I consulted the oracle herself for a learned exegesis. (Talmud? Oracle?).

The Oracle Speaks

Amy listened carefully, chewed on the issue, consulted the Dialogues and other primary source material, and after a silent, lengthy deliberation declared that “I generally agree. Generally, yes. Under this limited circumstance. In general, I don’t think the bro hugs are exclusionary. I am glad they recognize not to hug her too.” A true oracle!

Whew! So, I wasn’t entirely out of touch!

Amy explained her reasoning:

“I’m glad they’re being respectful of her and not touching her, BUT are they excluding her from other things such that they’re treating her adversely in the terms and conditions of her employment? Do they meet for lunch, dinner, happy hours, and not tell her AND she’s the only woman? If they invite other women, then it’s just her.

There’s nothing wrong with ‘not hanging out with everyone’ or not liking everyone you work with. It is a problem if they all go to lunch regularly and that benefits their jobs and they exclude just her as the only woman or just the women. (Also, they should consider that some of them don’t want to be hugged).”

Takeaway

Sometimes these things are not so easy.

But as the oracle noted generally: Men must be AWARE … we want to promote and remind men about good, decent, proper, and expected behaviors in the workplace and everywhere. The workplace is a microcosm of society at large.”


richard-b-cohenRichard B. Cohen has litigated and arbitrated complex business and employment disputes for almost 40 years, and is a partner in the NYC office of the national “cloud” law firm FisherBroyles. He is the creator and author of his firm’s Employment Discrimination blog, and received an award from the American Bar Association for his blog posts. You can reach him at Richard.Cohen@fisherbroyles.com and follow him on Twitter at @richard09535496.