Workplace Discrimination Law Training Course

Participants can assess whether available evidence supports a discrimination allegation.

• McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applied to disparate-treatment allegations
• Comparator selection tested for material similarity, timing, and decision-maker evidence
• Direct, circumstantial, and statistical evidence weighed against legal elements
• Adverse-impact analysis separates disparate impact from individual disparate treatment
• Case chronologies expose knowledge, causation, and inconsistent explanations
• Document preservation triggers activated following a complaint or litigation hold

Participants can design and review employment decisions for fairness and legal defensibility.

• Job-related criteria anchored in validated role requirements and essential functions
• Structured interviews use anchored rating scales and consistent questioning
• Selection records test whether screening tools create disparate impact
• Reasonable accommodation considered during testing, interviews, and onboarding
• Recruitment language reviewed for exclusionary criteria and protected-characteristic signals
• Panel decisions documented with evidence-based rationale and conflict declarations

Participants can classify harassment concerns and select proportionate immediate responses.

• Quid pro quo and hostile-environment tests distinguished through fact patterns
• Unwelcome conduct, severity, pervasiveness, and impact assessed systematically
• Employer liability analysed through supervisor status, notice, and corrective action
• Bystander reports and anonymous complaints triaged without premature credibility findings
• Digital communications preserved across messaging, email, and collaboration platforms
• Interim protective measures selected without penalising the reporting party

Participants can manage accommodation requests through a documented, consistent decision process.

• Interactive process stages documented from request through implementation and review
• Essential functions separated from marginal duties using job-analysis evidence
• Undue hardship assessed through cost, disruption, safety, and alternatives
• Religious, disability, pregnancy, and caregiving requests evaluated consistently
• Medical information segregated, minimised, and accessed on a need-to-know basis
• Accommodation decisions recorded with options considered and reasons rejected

Participants can plan and document fair investigations into discrimination complaints.

• Intake interviews define allegations, parties, scope, risks, and immediate safeguards
• Investigation plans sequence witnesses, evidence sources, and decision points
• Trauma-informed interviewing balances procedural fairness with reliable fact gathering
• Credibility assessments apply corroboration, consistency, plausibility, and motive criteria
• Findings use the balance-of-probabilities standard and allegation-by-allegation reasoning
• Investigation reports separate facts, analysis, findings, and recommended actions

Participants can identify retaliation indicators and protect complainants, witnesses and decision-makers.

• Protected activity distinguished from ordinary workplace disagreement and performance concerns
• Retaliation causation tested through timing, knowledge, comparators, and stated reasons
• Manager communications screened for adverse-action risk after complaints
• Performance management maintained with contemporaneous objectives and documented feedback
• Post-complaint monitoring plans identify recurring conduct and escalation triggers
• Whistleblowing, grievance, and discrimination channels coordinated without duplicating investigations

Participants can select lawful resolution options and prepare for external claim management.

• Informal resolution suitability assessed against seriousness, power imbalance, and consent
• Mediation boundaries protect voluntariness, confidentiality, and non-retaliation obligations
• Disciplinary outcomes aligned with findings, precedent, policy, and proportionality
• Remedies calculate reinstatement, back pay, front pay, and non-financial losses
• Settlement terms address releases, confidentiality, references, and tax treatment
• External claims managed through counsel, insurers, regulators, and evidence preservation

Participants can build discrimination-prevention controls supported by data and accountability.

• Anti-discrimination policies translated into reporting, investigation, and accountability controls
• EEOC-style policy elements adapted to applicable local legal requirements
• Training records distinguish attendance, knowledge checks, and behaviour follow-up
• Workforce data segmented to detect selection, pay, promotion, and turnover disparities
• Equal pay audits reconcile job value, pay factors, and unexplained gaps
• Board reporting uses risk indicators, case trends, and remediation status

Participants can create a practical response plan for priority discrimination risks.

• Complaint-response protocol assigns owners, deadlines, privilege, and escalation routes
• Case triage matrix ranks legal exposure, employee harm, and business continuity
• Decision trees distinguish local resolution, formal investigation, and external notification
• Counsel instructions frame questions, facts, documents, and jurisdictional issues
• Action plans assign preventive controls, measures, review dates, and accountable owners
• Personal application commitments address one live policy, process, or case risk