§ 154-464. Examples of prejudicial acts.

The following criteria and examples can assist in determining whether a particular behavior should be classified as a prejudicial act. These criteria are not all-inclusive, and each case must be examined on its own facts and circumstances. Common sense judgment should also be applied in making the determination whether an action should be classified as a prejudicial act.

(1)

Comments, insults, derogatory language, ethnic jokes, teasing, written statements, gestures. Prejudicial and bias-related comments, written statements or gestures.

(2)

Drawings, markings, symbols and graffiti.

a.

Prejudicial-related drawings, markings, symbols or graffiti left at the scene of the incident, i.e., burning crosses, nooses, white hoods, Nazi swastikas, literature or pictures depicting the human anatomy.

b.

Prejudicial-indicators need not establish that the predominant purpose of an employee's actions was motivated by prejudice, hatred or bias. It is sufficient for classification of an incident as a bias act that an individual was acting out of prejudice, hatred or bias, together with other motives, or that a bias motive was a contributing factor, in whole or in part, in the commission of said act.

c.

Racial, religious, ethnic/national origin, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation of the individual allegedly committing the act differs from that of the individual to whom the acts were directed.

d.

The individual to whom the act was directed was engaged in activities promoting the targeted group.

e.

Incident coincided with a holiday or date of particular significance to the targeted group.

f.

Although not a member of the targeted group, the employee is a member of an advocacy group that supports the targeted group, or the employee was in the company of a member of the targeted group.

(3)

Previous existence of prejudicial acts crime/incidents.

a.

Complainant is an employee at a location where previous bias crimes had been committed against members of the targeted group.

b.

Several incidents occurred in the same area, and the employee is a member of the targeted group.

c.

Employee has received previous harassing mail or phone calls or has been the victim of verbal abuse based on his or her affiliation with a targeted group.

(4)

Employee/witness perception. The employee or witnesses perceive that the incident was motivated by bias and prejudice.

(5)

Motive of offender.

a.

Individual allegedly committing the act was previously involved in a similar incident or is a member of, or associates with members of, an organized hate group.

b.

The employee was in the company of, or married to, a member of a targeted group.

c.

The employee was perceived by the offender as violating or breaking from traditional conventions or working in nontraditional employment.

(100-38, 7-10-96)