Thread by @TaraVanHo

🧵 I have (another) update on my friends' experience with racial discrimination at @ZalesJewelers. A before, I'm going to use this to #TeachBHR #BizHumanRights on reparations. When the @winlawjournal symposium videos are up, you can see me do this here:

wilj.org/about/symposiu…

https://twitter.com/TaraVanHo/status/1385352634303979521

This is the letter my friends received from @ZalesJewelers regarding the outcome of his complaint of racial discrimination when he was a customer in one of their stores.

(sorry for the weird cropping... I'm old. Not ancient like @scottjshapiro, but still old.)

2/

As a reminder from the earlier 🧵🧵: all businesses, including @Zales, have a responsibility to respect all internationally recognized human rights (including the right to non-discrimination on the basis of race).

3/

Where they cause or contribute to harming a human right, they owe both procedural remedies--allowing victims to challenge their treatment--and the substantive reparations necessary to restore a victim to the position they would have been in but for the violation.

4/

I'm going to start with where I need to teach least: substantive reparation. I discussed the types of substantive reparations owed in the last 🧵. You will see from the letter (boxed-off most relevant) that *NONE* of these are offered, used, or acknowledged in the letter.

There's no acknowledgment of wrongdoing or apology (satisfaction), no compensation or restitution for material harm from being denied commerce, no compensation for the moral harm done by the incident, & no indication of training or dismissal as a guarantee of non-recurrence.

6/

So, it seems like @ZalesJewelers has failed, significantly, to meet its #BizHumanRights responsibilities. But I can only say it *seems* that way because [OMG!] the lack of procedural transparency & the nature of the letter is so insufficient as to be insulting.

7/

The U.N. Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights (#BizHumanRights) explain the procedural standards a business owes when it conducts its own non-judicial investigation. (@ZalesJewelers Twitter team pls share the linked doc with your managers.)

ohchr.org/documents/publ…

8/

Principle 31 has 8 criteria for procedures. I'm ordering them based on how badly I think @ZalesJewelers did on each criteria (most problematic first)

a. Legitimate, enabling trust from stakeholder groups & accountable for the fair conduct of the process;

b. Equitable: aggrieved parties should have access to information, advice, & expertise necessary to participate in the process.

c. Transparent: clear to the parties with sufficient information about the performance to build confidence in its effectiveness & meet public interest.

d. Rights-compatible: ensuring outcomes and remedies comply with IHRL.

e. Based on engagement and dialogue: developed through consultation with stakeholder groups to ensure they are fit for purpose;

f. A source of continuous learning that informs future decisions & processes.

g. Predictable: you should have a clear procedure with clarity on the types of outcomes available.

h. Accessible: known & accessible to stakeholders w/ assistance to overcome barriers to access.
12/

A company's processes cannot meet the rights-compatible criteria unless they provide appropriate substantive reparations. I've already noted that @ZalesJewelers completely failed in this regard. And it's *STILL* only the fourth most problematic thing about this process!

13/

Let's go back to the letter, which is so clearly a form letter that @ZalesJewelers actually intended for its employees when they make complaints to HR. How do I know this?

Look:

14/

- How would a *customer* reach out to *Human Resources* with questions?
- How would a customer contact the *Employee Relations Solutions Centre*?
- Why would a customer *fear retaliation,* which generally requires an ongoing employment setting?

15/

- How is a customer supposed to know WTF the T.I.P.S. Line is when it's never explained? How can they contact it if the letter doesn't give a ph number?
- How TF can a letter be "for internal use only" when meant for a *customer* who is, by nature, not internal?

16/

The letter makes no sense in this context. It's not fit for purpose.

A process cannot be legitimate if the outcome document makes it clear that a stakeholder (victim) was not intended to be protected or served by the process. That's why this is the most problematic aspect.

17/

There can be no legitimacy or trust in this because @ZalesJewelers couldn't be bothered to develop a distinct form letter for customers.

If this were an exam Q in my class I'd give the student a 0 on this criteria & I'd be mad that I can't give it a -3 like I could in Denmark.

But also, a better form letter isn't an appropriate solution!

Can anyone read this letter and tell me whether my friends' concerns were taken on board? Can anyone tell me what evidence was reviewed? Who was interviewed? How long was spent on this case? How to appeal?

19/

Or why this does not list *video* as part of the reviewed evidence??? Again, it's a jewelry store & my friends were *at the counter.* Is there really no video of a jewelry store counter?

I mean, maybe... theoretically... but how do they afford insurance for this store??

20/

No one can answer those questions because the process is designed to be inequitable and intransparent. My friends are given no information, have no right to participate in the process, cannot counter @ZalesJewelers' conclusions, or understand the outcome.

21/

So, the process fails on these two criteria. Badly. Because they don't just get everything wrong, they do so in such a complete way that what they present misrepresents the applicable standards in every way possible.

It's like if I said 2+2=7 million.

22/

Now, I can't fully access whether the process is based on a dialogue with stakeholders, but--again--as @ZalesJewelers couldn't bother to develop a distinct form letter, I'm going to assume not.

23/

My friends weren't given information--during the process or now--about what to expect from the process. Nor were they given an ability to really participate in or access the process. In total, they were contacted twice and asked questions. They weren't given anything more.

24/

So, @ZalesJewelers met *none* of the criteria for an appropriate process under international law on #BizHumanRights, what businesses owe when they harm human rights.

They get everything wrong. In doing so, they perpetuate the harm caused by the initial discrimination.

25/

Now, the moral harm is not simply that they had to walk outside and explain discrimination to their children. They have now been denied an effective process (a separate rights violation) & will need to explain *that* to their children (a separate harm).

26/

What's the lesson for their children? That when discriminated against it's a waste of time to complain? That there's no evidence it will matter? There is no evidence that Black people are taken seriously by @ZalesJewelers or that their concerns will be adequately addressed?

27/

Acts of #RacialDiscrimination in the service industry represent serious breaches of #HumanRights standards. It's inexcusable that @ZalesJewelers treats such issues so callously. It's unacceptable that they treat their Black customers so dismissively.

28/

And it's frustratingly sad to see how inadequate their approach is, both procedurally and substantively.

@ZalesJewelers has failed my friends in this case.

And in doing so they have failed all their Black customers.

29/29