Yesterday, I read an interview with Mauricia Grant on SI.com by Tom Bowles. I don't know if Mr. Bowles supports Ms. Grant, or if he is trying to make her look not-so-victimized, but I didn't think Ms. Grant came off very well in the article.
From the information in the story, it appears that Ms. Grant's position with NASCAR was her first real job in auto racing. She was interning at Irwindale Speedway in California during the fall of 2004, as part of her training with the Urban League Automotive Training Center in Los Angeles. She was hired by NASCAR in January of 2005.
"I knew that I didn't want to start at the bottom, in any type of oil changing capacity -- I wanted to start at the top. So, I aimed to work in a major league motorsports environment. And NASCAR was it."
That quote is from the article. Ms. Grant was obviously ambitious, and she states very clearly that she was not interested in "paying dues", so to speak. NASCAR, however, is in many ways a "dues paying" profession. I don't believe Tony Eury Jr., Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s crew chief, was a crew chief for his first job in racing. Ms. Grant's position does not seem to be one that would be "entry level", but it was (apparently) her first job in racing. Her quest to "start at the top" in racing was most likely aided by her gender and race.
When asked what NASCAR needed to do to make changes in the culture of the garage, Ms. Grant had this to say: "They need to stop hiring their ignorant brothers, cousins and uncles of theirs, and start hiring qualified, educated people to start running their multibillion dollar business. Stop giving 'Uncle Frank' a hookup knowing that he's ignorant." When asked if she thought diversity training would help, she said she didn't think it would change anything, then added: "You need to hire people who are well-rounded, educated, capable of stepping into any type of environment and not making themselves look like a fool."
I don't really think she comes across very well in these statements.
The most troubling revelation in the interview, for me at least, is the story of the spreadsheet. She states that in January of 2006, at the behest of her sisters, she began documenting the comments and actions that she found inappropriate. While I don't necessarily think it was a bad idea, I also think that from the moment she made the first entry until the day in October 2007 that she was fired, she was planning this lawsuit. Also, from that day in January 2006, if she ever "played along", or failed to report an incident that she later entered in her journal, then I don't think she should be allowed to sue for anything after that point.
If she reported each incident, and the accusations were ignored, then she may have a case. Plenty of people in offices all over the country tell jokes to and about their coworkers that would be inappropriate to tell people they didn't know. If Ms. Grant ever acted amused, rather than hurt, by a racial- or gender-based joke, without telling her coworkers, how would they know that they had crossed a line with her? I would almost bet that the (ill-advised, perhaps) attempts at humor were a sign of acceptance, rather than hate or disrespect of Ms. Grant.
Even though the interview raises serious questions for me about Ms. Grant's motives, I do not think her case should be summarily dismissed. The charge that two of her male coworkers exposed themselves to her is enough to get the case heard in court, simply because I can't imagine a scenario where anyone would think that behavior would be acceptable. If that allegation is proved to be true, then Ms. Grant will win the lawsuit. I don't think she'll get (or deserve) $225M, but she will win, and get a significant award.
No comments:
Post a Comment