Intent vs. Impact in HR: What the Coca-Cola EEOC Case Teaches Employers
Intent vs. Impact: What the Coca-Cola EEOC Case Teaches Employers
by Purciarele Group
When small employers see headlines like:
“EEOC Sues Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast for Sex Discrimination”
the immediate reaction is often:
“That would never happen here. We’re too small.”
But here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Even companies with full HR departments, legal teams, and national brands can let things fall through the cracks.
Not because they don’t have policies.
Not because they don’t have DEI statements.
Not because they don’t care.
But because at some point, someone stopped asking:
“Is this fair for everyone?”
And when a company that large misses something, it becomes national news.
The Coca-Cola Case: When Intention Collides With Impact
In the Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast case, the EEOC alleges that the company sponsored a two-day networking event for approximately 250 female employees and excluded male employees from the same opportunity, benefits, and paid time away from work.
The intention may have been development and inclusion.
The impact was alleged discrimination.
(It is important to note these are allegations, and the case is ongoing.)
That distinction matters.
This situation highlights one of the most important principles in employment law:
Impact matters more than intent.
Big HR Doesn’t Mean Perfect HR
Here’s the practical takeaway for organizations of all sizes:
Even large HR teams make mistakes when they fail to evaluate policies through both an employer-risk lens and an employee-impact lens.
It’s one thing to build inclusive, supportive programming.
It’s another to structure an opportunity in a way that excludes a protected class — even unintentionally.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics, including sex. Programs that differentiate access, benefits, or opportunity must be carefully structured to comply with the law.
Good intentions do not override compliance obligations.
Where Well-Meaning HR Misses the Mark
In HR, there is a critical difference between:
✔ A program intended to support a group
✘ A program that excludes others without lawful justification
The EEOC’s case is not about whether Coca-Cola wanted to support women’s networking.
It is about whether the structure of the program denied equal access to others.
Policies and programs must always be evaluated for:
Fairness
Accessibility
Legal compliance
Consistency
Impact across all protected categories
And this is where even experienced internal HR teams can struggle.
Inside HR vs. Outside HR: Who Is Asking the Hard Questions?
Internal HR teams carry institutional history.
They are managing relationships, culture, and ongoing operations.
That proximity can sometimes create blind spots.
Outside HR brings a different lens.
We are not attached to legacy decisions or internal dynamics.
We evaluate policies the way regulators and employees will.
We examine employer risk and employee impact at the same time — because you cannot separate the two.
If your HR only protects the company, employees do not trust it.
If your HR only focuses on “doing something good,” the company is exposed.
You need both.
Balanced HR Is What Actually Protects You
Too many organizations fall into one of these traps:
Focusing only on culture or inclusion without legal vetting
Creating programs that feel right but lack structural review
Assuming long-standing practices are still compliant
Relying on intent instead of analyzing impact
Balanced HR anticipates how decisions will affect every person in the room — not just the intended audience.
It asks:
Is this lawful?
Is this inclusive?
Is this defensible?
Is this consistent?
Is this fair?
Because once a policy is public, it is too late to retroactively review it.
A Simple Test Every Employer Should Use
Before launching any initiative that differentiates by group, ask:
Does this program provide equal access across protected categories?
Have we evaluated the decision through federal and state compliance standards?
Could we confidently defend this structure in writing?
If the answer is uncertain, pause.
Alignment is easier to fix before implementation than after a complaint is filed.
What This Means for Small Businesses
You do not need to be Coca-Cola to create risk.
You just need:
A well-intended program that quietly excludes a group
A pattern of opportunities that consistently benefit some employees but not others
An exception that becomes standard practice without review
For a 2–50 employee company, one misaligned decision can damage trust quickly.
The lesson is not that inclusion efforts are wrong.
The lesson is that structure matters.
How Purciarele Group Looks at HR Differently
When we step into a business, we do not just ask:
“What are your policies?”
We ask:
How does this operate in real life?
Who gets access to what — and who does not?
Where could a well-intended decision create unintended impact?
Then we align policy with practice.
We build structure that protects both the employer and the employee.
We help leaders think through decisions before they become public problems.
Strong HR is not about control.
It is about clarity, fairness, and trust.
If your business has evolved but your HR lens has not, this may be the moment to take a fresh look.
We are always happy to be that outside set of eyes.
Comments
Post a Comment