Sexual Harassment Training Must Focus on Prevention and Reporting
In 2018, there will likely be an uptick in harassment claims, and there will need to be more human resources support or external legal support to…
December 20, 2017 at 02:53 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In 2018, there will likely be an uptick in harassment claims, and there will need to be more human resources support or external legal support to handle them, which presents a cost issue for companies. Many companies have policies in place, but training typically is focused on helping employees identify harassment and report it (and avoiding lawsuits). It does not focus on preventing it and encouraging people not to engage in that type of behavior. What is the real purpose of harassment training? Employers will need to be reviewing policies and training to make sure they are both protecting from liability and preventing the behavior.
Carrie Hoffman, co-chair of the labor and employment group at Gardere, sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss this issue. She represents major employers nationwide in all areas of labor and employment law across a range of industries, including retail, and is highly regarded for her experience with wage and hour issues, as well as employment discrimination and retaliation claims.
“This year, we can expect an uptick as more and more celebrities are accused and/or accuse others of harassment,” she explained. “The main reason that women cite for not coming forward is fear of retaliation. As women believe that there is safety in numbers, they may feel more secure in coming forward. This is much like the publicity following the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings. Women will feel empowered as powerful men in visible positions are losing their jobs. What we have not seen is what is happening to the women who accused these powerful men.”
Internal HR teams may not be able to investigate complaints either because they may have limited experience or because the alleged harasser is a person in their reporting structure. Obviously, it is hard to be impartial and make decisions when you report to the person accused. In those instances, HR will need to engage outside counsel.
Right now, many companies are re-examining their policies and training. In fact, when the Supreme Court first recognized sexual harassment as a cause of action under Title VII in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson and refined the liability standards in Ellerth and Faragher, companies focused on making employees aware of policies prohibiting harassment and how to complain about harassment. Now, according to Hoffman, harassment training will need to change to do more to instruct employees about what type of conduct is considered improper and the consequences for improper conduct. Under current case law, employers can avoid liability in certain circumstances if they have appropriate policies and publishing and enforcing those policies.
“The purpose behind anti-harassment policies is to make employees aware that such behavior is not condoned and the consequences for violating the policy,” she said. “Despite the very clear edict in anti-harassment policies, unfortunately no policy can prohibit all types of behavior, just like no law can do so. Employers can refocus training on reminding employees about the consequences of violating such policies.”
These days, policies and training should focus on real-world examples of inappropriate conduct and demonstrating how the company will review and evaluate such policies. In addition, another way to ensure that this is done properly is to conduct separate training for management to reiterate the consequences of violating the policy.
According to Hoffman, the best way to avoid liability for harassment is to have no such behavior in the workplace. Therefore the best way to avoid liability is to prevent behavior. She added, “Training should be live, versus watching a video, and interactive in an environment in which asking questions is encouraged. Training should also be tailored to the specific work environment–white collar, call center, factory, etc., meaning that one-size training may not fit all.”
Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for Corporate Counsel and InsideCounsel, where she covers intellectual property, legal technology, patent litigation, cybersecurity, innovation, and more.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readElection Outcome Could Spur Policy U-Turns Across Employment Landscape
6 minute readEx-Twitter Exec Sues for $20M, Says Musk Fired Her as 'Petty Retribution'
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250