3 Considerations for Employers Conducting Harassment Investigations
"When did you know it? What did you do to prevent it? There is a whole host of things that companies need to be thinking about moving forward, given the current environment," said Janie Schulman, a Morrison & Foerster partner in Los Angeles.
January 30, 2018 at 04:55 PM
5 minute read
In recent months, sexual harassment allegations have dominated the news cycle, forcing companies to answer not just to the courts but to the public. This climate, and the likelihood of continued scrutiny of employers, has pushed many companies to rethink their approach to internal investigations.
Attorneys at Morrison & Foerster and Nardello & Co., the New York-based investigation firm, said companies and boards across many industries should be considering how they will make a harassment-free workplace a priority.
“It's very important as a first step to consider, what is the law,” said Carrie Cohen, a white-collar partner in Morrison & Foerster's New York office. “When you are thinking of these issues from a corporate standpoint, what is the law and what is harassment, these days, that is certainly not the end point.”
New York Times and New Yorker stories spotlighting the alleged abuses of men in power sparked a movement honing in on harassment. Many high-profile and powerful men have been exposed in media reports and have been fired since.
Just as the #MeToo movement was escalating, a survey conducted by Boardlist and Qualtrics found that few corporate boards addressed gender issues. Only 23 percent of those surveyed said the boards have discussed accusations of sexually inappropriate behavior; 12 percent of the respondents said they had a plan of action in place; 17 percent re-evaluated the company's risk regarding sexist behaviors in the workplace; and 8 percent said the company discussed appropriate behaviors around company culture.
The Morrison & Foerster lawyers and the Nardello team on Tuesday provided a road map and a list of potential liability issues for companies and the law firms advising them to consider when tackling these issues. Here are a few takeaways from the firms.
Mechanisms should be in place for reporting and training.
When conducting an investigation, companies need to consider the protections for whistleblowers and what kind of investigation needs to come from a complaint, said Janie Schulman, a Morrison & Foerster partner in Los Angeles.
Cohen said employees need to have an avenue to come forward without fear of retaliation. “The cover-up is worse than the crime,” she said. Schulman added, “The law actually imposes on employers the duty to take reasonable steps to prevent and cure harassment. Those include adopting and disseminating a policy and having an employee-friendly reporting procedure. If you have a reputation for good investigations and employee reporting, that could be a defense to damages.”
Maintain vigilance and responsibility in standards and prevention.
Prehiring background checks can also be an easy and economical step, said Daniel Nardello, founder and chief executive of Nardello & Co. He said background investigations with due diligence and vetting would go a long way. It's not rocket science, he said, but it requires digging into public records, interviewing neutral sources and examining social media and blogging accounts. Cohen said there is a danger when there is an “open secret” about an executive or other employee. The law requires an investigation and not to punt the blame to other sources, if there is a suggestion of inappropriate behavior. “When did you know it? What did you do to prevent it? There is a whole host of things that companies need to be thinking about moving forward, given the current environment,” Schulman said.
The chain of command can be a deterrent to reporting misconduct, said Joshua Hill, a Morrison & Foerster partner in San Francisco. He said unconventional reporting mechanisms, including social media, should be considered and taken seriously. Schulman advised a zero-tolerance policy to avoid gray areas, noting that a jury or judge will decide where the line is drawn. Schulman said she uses the “grandma test.” It's probably inappropriate if you wouldn't say it or do it in front of your grandma. Cohen quipped, “Or if you don't want it on the front page of the New York Times, don't do it.”
Conduct thorough and trustworthy investigations before taking any action.
Questions have arisen over just how independent investigations are, because, at the core, outside firms are hired by the company. It's key to hire outside counsel who are seen as objective, Cohen said. Schulman said in recent months she has seen executives forced out of their jobs before a thorough investigation is conducted. She said in these cases they are likely leaving with severance packages. Cohen also said a credible investigation—led by an attorney—will create an attorney-client privilege. Companies must make sure to preserve names and private information about witnesses giving information and internal documents. The current climate should push employers to take claims and investigations seriously. “You are on notice with certain behaviors,” Nardello said. “You ignore that at your peril.”
Read 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 AllEmployers Race to File NLRB Petitions to Gain Upper Hand in Union Organizing
5 minute readTractor Supply Co.'s Stock Takes Hit After Activists Bash Its Embrace of DEI
6 minute readCorporate Boards May Be Underestimating the Talent Challenges Ahead
Trending Stories
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