To Hug or Not to Hug in the Office This Holiday Season
Imagine you are a manager in attendance at a company-sponsored holiday party and in the spirit of the holiday season you hug a number of co-workers of the opposite or same sex. You have worked with some of them for a long time and others are very new employees.
December 13, 2017 at 12:44 PM
4 minute read
Imagine you are a manager in attendance at a company-sponsored holiday party and in the spirit of the holiday season you hug a number of co-workers of the opposite or same sex. You have worked with some of them for a long time and others are very new employees.
The following week a complaint regarding your conduct is made to the company's human resources manager. What happens now regarding you, the complainant and the HR department? The true answer is it all depends–it depends on history, severity, context and perspective, and it depends on the type of action the company takes to respond to the complaint, the result of any investigation and the way you and the company react.
First, given all the recent media reports, it is important to recognize that while several more outlandish forms of touching–groping, pinching, patting or grabbing–are clearly inappropriate and can form the basis for a claim of sexual harassment, any form of unwanted or unwelcome contact could be seen as being inappropriate and therefore lead to an HR complaint. So here, while hugging may seem an innocuous social convention, especially at a party, it could still be unwanted or unwelcome contact and require it to be addressed by you and HR.
No 'Free Passes'
Second, it is important that the HR department treat the complaint and the complainant seriously and with dignity. Nobody is entitled to a “free pass” regardless of their position with the company or their standing in the community. HR departments which are dismissive of or disrespect a complainant by questioning their experience because of who is being complained about, or exhibit other negative biases, do their companies a significant disservice and may actually create more problems.
Showing empathy and promptly addressing the complaint through an investigation can often prevent a manageable situation from turning into a major incident. Discouraging employees from coming forward, creating an unwelcome environment when they do come forward, or failing to implement and enforce rules about acceptable workplace behavior expose the company to greater liability.
Third, it is important to recognize that while a single severe incident may be sufficient to lead to or require significant discipline, if not outright termination, a measured company response will center around the frequency of the complained contact and any prior history. Assuming the actions at the party are not a frequent occurrence and there was no intention of making the co-worker(s) uncomfortable (i.e., you are not known at the office as “Mr. or Mrs. Hands”), chances are the complaint can be addressed by understanding that your conduct offended some people, admitting or accepting that you should have been more considerate of the feelings of others, agree not to engage in repeat activity, accepting any discipline from the company, and apologizing to the co-worker(s).
Fourth, your attitude after the complaint and HR's investigation into the matter are equally important. Even if, in the example here, it turns out that the issue can be addressed when it is brought to your attention, stifle the all-too human reaction to confront your accuser. And don't seek or have others seek to retaliate against the complainant on your behalf. Even mild forms of retaliation, giving employees the “cold shoulder” or not including them in activities, or making them uncomfortable for having gone to HR, creates a separate cause of action. Even if you feel the original complaint lacked merit or is unfair or unfounded, retaliation claims take on their own separate identify and often lead to protracted litigation.
Importance of Anti-Harassment Policies
Fifth, employees take direction and signals about how serious employers are about their policies by watching how they are implemented or ignored. It is up to HR to undertake a thorough investigation and demonstrate to employees that the company takes its anti-harassment policies seriously. Utilizing the incident identified here as a “teaching moment,” educating employees about appropriate behavior and having pro-active intervention or responses will help the company encourage the type of acceptable, work appropriate behavior it values.
Finally, to the extent that as a result of the complaint and investigation, the company learns that its policies need to be updated or more training is needed, begin that process as soon as possible.
Aaron Tandy heads the Pathman Lewis' employment law practice, helping employers and employees navigate complex employment issues. He can be reached at [email protected].
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commentary: James Madison, Meet Matt Gaetz
- 2The Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
- 3Leopard Solutions Launches AI Navigator, a Gen AI Search, Data Extraction Tool
- 4Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
- 5Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
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