#MeToo Movement: 8 Guideposts to Avoid Legal Landmines
The scandals relating to the sexual harassment of women that have rocked Hollywood and have captured the headlines over the last few months have business owners and managers once again focusing on the crucial issue of how to deal with harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
April 09, 2018 at 10:16 AM
7 minute read
The scandals relating to the sexual harassment of women that have rocked Hollywood and have captured the headlines over the last few months have business owners and managers once again focusing on the crucial issue of how to deal with harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Many questions have been raised about male/female interactions in and out of the office and what is appropriate and what is over the line. Often, harassment and discrimination in the workplace are not as crass as Harvey Weinstein's casting couch or Matt Lauer's office “security system.” Instead, harassment and discrimination in the workplace are often more nuanced and involve innuendo and inappropriate comments made by co-workers and supervisors which, if unaddressed by the company, may lead to substantial liability. Therefore, it is a good time for companies to be vigilant and reminded of the potential landmines that may result in legal actions involving sexual harassment and workplace discrimination. Here are eight guideposts that can protect your company.
|Proper Training of HR Personnel and Management
One of the ways companies can insulate themselves from substantial exposure amid allegations of sexual harassment and workplace discrimination is to make sure that key personnel are properly trained. It is critical that a company's HR personnel and line managers have adequate experience in workplace practices such as sensitivity training and investigation techniques. Companies that fail to train their key employees, (those entrusted to look into workplace complaints), are setting themselves up for significant exposure and claims. Today's employees are smart and resourceful. They are very good at gathering information that can potentially set up an unwary company for a sexual harassment claim. If your HR personnel and line managers are not well versed in handling this, your company can be subject to legal action.
|Have Anti-Harassment Policies Available to All Employees
Another essential component used to insulate companies is a current and updated employee handbook and policy manual that defines harassment and states clearly that your workplace has “zero tolerance” for harassment. Too many companies allow their handbooks to collect dust for years and fail to update them to ensure that their policies are consistent with current law— rendering them nearly useless. Moreover, employee handbooks must be available to all employees. The company should make sure that there is a record-keeping mechanism that shows that all employees have acknowledged receipt of the same, or if it is kept digitally (which is the trend) make sure that all employees electronically acknowledge that they know where it is located and have easy access to it.
|Ensure That There Are Multiple Reporting Channels
Companies also need to have several individuals identified that employees could report to for harassment/discrimination concerns. Many times, employees legitimately complain that the company failed to provide them with the names and contact information of individuals that they can report to in the event of a workplace incident. Courts frown upon employers that fail to provide their employees with several reporting channels. Therefore, it is incumbent on companies to diligently think through who should receive complaints and then make sure that the identity of these individuals is communicated clearly to employees.
|Provide Mandatory Harassment Training
Courts recognize when companies take workplace harassment and discrimination seriously and, many times, will look at whether the company provided mandatory training to their employees. Therefore, it is prudent to provide compulsory anti-harassment and sensitivity training within the company at least once a year and take attendance at these training sessions. If you must break it up into two or three sessions to ensure that most employees receive the training, this is a nominal investment of resources that could pay substantial dividends in the event of workplace lawsuits.
|Implementation of Anti-Retaliation Policies
The law makes it clear that an employer cannot retaliate against an employee for reporting harassment/discrimination in the workplace. Therefore, your company should expressly implement anti-retaliation policies in its handbook. Employees should fully understand that they will not be retaliated against if they report any workplace incidents or issues. A failure to remind employees of this could be viewed unfavorably by a court or the EEOC if a claim is brought against the company.
|Confidential and Existing Investigations
HR personnel should be trained and experienced in how to confidently investigate allegations of workplace harassment and discrimination. There are definite “do's and don'ts” on how to discretely interview witnesses that may have observed the workplace incident. You do not want inexperienced HR staff to bungle an investigation, as doing so may unwittingly lead to a substantial claim when one could have been averted if an investigation had been conducted correctly. Further, every complaint should be investigated immediately, no matter how trivial the incident might seem, so that witnesses' memories do not fade over time and the situation is adequately addressed and quickly remedied. Ignoring or moving slowly in an investigation could lead to further repercussions if the workplace incidents continue while the company fails to look into the complaints.
|Failing to Document
Every investigation should be carefully documented. This includes recording the victim's statement, the alleged harasser's statement, and witness statements if any. The company must also document its plan of action if one is required. If the harasser is going to be disciplined, this must be documented. Failing to document all of these aspects of an investigation properly, may lead to consequences down the road.
|The Destruction of or Failing to Preserve Evidence
In our current electronic information age, most litigation involves the production of evidence that is in electronic form. Whether it is in emails, text messages, postings on social media or any other type of electronic data, most cases include this type of evidence. Litigants now have a legal duty to preserve electronic data that may contain evidence that is important to a case. Therefore, your company should have electronic data retention policies in place and make sure that your IT personnel are well versed in this area. Failing to have such policies developed and implemented can lead to significant exposure in a harassment/discrimination lawsuit.
The preceding information should serve as critical guideposts to companies in the ever-changing landscape of dealing with workplace harassment and discrimination. Undoubtedly, there is a heightened sensitivity to these important issues today, and it is critical for companies to take proactive measures to stay ahead of the curve. Failing to take these measures, as well as implementing other procedures to ensure a safe and productive workplace environment, can lead to substantial exposure. More importantly, a company can sustain a massive public relations hit in its community if it is viewed as insensitive to the rights of its employees that fall in a protected class. The costs of such a public relations disaster could be incalculable. Furthermore, it is essential to have experienced trial and employment counsel who are skilled in dealing with these issues so that they can insulate your company as best as possible from becoming the headline of the day.
Paul O. Lopez, a director and the chief operating officer for Tripp Scott, has chaired the firm's litigation department since 2010.
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
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