Labor: 8 tips on how to keep your company out of the sexual harassment spotlight
As sex-related scandals top recent headlines, companies should ensure proper policies are in place.
November 21, 2011 at 07:26 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Everyone knows “sex sells.” Every news outlet in the country is currently covering the Herman Cain sexual harassment scandal. No company wants or needs this kind of press.
Here is a list of dos and don'ts that will minimize the risk of your company making front-page headlines:
1. Do have an anti-harassment policy. Every company, no matter what size, must have an anti-harassment policy. The policy should clearly identify to whom employees should report harassing conduct. It should also give employees have at least two reporting options, e.g., “Human Resources or a supervisor.” All members of management must be trained to identify harassing conduct and to understand the company's reporting and investigation protocol.
2. Do distribute the policy. Frequently employees will claim they did not get a copy of the policy and therefore they did not know how to report harassing conduct. Employers must make sure that each employee receives a copy of the policy, and that there is proof of receipt. This is usually best obtained via a written acknowledgment that is signed and dated by the employee.
3. Don't do a “sham” investigation. All complaints should be carefully investigated by experienced investigators. In the event litigation develops, the investigation conducted by the company will be carefully scrutinized. Usually, the company's own human resources department can handle the investigation. However, when the allegations involve high-ranking company officials, an outside investigator should be engaged so that there is no question that the investigation was conducted without bias.
4. Do keep written records of the investigation. The “investigation file” should include notes, credibility assessments, lists of witnesses interviewed, lists of witnesses not interviewed (and the reason why), copies of emails, evidence, etc. If the integrity of the investigation is ever questioned, the company will need this file to establish that a thorough, unbiased investigation was conducted.
5. Don't forget the findings, conclusions and follow-up action. These three pieces are critical. The investigator should render both the findings and the conclusion. “Findings” are the facts that were uncovered during the investigation. The “conclusion” is a determination of whether or not the evidence supports a reasonable probability that the allegations occurred. Avoid a conclusion that the investigation is “inconclusive.” Either there is evidence that supports the allegations, or there isn't. The company, not the investigator, should decide what follow-up action will be taken based on the conclusions. Examples of follow-up action are discipline, termination and training.
6. Don't use the word “harassment.” Only a judge or jury can decide whether something is “harassment.” An employer need not admit something occurred that is lawfully defined. It is more accurate to say that an individual engaged in “inappropriate” or “unprofessional” behavior. In a legal context, it is possible that inappropriate behavior, while a violation of company policy, does not rise to the level of illegal 'harassment.”
7. Don't forget to follow-up with the complainant. At the end of the investigation, the employer should meet with the complainant and let him/her know the conclusion and the follow-up action. It is not necessary to let the complainant see the investigation file, but the complainant should understand that the investigation is concluded and that action will or will not be taken. Employers often make a huge mistake in failing to properly follow up with the complainant. In these cases, complainants who are left in the dark and unsure of whether the complaint was taken seriously will frequently resort to litigation.
8. Don't ignore a serious problem. If inappropriate conduct is occurring in the workplace, swift action should be taken to eradicate it. Juries often award large sums to victims of sexual harassment. If you are unsure as to the severity of the conduct uncovered in your workplace, contact your company attorney.
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
© 2025 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 AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Federal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Launch Defensive Measure
- 2Class Action Litigator Tapped to Lead Shook, Hardy & Bacon's Houston Office
- 3Arizona Supreme Court Presses Pause on KPMG's Bid to Deliver Legal Services
- 4Bill Would Consolidate Antitrust Enforcement Under DOJ
- 5Cornell Tech Expands Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship Masters of Law Program to Part Time Format
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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