Five Steps Governments Should Take to Address Workplace Harassment
Richard K. Zuckerman, Chair, and Sharon N. Berlin, First Vice-Chair of the NYSBA Local and State Government Law Section, write: Seemingly daily harassment allegations being lodged against elected officials, high-level executives and public figures require municipalities to promptly stop this abhorrent behavior and its costly impact on morale, productivity and public perception.
January 19, 2018 at 02:00 PM
4 minute read
Seemingly daily harassment allegations being lodged against elected officials, high-level executives and public figures require municipalities to promptly stop this abhorrent behavior and its costly impact on morale, productivity and public perception.
|Step 1: Implement an Anti-Harassment Policy
Implementation of an effective policy prohibiting illegal harassment and discrimination is an essential element of a prevention strategy that can preclude municipal liability. See EEOC, Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment. The policy should prohibit unlawful behavior based upon any characteristic protected by applicable law,[1] regardless of whether by or toward an employee, applicant or constituent, and clearly explain what is prohibited and why. Victims should be encouraged to report conduct that could eventually become prohibited harassment, and be encouraged to participate in related investigations. While confidentiality cannot be guaranteed, it should be provided consistent with a thorough investigation. The policy should also prohibit retaliation against complainants and investigation participants.
|Step 2: Disseminate the Policy
A policy can only be effective when communicated. New employees should receive it when hired; others should receive it annually and whenever it is updated. The policy should be posted with other policies, on the employer's website, and included in any employee handbook. A signed receipt should be required when the policy is disseminated.
|Step 3: Implement an Effective Complaint System
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission opines that an effective policy welcomes questions, concerns and complaints; encourages early reporting of problematic conduct; respectfully treats all involved; operates promptly, thoroughly and impartially; and imposes appropriate consequences for misconduct. See id. It should include multiple avenues of complaint, including about senior management.
|Step 4: Train All Employees About the Policy and the Harassment Complaint System
Training should be regularly provided. See id.; see also Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998); Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998). Employees should be educated about unacceptable conduct and its potential consequences; the employer's system for addressing complaints; what to do if one becomes aware of prohibited conduct; and that retaliation is prohibited. Clear, easily understood training, conducted by interactive trainers, in all relevant languages, should be tailored to the workplace and workforce. See id.
Because an employer can be liable for conduct committed by a supervisor with authority over the employee (Faragher and Ellerth, supra), supervisors must be trained to understand that their conduct is held to even higher standards, that they have a special obligation to recognize and prevent harassment, and how to respond if they become aware of it.
|Step 5: Promptly Investigate and Remedy Harassment
An impartial investigation should promptly occur when a complaint is received. Where appropriate, swift remedial action must be implemented. The investigator should be experienced and not in the chain of command with the complainant or alleged harasser. Allegations involving senior officials are often referred to an outside investigator.
The investigator should report findings, recommendations and recommend appropriate disciplinary action. The employer should document its response, including corrective or preventative action taken and anti-retaliation warnings issued. The complainant and alleged harasser should be advised about the investigation's outcome, and periodic follow-up should ensure compliance.
These steps, while not guaranteeing perfect behavior, are essential strides towards that worthy goal.
Endnotes:
[1] Race, creed, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, gender identity, transgender status, sexual orientation, disability, age, religion, military or veteran status, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, marital status, domestic violence victim status, use of a guide dog, hearing dog or service dog.
Richard K. Zuckerman and Sharon N. Berlin are partners at Lamb & Barnosky.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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