For Employment Law, an Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure
All employers would be wise to engage employment counsel to review their policies and develop new ones where there are gaps in addressing foreseeable scenarios.
February 23, 2018 at 03:20 PM
6 minute read
For several months, the topic of sex and power in the workplace has been dominating our news cycle. It is undeniable that there is a relationship between these themes, and it is hard to dispute that it is a good thing to finally call attention to this long-standing, deeply rooted problem. Amid the tumult of the Weinstein scandal, #MeToo, Shi*tty Media Men, #TimesUp and the countless non-celebrities affected by these issues, what have we learned? How can we turn the corner to foster workplaces where women don't need to create whisper networks or suffer in silence for fear of retaliation?
The truth is: This is not a novel problem. Not all that long ago it was commonplace for homosexuals or minorities, for example, to be treated poorly in the workforce. The mistreatment eased only when there was a cultural shift against the predators. There is a reason we don't often hear overt slurs anymore—no one would tolerate that type of blatant racism or abuse. That is not to say, of course, that more veiled, insidious forms of discrimination haven't developed, but, the hypothetical bad actor knows that such obvious treatment is unacceptable and could subject them to severe consequences. The only way that is going to happen again, in this context, is for there to be a top-down paradigm shift of prioritizing safety, equality, and respect in the workplace.
It is encouraging that the conversation is ongoing and that many companies are taking steps to investigate the issues within their own workplaces and are implementing change to build a culture of equality. For these changes to have any meaning though, leadership must care more about the quality and integrity of their workers than the value of their power players or top earners. Appealing to the concern for corporate bank accounts, from a dollars and cents standpoint, turning a blind eye to complaints about these “valued” employees runs counter to being fiscally protective. The exposure for liability in this arena is significant and growing. The new Tax Cuts and Job Act adds a provision to the Tax Code which prohibits employers from taking a deduction for amounts paid to settle sexual harassment or abuse claims if that settlement includes a nondisclosure agreement. Indeed, the tide is turning against silencing victims and from giving employers an incentive in paying for silence.
So how do we respond to the knowledge of how prevalent sexual harassment is the first place? One very distressing response we have seen is men refusing to be alone or work closely with female colleagues. We must put a stop to this. Excluding women from meetings, conferences, mentoring opportunities, etc., is in itself a form of discrimination. Segregation is not the answer. It was not then, and it is not now. It is common sense that employees should not be making physical contact with one another unless there is a foundation within the co-worker relationship to support that a hug or a touch on the arm, for example, would not be unwelcome. It is also common sense that morale and camaraderie are important in a workplace. Employees should be encouraged to be friendly and polite to one another, and it would be a shame for employees of any gender to feel afraid to compliment another's haircut or new shoes.
Of course, the scope of the issues are far wider than that. Complications arise when dating occurs in the workplace. This is an area ripe for company policies to develop. Perhaps there is a disclosure requirement that requires the parties to acknowledge that the relationship is consensual. Perhaps a couple who works together are prohibited from having an overlap between the relationship and reporting structure. What happens if it is the female employee who is typically reassigned? One question begets another. The solutions are not always simple and often need to be specifically tailored for individual workplaces.
What is far simpler, however, are the steps that employers can take to empower employees to speak up should they feel they are being victimized; both men and women, when they feel secure to do so, are capable of speaking up for themselves and being clear about their boundaries. The burden is on employers to create an environment in which employees feel that they can express those boundaries, and make complaints when those boundaries are not being respected, without fear of reprisal. It is in this arena it seems we still have miles to go.
We are past the point of claiming ignorance that a pat on the behind, leering, dirty pictures, or other aggressive behavior is unacceptable conduct. If a company does not have a policy explicitly prohibiting this type behavior, or fails to conduct trainings that place employees on notice that these acts, if substantiated, would lead to immediate dismissal, then the company has not joined us in the 21st century and needs to take a good hard look at their participation in the problem.
To start, companies must implement clear reporting procedures and must be genuinely committed to conducting thorough and impartial investigations. If that cannot be accomplished through an unbiased internal human resources department, outside counsel or third-party human resource teams should conduct the investigations to put more distance between the findings and “desired” business decisions. Then the hard part: Employers must be prepared to act on the findings should they substantiate allegations of impropriety. It might hurt, but that sting is the feeling of disappointment that the star performer was actually a liability. Leadership faced with that painful reality should channel that feeling into a commitment to hiring people who wouldn't put the company in that position. And, leadership should pour some of that energy into supporting the brave employee(s) who put themselves in a vulnerable position. Maybe she (or he) is the next star performer.
One thing is for sure: All employers would be wise to engage employment counsel to review their policies and develop new ones where there are gaps in addressing foreseeable scenarios. When it comes to employment law, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Randi (Melnick) Cohen is a solo practitioner in New York City. She specializes in labor and employment law with a particular passion for solving workplace problems.
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 AllAnti-Abortion Groups' Challenge to New York's 'Boss Bill' Is Returning to Federal Trial Court
Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
Trending Stories
- 1'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 2Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 3Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 4Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
- 5Burr & Forman, Smith Gambrell & Russell Promote More to Partner This Year
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