A Company's #MeToo Moment
The #MeToo movement has empowered victims of harassment in ways never before thought possible, exposing the “open secrets” of serial abusers and…
April 01, 2018 at 12:00 AM
5 minute read
The #MeToo movement has empowered victims of harassment in ways never before thought possible, exposing the “open secrets” of serial abusers and prompting a rethinking of interactions both inside and outside of the workplace.
But that empowerment has brought new challenges for companies responding to public allegations of wrongdoing by their employees.
The immediate impact of a viral hashtag can tempt employees to skip traditional reporting mechanisms and seek instant justice by naming the perpetrator and the company through social media. No company wants to first learn of an employee's allegation only after it starts trending on Twitter.
How can a company address harassment complaints fairly and effectively when they are launched with a tweet and a hashtag?
A Company's #MeToo Moment
Imagine the following scenario. HR Manager is nervously approached by an employee. The employee shows HR Manager a post made by Jane Doe, another Company employee, on social media the previous evening:
I'm so done with my boss. #MeToo
HR Manager is familiar with the #MeToo tag and has an idea of what the post means. HR Manager is also taken by surprise. The Company has a comprehensive anti-harassment policy in place, which provides employees multiple avenues to report sexual-harassment. But Jane Doe has not used any of the Company's reporting mechanisms. HR Manager immediately alerts the Company to the post. What should the Company do next?
The Company could take the position that the post does not suggest harassment and, therefore, the Company has no duty to investigate. After all, Jane Doe has not made a formal complaint. But this poses risks. First, as #MeToo becomes increasingly ubiquitous, the Company may have trouble saying that it did not know Jane Doe was referencing sexual harassment. And second, the clock is ticking on the post going viral. If the post is spread by a social media activist or news outlets, the chance to discreetly address the issue is gone. To make matters worse, if the Company does not quickly respond, the narrative may be that the Company was either indifferent to harassment or actively tried to cover it up. If that story gains traction, regardless of the merits of Jane Doe's complaint, it could significantly damage the Company's reputation.
Knowing these risks, the Company should reach out to Jane Doe soon after learning of her post. It should tell Jane Doe that it saw her post and takes any complaint about harassment very seriously. The Company should ask Jane Doe why she made the social media post. If she says there was no harassment, then the Company should remind her of the policies for making a harassment complaint. If she says she was harassed, the Company should investigate as it would for any other harassment complaint.
Formulating the right response to a #MeToo post depends on the nature of the post itself. If it directly alleges sexual harassment, e.g. “my boss touched me inappropriately,” the Company must investigate. A post directed at the Company's social media handle (“I'm so done with @Company #MeToo”) further blurs the line of whether the employee made a complaint to the Company. What if one employee posts on social media about the sexual harassment of another employee? The Company should separately interview the employee who made the post and the employee who was the subject of the post.
The Company might wish to ask an employee to delete a #MeToo social media post. But that raises other concerns. The Company could risk violating the NLRA by asking the employee to delete the post. It could also be used as evidence of retaliation under Title VII. More practically, telling an employee to take down the social media post could evoke the Streisand Effect—inadvertently encouraging the spread of the post by broadcasting that the Company sought to suppress it.
Reducing Risk in the #MeToo Era
There are several steps a company can take to reduce risk and prepare itself in the #MeToo era. Companies need to consider the following approaches:
- Review anti-harassment policies. The policy should reflect a clear commitment to preventing any harassment in the workplace. And the company should have multiple avenues for an employee to report harassment.
- Train employees and managers. This training should cover what constitutes harassment and how to report it. Managers should be trained on how to respond if a complaint is brought to them. Companies should also explain to employees that posting on social media is not a substitute for the company's reporting procedures.
- Develop a strategy in advance for addressing a #MeToo post. Because of the speed at which a #MeToo post can spread through social media, companies should not try to craft a strategy on the fly during a crisis.
- Watch out for retaliation. Once an employee has made a #MeToo post, it could be considered protected activity under Title VII. Companies should be careful to prevent retaliation against the employee making the post. Claims of retaliation are often easier to prove than the underlying claim of harassment.
Responding to a #MeToo social media post can have serious legal and public relations consequences. The movement has not yet changed the laws prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace. However, it has accelerated the time frame in which companies need to address an accusation of harassment. Now, more than ever, a company must be prepared for its own #MeToo moment.
Adam Sencenbaugh is a partner in the firm's Austin office. Henson Adams is an associate in the firm's San Antonio office.
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 AllThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
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