3 Must-Dos for Conducting Internal Investigations in the #MeToo Era
In the #MeToo era, the energy sector is especially susceptible to harassment claims. In order to minimize liability and do right by their employees, companies must conduct well thought-out and thorough investigations.
October 16, 2018 at 03:38 PM
3 minute read
The energy industry has historically been known as an “old boys' club.”
Of course, the industry has made significant progress in hiring and promoting women. But in the era of #MeToo, the legacy of this gender imbalance has made the sector particularly ripe for harassment claims. Those who feel that they have suffered harassment are already more willing to come forward, and the reputation of the industry – rightly or wrongly – bolsters complainants' perception that the mistreatment they perceive having suffered must be gender-based.
In order to minimize liability and do right by their employees, companies must conduct well thought-out and thorough investigations. With that in mind, here are three must-dos for conducting internal investigations in the #MeToo era:
Determine the potential scope of investigation and the best type of investigator
- Rather than rush into an investigation blind, it's crucial that in-house counsel first determine its potential scope. For instance: How many interviews might there be? How much data will need to be collected? In light of the allegations and players, could the case uncover further wrongdoing, result in litigation, or attract attention from government agencies?
- The higher the risk of these outcomes, the more likely the company should engage external counsel to conduct the investigation.
Collect, preserve, and analyze a broad spectrum of information
- It's not just e-mail anymore. Investigators need to look at phone data, various digital messaging platforms, and, of course, information obtained via in-person witness interviews.
- And don't stop collecting data – individuals may still be communicating about the events while the investigation is ongoing.
Think carefully about your investigation report
- An investigation report can be a critical tool for management to assess the findings and recommendations, and can serve as potential evidence to defend claims of harassment.
- However, attorney-client privilege has to be carefully preserved – be aware that selective, affirmative disclosure in order to gain some sort of advantage could result in an argument that privilege has been waived over the entire report.
Cristina E. Rodriguez is a partner and Jillian C. Beck is a senior associate in the Houston office of Hogan Lovells US LLP. An experienced litigator, Rodriguez handles sensitive internal investigations that involve allegations of harassment, discrimination, fraud, or other violations of law or of company policies. Beck is a trial lawyer who represents clients in a wide-variety of industries, including technology, energy, accounting and finance.
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 AllEnergy Lawyers Expect Demand for Energy Work to Stay Steady Under Second Trump Administration
3 minute readSeyfarth Launches Energy Transactions Practice in Houston With Polsinelli Team
3 minute readHouston Appeals Court Reverses $1.5M Award Against Oil, Gas Equipment Firm
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Weil Practice Leaders Expected to Leave for Paul Weiss, Latham
- 2Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 3Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 4Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 5Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
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