Failing to address harassment allegations can cost employers

When it comes to sexual harassment allegations, no employer wants to find itself in the position an Indiana university was in during the 1990s, when a woman complained to a senior administrator that the school’s chancellor had groped her.

“Oh, no, not again,” said the administrator at Indiana University’s South Bend campus.

A jury awarded the woman $800,000.

Although a judge later slashed that to $50,000, the message was clear: Failing to address allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace can have expensive legal consequences for employers.

“You don’t have to fire people necessarily, but doing nothing is usually not helpful,” said Camille Hebert, an employment discrimination professor at the Ohio State law school.

Earlier this year, a former University of California, Santa Cruz student who alleges she was raped by a professor settled her claim against the university system for $1.15 million over what she says was its failure to address previous allegations of sexual harassment and sexual violence by the faculty member.

It is with that reality in mind that companies are swiftly firing powerful men accused of misbehaviour and taking a zero-tolerance attitude toward such wrongdoing. But whether a no-mercy approach is a good idea is a matter of debate.

While businesses are usually within their rights to swiftly fire employees accused of misconduct, as was done this week with former “Today” show host Matt Lauer and former “Prairie Home Companion” personality Garrison Keillor, such actions can also backfire, legal experts say. For example, they say, women who just want the harassment to stop and don’t want to see anyone get fired might hesitate to come forward.

Philadelphia-based employment attorney Jon Segal said zero tolerance for harassment is important, but the consequences should be commensurate with the offence and should include steps short of firing, such as mandatory training, suspension or demotion.

“You don’t want to send the message to people that if there is an allegation and it’s found to be true, it’s automatic termination,” Segal said.

For employees who choose to sue, the timeframe can be short for raising the allegation: 300 days if employees want to sue in federal court. States often have more generous deadlines — six years in Ohio, for example — and fewer caps on financial damages.

Time limits don’t mean lawsuits can’t be brought over older complaints of harassment. For example, employees can argue that a recent incident within the 300-day limit allows them to revisit an older complaint outside that window.

Employers can also inadvertently breathe new life into old complaints by threatening employees with retaliation.

“That is very high on the list of dumb moves for employers to make,” said Washington-based labour attorney Richard Seymour.

Last year, a federal appeals court agreed that an Illinois circuit board company retaliated against a woman who brought sexual harassment allegations by firing her. She was awarded $300,000, even though her actual harassment claims were dismissed.

Employers can also take actions they think are fixing a problem but often end up hurting them in court, such as transferring a woman who complained of harassment but not the man who harassed her.

As new allegations crop up daily, labour attorneys say they are already hearing of a troubling trend: men unwilling to interact with female co-workers for fear of saying or doing the wrong thing.

Such behaviour is a mistake since it contributes to a new form of discrimination by putting opportunities for women out of reach, experts say.

“The answer to no sexual harassment isn’t polarizing the workforce into male versus female camps. That would be the very definition of sex discrimination,” said Washington labour attorney Deborah Kelly.

But Hebert, the Ohio State law professor, is skeptical of men who say they’re worried about getting accused.

“Most men understand the difference,” she said. “I always say, ‘If you’d feel uncomfortable with it happening to your daughter or your wife, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it.’”

Get local stories you won't find anywhere else right to your inbox.
Sign up here

 

Just Posted

Red Deer woman loses student visa, ‘has no choice but to leave’ Canada

Victoria Forschle and her family came to Canada in 2008

Red Deer up to four active COVID-19 cases

Province announced 77 new confirmed cases across Alberta Friday

Agriculture trade show is a must, says Red Deer chamber

Red Deer & District Chamber of Commerce promotes trade show

$21M of improvements to be made to Olds College

More than $21 million in improvements will be made to Olds College,… Continue reading

How Conservative leadership hopefuls would address the WE scandal if they win

The ethics commissioner has been called in to see if Trudeau broke conflict-of-interest law

With debt, deficit numbers out, experts say Liberals need plan for growth

Borrowing will push the federal debt past $1 trillion by the end of the fiscal year

Pedestrian-only downtown a hit with residents as St. John’s adapts to pandemic

‘The city really got this right this time. We’re very happy’

Bosnian-Canadians mark 25th anniversary of Srebrenica massacre

‘It’s sad for a child to think that it’s normal, actually, to … have family members killed’

Canadian economy adds 953,000 jobs in June, unemployment rate falls

OTTAWA — Nearly one million more Canadians had jobs in June than… Continue reading

Survey suggests 40 per cent of Alberta doctors have considered leaving province

CALGARY — A survey by the Alberta Medical Association suggests more than… Continue reading

Most Read