Skip to content

Workforce

Tag: sexual harassment

Posted on June 6, 2019

Relational Intelligence Can Give Companies a Leg Up

poor communication

There’s a difference between how people behave in their personal life and how they behave professionally. But businesses can learn something from the tactics people use to repair personal relationships, according to therapist and author Esther Perel.

One of the speakers at the Unleash 2019 conference in Las Vegas in May, Perel has extensive experience counseling couples. She consults organizations on conflict resolution as well.

“As couples’ therapists, we have wide familiarity working with polarized systems,” Perel said. “I know [how] to work with relationships where one person doesn’t believe a word the other person is saying. That’s what couples who are arguing do. So we actually have an enormous amount of experience helping companies.”

Her session at Unleash focused on how organizations can use some of the tenets of couples counseling in their workplace when it comes to working on the relationship between the employer and the employee. She also spoke after the session to answer more questions on relationships in the workplace.

Perel prefers the term “relational intelligence” over the oft-used term “emotional intelligence.” That’s because it’s not a self-referential concept, she said. Rather, it’s knowing how to deal with other people and become in tune with the needs of other.

This skill set is especially important after #MeToo, she said. Now, she added, “there’s tremendous anxiety and restlessness in the workplace about how we relate to each other, how we establish boundaries and how we deal with disagreements breaches of trust.”

People carry narratives about relationships that influence their expectations from an interaction and their interpretations of the situation they’re in. Perel calls this their “relationship resume.” People come to work with this past. Were they raised to be trusting or suspicious? Did they grow up in a household where they were taught to ask for help or figure things out on their own? Do they prefer to work collaboratively or alone?

Answers to questions like this help explain what kind of team member a person will be, Perel said. That’s a missing set of questions that employers don’t consider when they hire.

Understanding boundaries is another key relational intelligence skill useful in both personal and professional relationships.

“These days we have narrowed the definition of boundary and we have sexualized it,” Perel said. But really the term “boundary” refers to a much broader scope of situations. Boundaries in sexual situations are just a small piece of it.

In the workplace, boundaries exist in any team. This can show itself in many ways. It’s the difference between an employee who’s involved in everyone’s business and the employee who hardly interacts with any colleagues. It’s the difference between teams that act like a secret society and teams with more “porous” boundaries.

There are several key boundary questions that exist in a team. They include, Who’s involved in this project? Who needs to say what to whom? What needs to be shared, and what can be kept to oneself? How much can you be absent for three days without anyone noticing? What is private versus what is shared? And what are decisions you make alone versus decisions for which you need to ask your manager permission?

When Perel is consulting organizations, she relies on the concept of “polarity management,”“an approach to conflict resolution that’s about identifying and managing unsolvable problems,” to communicate with her client.

The specifics of how to use polarity thinking warrants its own article. Looking at it more broadly, though, Perel explained some of the key tenets behind it. Before you tell someone what they’re doing wrong you tell them what they’re doing right. Also, you acknowledge that you know what losses someone will face by doing something different.

“Before you go directly from here to here and say, ‘This is wrong, you need to do that,’ you first address the loss. Every change comes with loss,” Perel said.

Posted on May 30, 2019April 26, 2019

Stalker Costs Costco in Bulk

Dawn Suppo was a Costco Wholesale Corp. employee.

A customer approached Suppo and asked her personal questions, including where she lived. A few days later, the same customer asked Suppo more questions. In another instance, Suppo noticed that the customer was in a disguise, and watching her from behind an aisle.

Suppo complained to her supervisors, but to no avail. Suppo also asked for a closer parking spot in the Costco parking lot, which was denied. The customer encountered Suppo at least 20 more times over the next 13 months, in some instances attempting to touch Suppo, bumping his cart into her, and, in one instance, videotaping her. Suppo was forced to obtain a “no contact order” to restrain the customer.

The stalking forced Suppo to take family medical leave to avoid continued encounters with the customer. Eventually, Costco terminated Suppo because her unpaid medical leave had expired. Suppo filed a hostile work environment charge with the EEOC under Title VII. After an investigation, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Costco on behalf of Suppo.

The case proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury ruled in favor of Suppo. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held that the harassment Suppo faced was “severe and pervasive” under the law, given the significant amount of stalking that took place.

The court affirmed the jury’s conclusion that there was a basis for employer liability because the employer’s response to Suppo’s predicament was “unreasonably weak.” EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 903 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2018).

IMPACT: Employers should be aware that a hostile work environment can be created by unreasonable behavior on the part of a company’s customers. In the case of stalking, employers should attempt to provide solutions to employees to avoid the stalking and cooperate with police where necessary.

Also in Legal Briefings: Public Sector Employers and Age Discrimination

Posted on May 29, 2019June 29, 2023

Does the Attorney-Client Privilege Protect Harassment Probes Conducted By a Lawyer?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

An employee complaints to HR that her supervisor has been sexually harassing her.

The allegations aren’t pretty, and, if the investigation is mishandled (or even if it’s handled perfectly), you are reasonably confident that the employee will sue the company. Thus, you want to ensure that every “i” is dotted and “t” crossed in the investigation. So, you bring in the big guns to handle the investigation—the company’s attorney.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the lawyer recommends that the company suspend, and not fire the harasser. That decision leads to the victim filing suit.

During her lawsuit, the employee requests a copy of the investigatory report. You refuse, claiming it’s protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Who wins that fight? Does the court compel you to disclose the report, or does it protect it from disclosure as privileged?
In Barbini v. First Niagara Bank, a federal court recently addressed this very issue. It concluded that the lawyer’s investigatory report is not privileged and ordered its disclosure.
    1. Not legal advice. Not all communications between lawyer are client are privileged communications. The attorney-client privilege protects communications that are primarily or predominantly of legal in nature, the interpretation and application of legal principles to guide future conduct or to assess past conduct. It does not, however, protect communications that involve the business or operations of the employer that do not otherwise rely upon the interpretation and application of legal principles. When a lawyer fills the role of an investigator of workplace misconduct, the attorney is filling a business role, not a legal role. Thus, the privilege does not attach to protect the communications. The lawyer is no longer the company’s lawyer, but a fact witness as to what occurred.

      (Sidebar: the lawyer/investigator will also have a conflict of interest precluding him or her from representing the company in the litigation, so don’t retain your litigation counsel to conduct the investigation unless you are prepared to find new litigation counsel for that case.)

    2. Waiver. If the employer wants to be able to rely upon the investigation at all as part of its defense to the harassment claim, then it is going to have to waiver any attorney-client privilege that otherwise might attach to and protect the investigation. The employer might need to prove that the promptness and thoroughness of its investigation. It might need to prove the reasonableness of its corrective action. It might be asserting a Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense, or advice of counsel affirmative defense (as was the case in Barbini). In any of those instances, privilege will have to be waived, and the investigatory report, along with all of its related documents, will have to be produced.
As an employer, you should want to rely on your harassment investigation to prove the reasonableness of your response to the complaint. If you are trying to keep the investigation from the plaintiff-employee, in my mind it only begs the question of what skeletons you are trying to hide.
And, in this case, you are probably better off settling the case than digging in your heels and fighting a privilege fight you shouldn’t really be fighting in the first place.
Posted on May 22, 2019June 29, 2023

In Harassment Cases, the Context of Profanities Matters (But Only Sometimes)

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Editor’s note: This post contains extremely graphic language.

“Why is everyone suddenly using the C-word?” asks Stan Carey in The Guardian. He blames Game of Thrones (video very NSFW — you’ve been warned).

Assuming Stan’s correct, and more people are becoming more comfortable openly using this generally considered highly offensive and taboo word, how should you react if your employees start using it among each other? Swiftly and decisively, that’s how.

Consider Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, which decided the issue of whether vulgar language to which all employees (male and female) are equally exposed is actionable as sexual harassment.

The court made a clear distinction between general, gender-nonspecific swear words, such as shit and fuck, (maybe improper, but not necessarily unlawful) as compared to gender-specific epithets such as bitch, whore, and the granddaddy of them all, cunt (unlawful harassment).

[T]he context may illuminate whether the use of an extremely vulgar, gender-neutral term such as “fucking” would contribute to a hostile work environment. “Fucking” can be used as an intensifying adjective before gender-specific epithets such as “bitch.” In that context, “fucking” is used to strengthen the attack on women, and is therefore relevant to the Title VII analysis. However, the obscene word does not itself afford a gender-specific meaning. Thus, when used in context without reference to gender, “fuck” and “fucking” fall more aptly under the rubric of general vulgarity that Title VII does not regulate. …

[W]ords and conduct that are sufficiently gender-specific and either severe or pervasive may state a claim of a hostile work environment, even if the words are not directed specifically at the plaintiff. … It is enough to hear co-workers on a daily basis refer to female colleagues as … “cunts,” to understand that they view women negatively, and in a humiliating or degrading way. The harasser need not close the circle with reference to the plaintiff specifically: “and you are a ‘bitch,’ too.” …

“Cunt,” referring to a woman’s vagina, is the essence of a gender-specific slur. …

The social context at C.H. Robinson detailed by Reeves allows for the inference to be drawn that the abuse did not amount to simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents, but rather constituted repeated and intentional discrimination directed at women as a group, if not at Reeves specifically. It is not fatal to her claim that Reeves’s co-workers never directly called her a “bitch,” a “fucking whore,” or a “cunt.” Reeves claims that the offensive conduct occurred “every single day,” and that the manager “accepted and tolerated that same behavior” over her repeated complaints. If C.H. Robinson tolerated this environment, it may be found to have adopted “the offending conduct and its results,” just as if the employer affirmatively authorized it.

Thus, while general vulgarities are not typically actionable as harassment, severe or pervasive gender-specific words or phrases are actionable even if the words are not specifically directed at one employee, but are merely generally used in the workplace. The aforementioned “c-word” is the perfect example.

The takeaway for employers? Words are sometimes not just words, and businesses should respond to complaints about coarse or vulgar language as they would to any other complaint of harassment. An employer cannot just assume that words are harmless and ignore the complaint. And if you do, you’re just being a … .

Posted on May 2, 2019June 29, 2023

A Cautionary Tale on Why We Background Check Employees

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Here is a cautionary tale on why employers should conduct thorough background checks on employers.

In late 2013, Kristl Thompson, Ashley Raby and Corbie Leslie filed a lawsuit against the Scott Fetzer Co. (doing business as “The Kirby Company”), Crantz Development, and John Fields. The women claimed Fields had sexually assaulted them (including verbal abuse and harassment, inappropriate touching, forced sexual acts, and rape) on numerous occasions between May 2012 and January 2013. A number of these allegations resulted in felony and misdemeanor convictions against Fields.

Fields had worked on and off since the 1970s for Crantz (a factory distributor of Fetzer-manufacured Kirby vacuums) as an independent dealer of Kirby vacuums. Over his decades of work, he had been charged with numerous criminal offenses, including embezzlement, unlawful imprisonment, domestic abuse, and rape.

In their civil lawsuit, the women claimed that Fetzer and Crantz were negligent in hiring Fields and allowing him to go on sales trips with them. The women also asserted claims against Fetzer alone for negligently failing to take appropriate precautions to prevent its independent contractors from hiring employees like Fields, and for negligent supervision of its independent distributor in its hiring practices.

The women alleged that after receiving Fields’s application to become a Distributor Trainee, Kirby conducted a limited background check on Fields, which showed that Fields had lied about his prior criminal record. They further alleged that had Kirby conducted a national search instead of a regional search, it would have discovered his criminal record was much more substantial than he disclosed (including rape). Nevertheless, with knowledge that “Fields had spent almost a year in jail for beating up his wife in 2000, and despite the fact that Kirby knew that Fields lied about his criminal record, Kirby approved Fields to be a Distributor Trainee.”

A year later, Fields applied to become a Factory Distributor. According to the women, Fields “again lied about his criminal record and Kirby again learned of his criminal record.” Despite again learning about Fields’s criminal past, “Kirby approved Fields’ application to become a Factory Distributor.” In the following years, Fields continued to commit crimes, including “forcible rape, first degree domestic violence, unlawful imprisonment, and assault.” While Fields was awaiting trial in the forcible rape case, Kirby learned that he had defrauded elderly customers. That crime appears to have been the tipping point for Kirby, and it terminated his factory distributorship.

Yet, after Fields’ release from prison in February 2012, Kirby rehired him, and he began selling their vacuums again. It was during this period of employment that he sexually assaulted Thompson, Raby, and Leslie.

I pulled these horrible facts from The Scott Fetzer Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. (6th Cir. 4/30/19) [pdf], an insurance coverage dispute relating to the long-since-resolved underlying claims brought by Thompson, Raby, and Leslie.

I hope, however, we can all spot the mistakes made here in screening and hiring Fields.

    1. It’s no longer acceptable to limited criminal background checks on employees locally or regionally. Our society is mobile, and the background checks we are conducting on potential hires should reflect this mobility by being national in scope. Almost all criminal records are available online, and there is really no excuse to do anything other than a national search.
    2. When you discover that an employee has lied about their criminal background, the only resolution is termination. The employment relationship is all about trust, and when that trust is broken the relationship is irreparably damaged.
    3. I’m all for second chances and redemption, but an individual with a history of rape and domestic abuse is un-hireable. Convince me otherwise.
    4. Why rehire someone after they are released from prison for rape, especially with all of this back story? This fact is the most head-scratching of them all.

There was little chance this story was going to have a happy ending. Let’s all learn from it by reviewing our own background screening and hiring processes.

Posted on March 13, 2019June 29, 2023

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Lascivious Leader

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

I can’t do any better of job than the EEOC did in describing the parade of horribles that one supervisor wrought at Sys-Con, a Montgomery, Alabama, general contractor:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, from December 2015 to May 2017, a supervisor at Sys-Con’s worksite at the Hyundai manufacturing plant in Montgomery, demanded sexual favors from two non-English speaking Hispanic female employees and watched pornographic videos in front of them. The EEOC further charged that the supervisor sexually assaulted one of the employees and sub­sequently taunted her, asking whether she “liked it.”

Thereafter, the EEOC said, the super­visor threatened to fire both his victims and their husbands, who were also Sys-Con employees, if they reported his harassment. When one of the employees refused his sexual advances, the supervisor terminated her.

For all of this, the EEOC settled the claims against Sys-Con for (what I consider to be) a paltry $70,000.

Folks, if you employ a supervisor who not only sexually assaults one of your employees but then taunts her about it after the fact, you might be the worst employer of 2019.

Big thanks to my friend Eric Meyer who brought today’s nominee to my attention at his Employer Handbook Blog.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is … the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Fishy Fishery 

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Diverse Discriminator

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disability Debaser

Posted on February 28, 2019June 29, 2023

Ensuring #MeToo Movement Advances Diversity in Leadership

Progress has been made in terms of women’s equality and protection over the past 10 years.metoo anniversary

In fact, it was recently the 10th anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009.

While there have been significant strides in reducing gender bias, harassment and sexual misconduct, clearly there is still work to be done. The #MeToo movement has been an important driver in bringing to light numerous cases of sexual abuse and misconduct.

However, it has also had the unintended consequence of causing men to refrain from interacting with women for fear of retaliation. Considering that male executives play a key role in advancing women into higher levels of leadership, this fear must be taken seriously because if unaddressed it leads to workplaces where there are fewer opportunities for women’s career advancement and informal coaching. Bloomberg recently conducted interviews with more than 30 senior executives that suggest many are startled by the #MeToo movement — some for good cause while others succumb to fear and retreat from supporting leadership diversity.

This is a huge problem for women, men, the companies they work for and society as a whole. When men shy away from mentoring women and helping them advance in their careers, it hurts everyone. Likewise, it is shameful and unacceptable when women are objectified, threatened or harmed.

In both cases no one wins. The outcome of the #MeToo movement should not be that we reverse progress on increasing diversity in leadership but that we are creating opportunities for women and men to thrive.

This shift needs to happen at the organizational level with changes implemented by leaders so that men can invest in the career advancement of women without fearing they will be classified as #MeToo participants and so that women will have confidence that they are working in a safe environment. These changes should include:

  • Providing sexual harassment and communications training for men and women. Employees and managers need to understand what is acceptable and what is not. Men and women respond to nuance differently, and everyone needs to understand what behavior crosses the line. Insight on how to be friendly, kind and foster appropriate relationships will benefit both men and women at all levels within the organization.
  • Ensuring there are confidential reporting protocols in place. All employees need to have a clear and confidential venue to report misconduct so they will not be retaliated against by their colleagues. Similarly, they need to know that because they are empowered to report any misconduct (perceived or overt), their concerns will be taken seriously and senior leadership will take appropriate and supportive action. By formalizing the process, men will feel confident that if a woman retaliates and misuses her power in a destructive way there is a recourse. Both men and women should not be driven by fear but rather they should understand that if they adhere to clearly specified boundaries and are treated unfairly, they will be supported.
  • Making evaluations less ambiguous. We know that when there is ambiguity in assessments it can lead to bias. An article in the Harvard Business Review sums it up as, “Without structure, people are more likely to rely on gender, race and other stereotypes when making decisions — instead of thoughtfully constructing assessments using agreed-upon processes and criteria that are consistently applied across all employees.” When managers use comparable data to evaluate employees and include insight from subordinates, peers and other leaders as well as self-evaluations it will help ensure that constructive criticism relayed to a subordinate is not viewed as subjective, but in fact is based on data and information gathered from multiple sources.
  • Rewarding positive behavior and swiftly addressing inappropriate or illegal actions. By recognizing men and women who serve as successful models of mentoring colleagues, leaders will gain confidence and others will better understand the best way to help both men and women advance in their careers. Likewise, punishing the bad actors will improve working conditions for everyone.

Men and women are asking some important and tough questions about the workplace. Women have earned a seat at the management table and are rightfully demanding it. The #MeToo movement has been a powerful force for change in bringing to light sexual harassment and misconduct and removing perpetrators from positions of power. It’s time to capitalize on that momentum and change our workplace policies — starting from the top down — so that we can turn the #MeToo era into a movement that is constructive, encourages human interaction and supports appropriate career advancement.

Posted on February 25, 2019June 29, 2023

You’re Never Too Small to Have an HR Department

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Some 43 percent of American employees work for companies with 50 or fewer workers.

I raise this statistic because it is almost a guarantee that many of these small businesses operate without a dedicated HR department or HR personnel.

Earlier this month, the EEOC settled a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit it had brought against several IHOP franchises operating in New York and Nevada. The allegations were truly awful, including misbehavior such as unwanted touching of female employees’ buttocks and genitalia, graphic comments about sexual genitalia, invitations to engage in intercourse, and vulgar name calling, perpetrated by both managers and co-workers.

Part of the settlement included a cash payment of $700,000 to the alleged victims. The more interesting part of the Consent Decree requires the companies to create a human resources department (which they were lacking) staffed with professionals knowledgeable about handling and preventing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date, for at least the duration of the Decree, Defendants shall establish and maintain a Human Resources Department with enough staffing to carry out the terms of this Decree. The Human Resources staff shall be comprised of human resources professionals with demonstrated experience in the area of employment law, properly handing complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and preventing and correcting such conduct.…

The Human Resources Department shall be easily accessible to Defendants’ employees in person, telephonically, or by email during normal business hours.

That newly created HR department is required to do all of the things you’d expect an HR department to do regarding its EEO responsibilities:

    • Establishing a record-keeping procedure that provides a centralized system of tracking discrimination, harassment and retaliation complaints.
    • Enforcing the employers’ policies, procedures, and practices to foster a workplace free of unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, including taking measures to ensure that no retaliation is taken against any employee engaging in protected activity.
    • Ensuring proper systems are in place to make certain that proper avenues exist for employees to complain about discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
    • Receiving and promptly investigating complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from any employee.
    • Maintaining regular contact with employees who complain of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
    • Ensuring appropriate corrective and protective measures are implemented in a timely manner after conducting a thorough harassment investigation.
    • Overseeing the development and implementation of anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training and education.

Your business is never too small for an HR department, and HR should never be an afterthought. In fact, it’s one of the most important positions to fill in any business of any size.

Your people are your most important asset. No matter your product, service, or mission, without employees to make it, provide it, or carry it out, you don’t exist.

Every company needs HR to recruit and hire, to create and monitor policies, to help ensure legal compliance, to implement benefits, and to strategize. Size may vary, but without any dedicated HR professionals, you are telling your employees they don’t matter, which is never the right message to communicate.

And, further, when it leads to harassment complaints being ignored, it could land you at the receiving end of an expensive lawsuit.

Posted on February 19, 2019June 29, 2023

Do You Know How to Spot an Employee at Risk for Violence?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Early Friday afternoon, Henry Pratt Co. informed one of its employees, Gary Martin, of his termination.

Shortly thereafter, he opened fire with a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson, killing five of his co-workers and wounding five police officers. Martin himself was the sixth casualty, killed in a shootout with police.

After the news of this tragedy broke, reports surfaced of Martin’s history of violence —s ix prior arrests by the local police department for domestic violence, and a decades-old felony conviction for aggravated assault.

All of which begs the question, should this employer have known that Martin was prone to violence, and, if so, should it have taken added measures in connection with his termination.

A criminal history of violent arrests and offenses is not necessarily a predictor of workplace violence. Still, there are certain warning signs for which an employer can look to help determine whether an employee is at risk for potential violence.

According to ESI Group, these warning signs include:

  • A chronic inability to get along with fellow employees
  • Mood swings and anger control issues
  • Expressions of paranoia or persecution. Being a “victim”
  • A history of problems with past jobs and and/or personal relationships
  • An inability to get beyond minor setbacks or disputes at work
  • A fascination with guns, weapons, or violent events
  • A sudden deterioration in work habits or personal grooming
  • Signs of stress, depression, or suicidal ideation
  • A major life problem, such as divorce or legal problems

If one more of these red flags surface, it is recommend that you refer this employee to an employee assistance program, for assessment and treatment.

If you are compelled to fire an employee who you think poses a risk of violence, it is recommended that you take further steps to mitigate against the risk of your termination transforming into a workplace tragedy.

ESI Group recommends the following:

  • Consider a professional threat assessment
  • Consider using a neutral manager or outside security consultant to carry out the termination
  • If there is manager or supervisor who has been the object of threats or anger, that person should not be the person to conduct the termination
  • Have security nearby—not in the same office, but close enough to hear signs of a problem and to act
  • Do not take a break. There are numerous instances of an employee asking for a bathroom break or time to compose him- or herself, and using the break to retrieve weapons
  • Wait until the end of the workday to terminate, if possible. This protects the dignity of the fired employee and minimizes the number of employees on hand should a situation escalate
  • Minimize any reasons why the employee would have to revisit the workplace. Mail a check; have uncollected belongings sent to the person’s home via a delivery service
  • Allow the person as much dignity as possible, but be brief and to the point. Do not get into a back and forth
  • Emphasize any severance benefits and outsourcing help that may be available. Some organizations decide they will not contest unemployment or offer the option of resigning.

As with most issues in the workplace, the proverbial ounce of prevention really matters. While there exists no foolproof way to protect your workplace against these kinds of tragedies, a few preventative steps can go a long way to putting you in the best place to deter and respond.

Posted on February 14, 2019June 29, 2023

The Rumor Mill Can Create a Sexually Hostile Work Environment

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Just in time for Valentine’s Day, I bring you the story of a employee rumored to be sleeping with her boss to get a promotion. She wasn’t, but the workplace rumor mill sure thought she was.

Evangeline Parker began working for Reema Consulting Services, Inc., as an entry-level clerk. She received six promotions during her first 15 months of employment, ultimately to the position of Assistant Operations Manager.

Two weeks after her final promotion, Parker learned that “certain male employees were circulating … an unfounded, sexually-explicit rumor about her,” that she had slept with her manager, Demarcus Pickett, to obtain her management promotion. Participation in the rumor mill spread all the way up to the plant’s highest level manager, Larry Moppins, who asked Pickett, “You sure your wife ain’t divorcing you because you’re f–king [Parker]?”

Parker claimed that as the rumors spread, her coworkers, including those she supervised, treated her with “open resentment and disrespect.” It culminated in a staff meeting from which Parker was forcibly excluded, during which the rumor was openly discussed.

When Parker later tried to talk to Moppins about the issue, he blamed her for “bringing the situation to the workplace,” and told her that “he could no longer recommend her for promotions or higher-level tasks because of the rumor,” and that he “would not allow her to advance any further within the company.” A follow-up meeting several days later ended with Moppins screaming at Parker.

Thereafter, Parker and Donte Jennings (the man she accused of starting the rumor) filed harassment complaints against each other. In response, Moppins simultaneously issued Parker two written warnings and fired her.

In Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, the 4th Circuit held that Parker sufficiently pleaded that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex.

RCSI argued (and the district court concluded) that the rumors could not support a sexual harassment claim because they had nothing to do with Parker’s gender, but instead were about her conduct. The 4th Circuit rejected this argument and reversed the district court:

As alleged, the rumor was that Parker, a female subordinate, had sex with her male superior to obtain promotion, implying that Parker used her womanhood, rather than her merit, to obtain from a man, so seduced, a promotion. She plausibly invokes a deeply rooted perception — one that unfortunately still persists — that generally women, not men, use sex to achieve success.…

In short, because “traditional negative stereotypes regarding the relationship between the advancement of women in the workplace and their sexual behavior stubbornly persist in our society,” and “these stereotypes may cause superiors and coworkers to treat women in the workplace differently from men,” it is plausibly alleged that Parker suffered harassment because she was a woman.

No good ever comes from the workplace rumor mill, especially when the rumors are about an employee sleeping her way to the top. According to one recent poll, 97% of employees report that spreading rumors about a co-worker’s sex life is the most inappropriate office behavior.

What can you do to limit the harm caused by workplace gossip, especially that about an employee’s sex life? Consider the following 5 suggestions.

  1. Implement a “no-gossip” policy. A year ago I would have told that the NLRB would have serious issues with such a policy as a violation of employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity by talking about their terms and conditions of employment. Currently, however, the NLRB concludes that no-gossip policies are perfectly legal under its new Boeing rules on facially neutral handbook policies.
  2. Keep private matters private. If you don’t want employees gossiping about their co-workers’ private lives, then encourage employees to keep their private lives private. Employees can’t gossip about that which they do not know. That said, in the age of social media, when we are all connected with each other 24/7, this goal is increasingly difficult to accomplish.
  3. Set a positive example. The rumors in Parker were bad, but became that much worse when management began participating. If you want your employees to stop gossiping and spreading rumors about each other, set a positive example, and expect all employees to follow suit.
  4. Encourage complaints. Employees need to know that HR and management are receptive to complaints about gossip and rumors. Even if not sex-based, take the complaint, and treat it seriously. This means investigating, and talking to those starting or spreading the rumors to make sure they stop.
  5. Spread positive news. Is an employee doing a good job? Did he or she go above and beyond? Spread that type of news around the work place. The flip-side of negative rumors are positive stories about employees, customers, and culture. Good news stories will help drown out the negative.

And, for goodness sake, do not in any way, shape, or form permit employees to suggest that another slept her way to the top, or discipline the victim when she complains.

Also in The Practical Employer: Training Won’t Fix Your Hostile Work Environment 

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress