An employee complained to an upper-level manager that her supervisor had sexually harassed her. The response she got: The manager asked for witnesses who could corroborate or other evidence of wrongdoing.

She had nothing to offer, so the company decided it couldn’t do anything.

Eventually, however, another employee complained about the same supervisor. This time, the company got enough proof to investigate and then fire him.

But it didn’t end there: The original complainant sued, claiming she was subjected to more harassment after the company failed to investigate her complaint.

So was the manager’s response to the complaint appropriate? Yes, according to the judge. Companies can’t be expected to automatically believe every complaint they receive — that’s how innocent supervisors get mistakenly fired.

Without anything more to go on, there wasn’t much the manager could do.

Cite: Adams v. O’Reilly Automotive, Inc.

An employee complained to her supervisor that a co-worker had been sexually harassing her. The allegations were pretty severe: The woman claimed he consistently made sexual comments, touched her inappropriately and asked her to view pornography on his office computer.

The company suspended the co-worker and investigated. The conclusion: All the allegations were true. The man was suspended without pay and warned that he’d be fired if the conduct continued.

But the harassment didn’t stop and the woman complained again. The co-worker was suspended and warned a second time.

After that, the employee quit and sued the company for failing to put a stop to the harassment.

The company argued that it took appropriate disciplinary action in response to her complaints. But the judge didn’t buy it.

Two complaints should have been enough for the co-worker to lose his job. The woman testified that she was no longer comfortable coming to work with him around, and the company’s actions didn’t convince him to change his behavior.

What’s the best way to handle employees who’ve been accused of sexual harassment? There’s no easy answer. But the courts look to see if the company does something that could reasonably be expected to stop the harassment.

In this case, the company’s empty threats weren’t enough.

Cite: Engel v. Rapid City School District

In one recent case, a supervisor caught an African-American employee setting off firecrackers at a job site. The supervisor notified upper management, and the employee was fired for a blatant violation of their safety policy.

Seems like a pretty simple case, right? Wrong.

The employee sued for discrimination. Two white employees were caught doing the same thing and weren’t reported by the supervisor.

The company’s defense: The decision-makers were never aware of the other safety violations. The employee was fired based on his manager’s report. If the company knew about the other employees’ conduct, they would’ve been fired, too.

But that didn’t matter to the judge. The front-line manager discriminated against the employee by taking action against him and not his white co-workers. Therefore, the company was liable.

Cite: Madden v. Chattanooga City Wide Service Dept.

A new Supreme Court ruling sends managers a message about conducting complaint investigations: Watch how employees serving as witnesses are treated — or the company could be hit with a retaliation claim.

The background of the case:

Vicky Crawford worked for the Metropolitan School District in Nashville, TN. One of her co-workers filed a sexual harassment complaint against their supervisor.

As part of the ensuing investigation, Crawford was asked if she’d ever witnessed any harassment. She said, yes, she’d seen the supervisor harass other employees — and was harassed herself on several occasions. She provided a list of inappropriate sexual comments the supervisor had said to her during her tenure.

Despite that testimony, the alleged harasser was never fired or disciplined. Shortly after the investigation, Crawford was fired — the school district claimed she’d been embezzling.

She sued, claiming the embezzlement allegations against her were false and she was really fired in retaliation for her comments during the investigation.

Protection for witnesses?

Two lower courts ruled against Crawford, stating that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions only apply to employees who file their own discrimination claims or participate in formal investigations by the EEOC.

But the Supreme Court disagreed. Employees are protected from retaliation whenever they “oppose” an employer’s unlawful actions — and, according to the Court, that includes an employee who participates in an internal investigation.

The lesson for managers: Be cautious when dealing with any employees involved in a complaint investigation. Employees who confirm allegations of harassment or discrimination can’t be treated differently than those who don’t.

And, of course, it’s key to document all performance or behavioral issues regarding those employees in case the company has to fight future retaliation claims.

Cite: Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee

One of a manager’s hardest tasks: Dealing with a difficult employee who’s constantly making frivolous complaints. What can supervisors do without being accused of retaliation?

A recent court case involved an employee who didn’t get along with his boss or his co-workers. He claimed his supervisor treated him different than younger, female employees.

Throughout his employment, he filed several complaints with management and HR. For example, he alleged:

• his supervisor refused to take his suggestions during staff meetings
• his work was monitored more closely than other workers’, and
• a performance review that labeled him as a difficult employee was the result of age and gender bias.

HR investigated each complaint, but could find no evidence of discrimination. The conclusion: The employee was “sensitive to feedback” and needed to work out his personal conflict with his supervisor. After each investigation, he was told to improve the relationship and “move on.”

Can manager discipline constant complainer?

The company began outsourcing some of its operations and had to shrink the employee’s department. He was one of the employees chosen to be terminated.

He sued, claiming he was treated unfairly because of his gender and fired in retaliation for his complaints.

The company argued that all of the employee’s complaints were handled properly and the company issued  appropriate responses. The constant complaints were disrupting the workplace, so the employee was asked to improve the relationship with his boss.

Who won the case? Answer: the company. The court ruled the complaints and the termination weren’t connected.

The judge took the situation for what it was: The company disciplined — and then chose to get rid of  — a difficult, poor-performing employee.

The lessons for managers dealing with difficult people who complain:

1. Treat all complaints the same. Assuming someone’s claims are frivolous is an easy way to avoid correcting a real problem. That could get the company sued.
2. Educate employees on what constitutes harassment and discrimination. One way to limit frivolous complaints is to educate people on what is and isn’t against the law.
3. Don’t avoid dealing with difficult people. As this case shows, managers can take action when an employee’s constant complaints disrupt the workplace. Just make sure all the problems are documented.

Cite: Brinkman v. Andersen Corp.

One in five employers polled last month said employee theft has become a problem in recent months, according to the Institute for Corporate Productivity.

And it’s not just employees taking pens and paper clips home with them. When asked if they’d seen a rise in monetary theft this year — such as fraudulent expense reports or just missing cash — 18% of employers said yes. Another 41% aren’t sure.

Almost a quarter said they’ve seen more employees grab non-monetary items like office supplies and retail products.

The anti-harassment policy.

In one recent case, an employee sued after enduring several incidents of harassment by her supervisor. The conduct she complained about was pretty severe. She alleged that he:

• used profanity on a daily basis, including slurs directed specifically at women in the office
• asked her to stay in his hotel room during a business trip
• stood uncomfortably close to her and breathed down her neck, and
• touched himself inappropriately in her presence.

However, it took several months before she filed a complaint. She eventually went to HR after receiving a bonus that was less than she expected.

The company investigated. No witnesses corroborated the allegations, so HR decided there were no grounds to fire the supervisor.

The employee was offered several options to solve the situation, including transferring her to a different office, sending the manager to counseling and bringing in an industrial psychologist to monitor his behavior.

She turned them all down and sued the company for allowing the harassment.

The company argued all the appropriate actions were taken after the woman complained — it wasn’t the HR manager’s fault that no one knew what was happening sooner. All employees received a policy requiring harassment victims to notify HR or a manager about any problems immediately.

The employee said she was aware of the policy but didn’t file a complaint sooner because she was afraid of damaging her career and decided to “go along to get along.”

Who won? The court ruled in favor of the company. Put simply, it couldn’t have taken action until the employee filed a claim. If she had complained sooner, the company could’ve acted sooner.

Also, without proof that the allegations were true, the company was right not to fire the supervisor. Employers don’t need to make those decisions based only on “he said, she said” types of investigations.

The bottom line: Just because one manager behaved inappropriately didn’t mean the company allowed or condoned sexual harassment. The judge noted that harassment can only be prevented if the victims cooperate by taking advantage of the protective measures offered by their employers.

Cite: Baldwin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama

The EEOC gives three reasons employees may have for not complaining — and what companies can do to make sure employees have a chance to voice their concerns:

1. “I thought I’d get in trouble if I complained” – Fear of retaliation is a common reason employees give for not telling HR or their managers about harassment, according to the EEOC. That’s why a good harassment policy will include provisions against retaliation and make it clear that employees will not be punished for raising their concerns.
2. “The process was too difficult” – Another reason victims may not complain is that the reporting procedure made it too difficult — for example, if the designated contacts are hard to get a hold of, or if the language is confusing about who employees should complain to. Courts look at harassment policies to see if there are any “unreasonable obstacles” to filing a grievance. If there are, the company could be held liable even if the employee never complained.
3. “I didn’t think it would do any good” – Employees may also decide not to complain about harassment if the company’s policy requires them to report the conduct directly to the harassing supervisor. For that reason, employers should provide multiple avenues for reporting.

1. Do forward all complaints to HR. Some charges are filed with HR directly, but most often, frontline managers get the first word. When that’s the case, they should tell HR about it immediately.
   Don’t investigate on your own. Some supervisors may want to look into the situation as soon as they learn about it, but matters should be handled by someone who isn’t directly involved with the employees in the dispute.
2. Do work with HR to separate the accused and the accuser, figuring out whether to transfer one person to another part of the company, place the alleged harasser on a paid, non-disciplinary suspension, etc.
   Don’t take those actions without HR’s help. The key is to avoid making it seem like one side is being punished. If the complainant thinks he or she is being disciplined, that can lead to a retaliation complaint. And until the investigation is finished, the accused harasser has the same rights as any other company employee.
3. Do discuss the complaint only with those who need to know about it. Spreading the word to everyone can leave the accuser open to retaliation from co-workers, and the accused may claim defamation if the the complaint was false.
   Don’t promise confidentiality. Many harassment victims will ask a manager to “keep it between you and me.” But it’s impossible to conduct an investigation while keeping the parties anonymous.

They could get hit with defamation claims if they believe and act on false allegations.

In one recent case, an employee was fired after her co-worker lodged a complaint with management. He claimed the woman told him she planned to take a gun to work and shoot her fellow employees.

The twist: The woman claimed she never made such a statement. She said the co-worker had sexually harassed her and was trying to get her fired before she could file a complaint.

However, the company not only fired her, but also told police about the alleged threats, leading to her being detained and searched by law enforcement.

The woman sued the co-worker and the company for defamation. A jury took her side and awarded her $500,000.

Cite: Chang-Craft v. Cameron and Alaska Airlines, Inc.