Manager botched response to complaint — company out $100K
October 14, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Harassment, Special Report, Training
As far as the law goes, one of a manager’s most important jobs is responding to complaints from employees. A recent case shows the financial hit companies can take when the boss fails to answer effectively.
A woman sued her employer for sexual harassment. She claimed the head of her department repeatedly made sexual comments, asked her on dates and referred to her by obscene nicknames.
She complained to her direct supervisors. Their response: “Go along with it.”
The woman then brought the issue to HR. The company investigated, and the alleged harasser got a warning.
The employee took the company to court, claiming her managers ignored her complaints, and that HR just gave the department head a slap on the wrist.
Managers failed to respond
Who won?
Answer: the employee. The court agreed that the supervisors’ response was unacceptable and that the warning from HR wasn’t enough to prevent future harassment.
Furthermore, while the company had a written harassment policy, there was no evidence all employees received it. Also, the company claimed to conduct harassment training, but again, had no documented evidence that any training took place.
The case went before a jury, who made the company pay $100,000 in punitive damages.
Harassment prevention
This case brings some helpful reminders for HR pros:
- Train managers on effectively responding to complaints
- Have all trainees sign an attendance sheet to prove they were there, and
- Get everyone to sign your policy, so you can prove they received it.
Cite: Bjornson v. Dave Smith Motors/Frontier Leasing and Sales
Tags: complaints, managers, training
October 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
It is interesting from the article that the court found that “that the warning from HR wasn’t enough to prevent future harassment.” Granted, the supervisor’s response was unaccpetable, but giving a supervisor a written reprimand and letting them know that if the behavior continues, they will be terminated should be enough to “prevent future harassment.” There must be more about this case that isn’t included. If not, then are we left to believe that the court expected the supervisor to be terminated immediately without any progressive discipline? If so, if the supervisor was from a protected class, doesn’t the company open itself up to further liability for not following their progressive discipline policy?
When all employees are trained concerning the Sexual harassment policy, they are able to recognize the behavior in others. Generally the training is a lecture and there is no skill building or activities for the employee to self assess their own behavior and beliefs. I find that they rarely understand that what they may be doing may be percieved as offensive and a violation of policy. They ussually experience a level of “denial” where they minimize their behaviors and the impact on others and look to rationalize that behavior. In those instances, the written reprimand is used to give an employee “notice” and to force that self assessment and promote the corrective action necessary.
October 16th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I think the underlying reason for the decision rests in the absence of any tangible evidence the company’s actions regarding prevention of harassment was more than an “in print only” written policy.
If the company had a written policy that appeared in good faith to have been implemented and taken seriously, the reprimand might have been sufficient. However, a suspension would have been more appropriate even if paid. Removal from the scene would send a clear and resounding message of intolerance.
Instead, the manager’s comment would tend to indicate the genuine mood of the organization to be ‘Words without action’. This is further supported by the fact that employees did not seem to have knowledge of the policy.
October 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I agree with Mike H.. It sounds like the “Good old Boy” system was at work, and they did not want to embarrass the harrasser. I would have suggested something stronger that made a statement to all parties involved. Something that says, this type of behavior is not acceptable, and will not be tolerated. I agree with the suspension, even with pay, to give the accused time to think about his actions, and the possibility of losing his job. The supervisors also need training to respond to complaints. This may be the major reason for the decision. She complained and was “fluffed off”. HR responded and investigated, but it does not appear they did more than minimal. One of them should have been moved immediately to another section, if at all possible.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I agree with both Helen and Mike H. Besides the warning where was the re-inservicing of the Harrassment Policy for both the alleged harrasser and the supervisor? There should have been a suspenison pending further investigation. I believe both the supervisor and harrasser should have been addressed which would have given a No Tolerance approach and addressed the seriousness of the matter.
October 16th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I decided to re-read the article and it still indicates that the company investigated and the HR took action. There is no mention that the behavior continued and that the action the HR took was ineffective.
According to the article, the employee’s complaint in court was that “her managers ignored her complaints, and that HR just gave the department head a slap on the wrist.” The article indicates that the company did not “ignore her complaints” because they investigated. The article also characterized the HR’s warning as a “slap on the wrist.” At my company, we don’t share what disciplinary actions we take with other employees.
It is the company’s responsiblity to take “reasonable action” to respond to various complaints and problems. If those actions do not solve the problem and there is injury, then the courts job is to determine what would be necessary to make the injured party “whole.” This case looks like the court determined that in order to make the injured party whole, that the company had to sufficiently “punish, ridicule, embarass, or injure” the supervisor. There is no evidence that the harassment continued and I am sure it took over a year for this to reach a court, so there should be evidence that the warning was ineffective.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Lots of good comments here. The only thing that I would add is that as we have conducted investigations in harassment situations, we start out with discussion with the harassed. After the investigation is complete with everyone else involved, we then follow-up with that individual again to let them know the general outcome of the initial investigation. If the supervisor was not fired (based on the severity of the situation investigated) but parameters were set on how to move forward (ie., move to different department, shift, etc.), that individual would be included in that follow-up discussion. Not necessarily to help establish the parameters, but certainly being allowed feedback on them. Their feedback and even body language would give us a sense that the parameters would likely work or if the individual feels they may not work. We would consider even going back to the table if the sense is that this person is tentative about this and if we feel that we could establish another reasonable direction. Once parameters are agreed to and reported to all parties, this individual is encouraged to report anything further that is uncomfortable for them. They are also encouraged to let us know if things are obviously going well. We let them know that we will follow-up with them frequently until we are confident the matter is behind us. Taking these steps have changed our original direction a few times, I think, for the better. Certainly, if this person is unreasonable in their feedback of the parameters, we would have to tailor the parameters to what we feel is reasonable for all parties and assure that follow-up along the way will either confirm that this is the case or if additional action is needed.
Taking these kind of steps may have helped in the current story.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:39 am
This is very interesting and sounds like the manager lacked the skills to do the job.