On Monday, a jury awarded former Nashville Tennessee school employee Vicky Crawford $1.5 million after she claimed she was wrongfully terminated in 2003 because she cooperated in the sexual harassment investigation of a school official. Last January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Crawford could sue for "retaliation" even though she was not the one
Judging Credibility of Witnesses in Harassment Investigation
I came across an interesting article by a federal district judge (Honorable John L. Kane in Denver) about "Judging Credibility" of witnesses. Since judging credibility of the complainant, the accused, and the witnesses is something workplace harassment investigators need to do, I thought I’d share a couple thoughts from his article.
Retaliation and Race Discrimination Claims at All Time High
According to SCI Companies Client Newsletter (HR Strategy) today, the EEOC reports that fiscal year 2009 was the second highest year on record for discrimination charges.
SCI states:
. . . The EEOC received record numbers of charges alleging discrimination based on origin (11,134 charges), religion (3,386 charges) and sex-based discrimination (28,028 charges.) However
Part 4: Resolving Bitterness and Wounded Feelings After a Workplace Investigation
This is Part 4 of a 4-part posting on recommendations to consider before, during, and after a workplace investigation.
Most of the suggestions in this 4-part posting go beyond the bounds of what a workplace investigator is retained to do. Sometimes the employer does not want written recommendations; however, the workplace investigator can offer many
Part 3: Resolving Bitterness and Wounded Feelings After a Workplace Investigation
Train Supervisors on What Constitutes Retaliation: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has reported that claims including a retaliation charge rose by 23% in fiscal year 2008. Vincent Cino, national director of litigation for Jackson Lewis LLP, says roughly 70% of discrimination suits handled by his firm include a retaliation
Part 2: Resolving Bitterness and Wounded Feelings After a Workplace Investigation
This is the second of a 4-part posting concerning recommendations an employer should consider before, during, and after an employment investigation to resolve any lingering bitterness by employees.
Teachable Moment
Suppose an employee complains that her supervisor has exposed her to racial harassment. The investigation determines that while inappropriate remarks were likely made, the remarks
Sexual Harassment Investigation of SB County DA Completed
San Bernardino County approved a $140,000 contract with Santa Monica-based legal firm Curiale Hirschfeld Kraemer to conduct the sexual harassment investigation of SB District Attorney Michael Ramos. Nearly six months later, the 200-page report is finished, according to a news article yesterday by Joe Nelson of The Sun.
According to the Sun article:
Resolving Bitterness and Wounded Feelings in the Office After a Workplace Investigation
This is the first of a 4-part post concerning what steps an employer and/or investigator can take to heal the bitterness in a workplace before, during, and after an employment investigation.
Employers often think that the most important part of a workplace investigation is deciding whether a complaint of harassment or discrimination is valid
What’s the Difference Between a Sexual Harassment Investigation and a Sexual Discrimination Investigation?
In sexual harassment investigations, the words "harassment" and "discrimination" are oftentimes used interchangeably by the complainant and witnesses. Even formal complaints drafted by the lawyers allege the same exact incidents to form the basis of the "Sexual Harassment Cause of Action" and the "Sex Discrimination Cause of Action."
We know that sexual harassment is
No Right to Representation for Accused Nonunion Employees in Workplace Investigations-But for How Long?
Over the years, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") has vacillated on the issue of whether "Weingarten rights" apply to nonunion employees. Weingarten rights derive from the 1975 US Supreme Court case NLRB v. Weingarten, where the Court announced that unionized employees have the "right" to have a union representative present during