Tag Archives: #MeToo

New California Law Protects Employees and Employers from Defamation Claims in the Wake of the #MeToo Movement

Contributed by Allison Sues, July 23, 2018

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, companies have been reviewing their sexual harassment training and investigation practices, and many states have considered the need for additional legislation offering protection to employees. For example, we previously covered legislation discouraging confidential settlements of sexual harassment claims in Tennessee, Washington, and New York. Recently, California enacted new legislation that protects employees who report sexual harassment from lawsuits claiming that they defamed the alleged harasser. Assembly Bill No. 2770, signed into law on July 9, 2018, codifies the common law rule that an employee’s complaint of sexual harassment, made without malice and based on credible information, is privileged and cannot give rise to liability for libel or slander.

16306823 - 3d illustration of scales of justice and gavel on orange background

scales of justice and gavel on orange background

This Act is notable in the protection it offers to employers. Assembly Bill No. 2770 also provides that an employer’s truthful reference is privileged when it reveals to a prospective employer that a former employee was involved in sexual misconduct or other harassment.   The legislative counsel’s digest attached to the bill states that the bill “would authorize an employer to answer, without malice, whether the employer would rehire an employee and whether or not a decision to not rehire is based on the employer’s determination that the former employee engaged in sexual harassment.” This bill should assure employers that they will not be held liable for defamation while they conduct investigations into sexual harassment complaints and respond to reference inquiries regarding workplace harassers. This legislation will hopefully benefit employers on both ends of the reference process. The former employer is free to warn other employers about problem employees without fear of liability, and the potential new employer benefits from a more transparent hiring process and gains the knowledge necessary to avoid hiring someone who may victimize other employees in the new workplace.

All employers – both inside and outside of California – should always be careful when providing references. On the one hand, an employer’s negative reference may lead to claims for defamation and interference with contract if the former employee claims he was denied other employment because of the reference. On the other hand, an employer who refrains from providing truthful information about an employee who engaged in sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, or violence in the workplace could face a claim for negligent misrepresentation or negligent referral if the former employee is involved in an incident at the new workplace that could have been predicted based on prior behavior. To reach a balance between these two risks – and in the interest of promoting safe workplaces – employers should provide truthful references through objective and easily verifiable facts. For example, an employer should not provide subjective commentary about an employee terminated for harassment or sexual misconduct, but may report that the employer investigated complaints that the former employee engaged in sexual harassment and disciplined the employee after the investigation corroborated the complaints.

#MeToo Prompts Stiffer Sexual Harassment Laws

Contributed by Suzanne S. Newcomb, July 6, 2018

In January we reported on a change in federal tax law aimed at discouraging confidentiality in sexual harassment and abuse settlements. Since then Tennessee, Washington, New York, and New York City have enacted sexual harassment prevention measures including discouraging confidential settlements.

#MeToo

#MeToo on sketchbook 

In Tennessee and Washington it is now unlawful to condition employment on an agreement not to disclose workplace sexual harassment although confidential settlements are still permitted in both states. The Washington state law further clarifies that non-disclosure policies and agreements do not prevent discovery or witness testimony in administrative or civil judicial actions and tasks the state’s Human Rights Commission with developing model policies and best practices to prevent sexual harassment.

New York recently passed an aggressive state-wide anti-harassment law which mandates annual training, prohibits mandatory arbitration of sex harassment claims, and severely limits an employer’s ability to keep the underlying facts of such claims confidential as follows:

  • Effective Immediately Employers must protect non-employees in their workplace from sexual harassment and are liable to non-employees (i.e. contractors, subcontractors, vendors, consultants or others providing services) if the employer’s agents knew or should have known of the harassment and “failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.”
  • Effective 7/11/2018
    • It becomes unlawful to require employees to arbitrate sexual harassment claims (this provision will likely be challenged as violating the Federal Arbitration Act).
    • It becomes unlawful to require confidentiality as to the facts and circumstances underlying a claim of sexual harassment unless confidentiality is the complainant’s preference. If the complainant indicates he or she prefers confidentiality, the employer must wait 21 days while the complainant considers the proposed confidentiality provision and, if the complainant chooses to accept the provision, the complainant must be allowed seven days to revoke the agreement. Note, unlike the ADEA, the NY State law does not appear to allow the complainant to waive any part of the 21 day consideration period.
  • By 10/9/2018 employers in the state must (1) adopt a written sexual harassment policy and (2) provide “interactive” sexual harassment training to all employees annually. Both the policy and the training must meet the strict standards set forth in the statute.

New York City enacted its own ordinance which extends the time period for filing sexual harassment complaints to 3 years; expands the prohibition of sexual harassment to all employment and independent contractor relationships (unless the contractor is itself an employer) regardless of number of employees; effective 9/6/2018 will require employers to display a new mandatory poster and provide an information sheet to all employees upon hire; and effective 4/1/2019 will require employers to provide annual “interactive” sexual harassment training which meets the minimum standards outlined in the ordinance to all employees (including managers, supervisors and interns).

Employers with operations in New York must act now to ensure compliance. Others should remain alert as many other jurisdictions are considering similar measures.

 

I Heart You! Office Romance and Risk Management

Contributed by Beverly Alfon, February 13, 2018

As most turn their thoughts to love and romance this Valentine’s Day, we remind you of the potential liability that Cupid’s arrow may unleash. In this post-Weinstein and #MeToo period, the thought of office romance may catapult an employer into sheer panic. Although a recent CareerBuilder survey indicates that office romance is at a 10-year low, the stats are still telling: 36% of workers admitted to having dated a colleague in the past year. Of workers who had an office romance, 30% dated someone in a higher position. Yikes. A soured relationship at work can result in a broken heart for the employer – usually in the form of a sexual harassment claim. How can an employer address this?

A Love Contract?

heart

Red outline of heart on white background

These things exist. They are written relationship agreements that employers seek from employees to confirm the existence of a consensual relationship. The employer’s goal is to mitigate risk by documenting the employer’s expectation that they comply with all existing policies, including anti-harassment policies. They can also be used to set ground rules for other conduct, including public displays of affection (PDA), favoritism – and retribution (in case the relationship turns sour).  However, while these contracts can be a good “band-aid” for addressing the relationship, if a company does not have an anti-harassment program or policy regarding office relationships; it is not the best option.

A love contract alone will not likely defeat an employee’s claim of harassment. Most sexual harassment plaintiffs can claim that they were coerced into signing one because their employer presented the agreement in the context of their at-will employment. Practically, a love contract is also difficult because it requires employees to admit to the existence of a relationship in the first place. In the same CareerBuilder survey, 41% of the workers kept their romance a secret – and almost 25 of survey respondents admitted to an affair with a colleague where one person involved was married at the time.

Snap out of it!

You can more effectively mitigate legal risk by focusing on your anti-harassment program. If you don’t have a written policy in place, invest the time and dollars to get one. Having a policy on the books is not enough. It should be supplemented with annual interactive training courses (a legal requirement for California employers) – ones tailored for non-supervisory and supervisory employees. The goal is to document that employees have been trained on the internal complaint procedures. Equally important is training your supervisors on how to avoid harassment claims and how to properly handle claims if the supervisor receives knowledge of a claim. A solid anti-harassment/discrimination program demonstrates employer good-faith and can form a defense against such claims.

A general workplace romance or “fraternization” policy can address concerns over PDA and favoritism. Don’t play footsie over this. Specifically address office relationships to make it clear that you expect professional and respectful behavior of all employees, regardless of any personal relationship between them. You can prohibit PDA in the office or on company time. And yes, you can forbid romantic relationships between supervisors and subordinates. According to a 2013 survey conducted by SHRM, of businesses that had a romance policy, 99% banned supervisor-subordinate relationships. And, it’s no wonder. In addition to harassment claims, soured relationships can result in claims of assault and battery, false imprisonment and defamation against the alleged harasser. Inevitably, the employer will be rolled into any related litigation.

Bottom Line: Love contracts are uncomfortable and not very effective.  It is more effective to prohibit the risky conduct in the first place. Implementing a strong anti-harassment program and addressing employee relationships in a policy will go further in mitigating risks.