Last week, I posted about harassment "must-haves" for employers, and talked in detail about the first two: a good policy, and training. This week I'd like to talk about "must-have" no. 3 - a prompt, thorough, and fair investigation.

PROMPT. "Prompt," in the context of a harassment investigation, means that you act as soon as you reasonably can, and if you have to delay, you have a very ...

Maybe it's just me, but workplace harassment issues seem to come in waves -- I'll go months, or even a year, without an issue, and then WHAM! everybody has a "situation," or at least they need to get their preventive training done.

Right now, we're in a bit of a "flash flood," so I thought it might be a good time to review the basics, with some updates.

WHAT ARE THE FIVE HARASSMENT ...

Are harassment and retaliation lawsuits all going to the jury now? Are employers doomed? Are the plaintiffs' lawyers popping the champagne corks? Is the EEOC dancing for joy?

The employment law world is abuzz about last week's racial harassment/retaliation decision from my own U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. (Many thanks to an attorney friend who emailed a ...

Some employers really, really hate to fire employees. That doesn't mean they won't do it - but they'll do just about anything to avoid calling it what it is.

A few months ago, I wrote about "bogus RIFs" - when an employer tries to avoid "firing" an employee by claiming it's really a "reduction in force."

There's another kind of "alternative" separation called a constructive discharge.

"Too long, loved the judge, didn't believe either one of them but still think she may have been hurt, liked the firm but thought they should have done more."

A little Faruqi fix for those of you don't know what to do with yourselves now that the trial is over -- David Lat of Above the Law interviewed one of the jurors, who offered some excellent insights into why they did what they did. Definitely ...

As you may have seen, the jury in Marchuk v. Faruqi came back yesterday with a verdict for plaintiff Alexandra Marchuk, but it will not allow her to retire, nor will it even pay off her law school student loans.

Ms. Marchuk got a total of $140,000:

$70,000 in back pay

$20,000 in front pay

$5,000 in punitive damages against the law firm

and $45,000 in punitive damages against partner Juan ...

Law360 reports this afternoon that the jury returned a verdict for Alexandra Marchuk and against defendants Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, and partner Juan Monteverde. The jury awarded her $90,000 in actual damages, and punitive damages will be determined later. She had asked for $2 million.

Ms. Marchuk won on her hostile work environment claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. However ...

The sexual harassment case of Alexandra Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi went to the jury late yesterday afternoon. For previous coverage of the trial, go here, here, here, here, here, and here.

In closing arguments, the attorney for the defendants called Ms. Marchuk a "wolf" and said she had made up her allegations to get money. Among other things, he noted that her gynecologist, who she saw ...

As expected, Law360 reports this morning that Plaintiff Alexandra Marchuk has asked Judge Alvin Hellerstein to reconsider his ruling that Nadeem Faruqi and Lubna Faruqi, co-founders of the New York law firm Faruqi & Faruqi, be dismissed from her lawsuit as individual defendants. She also requested reconsideration of the court's decision granting judgment to the defendants on her ...

The defense completed its case yesterday at the trial of Alexandra Marchuk's sexual harassment claims against the New York City law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi and partner Juan Monteverde. Prior coverage of the trial is available here, here, here, and here.

Yesterday, Mr. Monteverde testified more about the blood-stained carpet, saying he had not noticed the stains until Ms. Marchuk told ...