What should an employer do about "anonymous harassment"?
Last Friday, I said I'd devote an entire post to a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit* that didn't take too kindly to Chrysler Corporation's response to complaints from an employee about anti-Semitic and national-origin-based notes and graffiti.
*The Seventh Circuit hears appeals from federal courts in the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
I've seen this problem more than once with employers. Here's the typical scenario: An employee (let's call him "Otto," since that is the name of the plaintiff in our case) who works in a manufacturing or distribution environment comes forward and complains that he is getting notes and seeing racially/ethnically/other offensive graffiti in the workplace. Otto may produce copies of a few of the notes. Of course, they are unsigned, and may be deliberately "scrawled" so that the handwriting can't be matched to the handwriting of anyone who works there. The same problem applies to the graffiti.
Anonymous harassing notes and graffiti are the bane of employers.
Meanwhile, Otto may have performance or attendance problems, and so you have at least a suspicion that he might be writing the notes to protect himself from termination.
You know you need to investigate, so you try to match the handwriting on the notes with an employee's handwriting -- you may even hire a handwriting expert -- but no luck. You also can't figure out who is responsible, and maybe the graffiti is even in a restroom, where the only way to catch somebody at it is to post a spy in the bathroom. Which, of course, presents its own set of (ahem) problems.
So, what do you do?
The Seventh Circuit in the Chrysler case affirmed a jury verdict in excess of $4 million for the plaintiff, who said he'd been the victim of these anonymous notes and graffiti for years. The court said that there was plenty of evidence to support a jury verdict that the company's response was weak and ineffective. You can read the case for details, but here is what I'd do when faced with that situation:
First Steps
*Notify appropriate Human Resources or legal pesonnel immediately.
*Get the original notes if you can, and if not, make copies. Get photos of the graffiti. Make sure all copies are of high quality, and that you have extras. Keep your evidence in a secure place.
*Once you have photos of the graffiti, have it painted over immediately. Do not delay.
*Ask Otto for details about when, where, and how the notes/graffiti were found.
*Ask Otto for names of anyone he thinks might have been the perpetrator(s), and for any other information that might be helpful. Let him know that you take it very seriously and will thoroughly investigate.
DON'T FORGET - If you enjoy this blog, please vote for us to be included in the American Bar Association's Blawg 100 list. The deadline is Friday, September 7. Voting is quick and easy. Thank you very much for your support now, as in the past!
Follow-up
*Do your best to analyze the handwriting, realizing that this may be impossible if the perp was trying to disguise his or her handwriting. Do retain a reputable handwriting expert if you can.
*Review the work schedules of Otto's suspects. Were they at work when the note or graffiti first appeared? Are there any other people you can identify as possible suspects based on their racial/ethnic/other views, or their love of "pranks," or their physical closeness to the area where the notes or graffiti were found, or any other circumstance that might be relevant? If so, add their names to the list that you got from Otto.
*Interview all possible suspects, even if they weren't scheduled to work on the day that the note or graffiti was found. Document your interviews. Follow all leads that you get in your interviews.
*Continue painting over any new graffiti after photographing it, and keep copies of any notes that come in after your first meeting with Otto.
*Follow up with Otto. Let him know what you're doing. If your leads are not panning out, let him know that and ask him for other suggestions.
*If you figure out who the culprit was, take appropriate action.
Phase 3 (if you still don't know who the culprit was)
*Consider some type of surveillance -- cameras are great if you have them, but if not, you may be able to station supervisors to "hang around" for several days in the area where the notes are being left or graffiti is being written. Yes, even if the graffiti is being written in the bathroom, station supervisors to monitor the bathroom. If and when the perpetrator is caught, take appropriate action.
If your supervisor has to spend the day in the men's room to find out who's writing that harassing graffiti, then so be it. It's a relatively small price to pay.
*If you have a union, and you want to conduct surveillance, be sure to consult your collective bargaining agreement and bargain over the surveillance if you have to.
*Meanwhile, continue painting over any new graffiti after photographing it, and keep copies of any notes that come in after your first meeting with Otto.
*Schedule employee meetings to review the harassment policy and make sure that everyone knows that harassment -- specifically including but not limited to notes and graffiti -- will not be tolerated. Be specific, and be tough.
*Report the notes/graffiti to law enforcement, and cooperate with their investigation or recommendations.
*Consider consulting with someone else from outside the company to make sure there aren't any other leads you should follow that you've missed. Of course, you should follow any recommendations made by your consultant.
If the investigation shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the perpetrator is the complaining employee (yes, that does happen sometimes), then don't be afraid to take appropriate action against the complaining employee. But do be sure that your evidence against the complaining employee is very strong -- otherwise, you will be accused not only of allowing a hostile work environment to flourish but also of retaliation. Not a good position to be in.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010