I have long been fascinated by the reactions of different employees to reports of discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Human beings are unique and diverse, and many people have vastly different reactions. But employers cannot look upon employee reaction to complaints with amusement, curiosity, skepticism or mere interest. Employee reactions to reports of discrimination, even when they are predictable reactions, can get employers into real legal trouble.
This all stems from an employer's obligation to provide ALL employees with a safe and respectful working environment. Complaints have to be taken seriously. Employers have an obligation to train all employees on what the appropriate response is to a complaint of harassment or discrimination. And employers especially have an obligation to effectively train supervisors, managers and HR employees on the appropriate response to complaints. When they don't legal liability can result.
A recent case illustrates this point effectively.
The case involved co-worker harassment (although there was an argument that one of the offending employees was a low level manager, but still a "supervisor" for purposes of harassment liability). The Court, in a case called Gillum v. Safeway, found that the employee alleging race discrimination could proceed to a jury trial, because, even if the harassment was inflicted by a co-worker, the employer had not effectively responded to the complaints to stop the harassment.
The Court's opinion described the alleged responses by employees to a complaint that were clearly inappropriate responses. For example, an HR manager responded by simply telling the employee "you are going to be fine" without taking any action, effectively telling the employee to go on about his business and forget about it. The same manager later told the employee that he was "telling stories." Another manager responded by telling the employee that the offenders were "good guys" and "the best" and that she did not have time to talk with him. She also told the complaining employee that he should not do anything "to hurt the company." Instead of investigating the complaints, the offending employee was provided with information about the complaints, and began retaliating against the alleged victim, making more threatening comments, calling him a "snitch" and telling him that the alleged harasser had the support of upper management. Managers also began taking action against the alleged victim, investigating his work performance.
The lessons from this case are legion, but most important is that, when an employee complains, the manager's first response should not be to discount the complaints (even if you find the allegations unbelievable, do not make assumptions or draw conclusions), express support for the alleged harassers (even if they are personal friends, do not take sides), or ignore the complaint without investigation (even if it seems small, all complaints should be investigated to conclusion). When complaints are ignored, discounted, ridiculed, or not taken seriously, the situation can go from bad to worse very quickly.
