Employer’s Prompt Investigation and Action Prevents Liability For Retaliation and Co-Worker Harassment ClaimsJon Hoag
May 9, 2013 — 1,104 views
Once again, the court has reiterated that employers can avoid liability by promptly investigating and remedying claims of harassment. In Jensen v. Styrolution Am. LLC, Judge Guzman of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a retaliation and harassment complaint against the employer based on proof that the employer took prompt remedial action when it learned about allegations of harassment.
Jensen claimed that he was harassed by a male co-worker, Hefele. Jensen reported the incidents to his immediate supervisor, who intervened. Jensen admitted that the harassment would stop for a while, but he claimed it would eventually continue. Jensen complained to his immediate supervisor when the harassment began to escalate and the complaint was communicated to upper management and human resources. Human resources conducted an investigation and determined that both individuals had violated the company’s policies. After the investigation, the employees were assigned to work different shifts and did not have any further dealings or interactions. There were no further complaints of harassment.
The court found that the employer properly intervened and took reasonable measures to put a stop to the harassment. When the harassment picked back up and escalated, the supervisor reported the matter to upper management. Most importantly, the employer conducted an investigation and took remedial action. The court stressed that a prompt investigation is the hallmark of reasonable corrective action. Furthermore, the employer’s findings through its investigation showed that the employer’s reason for terminating Jensen – violation of company policy – was honest. As such, Jensen could not establish that he was retaliated against for complaining about harassment.
The courts do not require employers to make wise, accurate and well-considered decisions to avoid liability when making adverse employment decisions (although it doesn’t hurt). The courts will look to see if the employer conducted a prompt and reasonable investigation to show that the employer’s lawful reason for the adverse action was honest.
Jon Hoag is a labor and employment attorney with SmithAmundsen LLC. If you have questions on this, or any other employment-related issue, please contact Jon at 630.587.7914 or [email protected]