Criticisms of Deflategate vs. Domestic Violence Punishments Ignore Critical Fact

DeflateGateThe media frenzy continues today as Tom Brady is anticipated to appeal his four-game suspension and connection with DeflateGate.  Brady’s suspension has been criticized for being out of proportion with other disciplinary decisions, namely that other players’ domestic violence incidents have resulted in only 2 game suspensions.

These criticisms omit a critical fact.

In Vincent’s disciplinary notice to Brady, he is crystal clear that Brady’s four game suspension is not only related to his role in deflating footballs, but also (and critically) related to his misconduct during the investigation itself.

The letter states in relevant part:

“Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence.”

In short, Tom Brady’s failure to cooperate with the investigation undermines the ability of the NFL to take care of shenanigans (and worse) on an internal basis.  Only a few media outlets highlighted this fact.

But what’s the big deal here?  Here’s the big deal: Brady (and his agent who is also an attorney) refused to provide text messages to the investigator as requested, despite the investigator taking extreme measures to assure and confirm that the investigation would only be interested in relevant text messages.

Workplace Investigator and Attorney Diane Citrino explains it well: “In today’s digital age, text messages exchanged at or near in time to the incident are gold.”  In the “Deflategate” investigation, text messages relating to a Patriot’s staff person calling himself (or herself) “the deflater,” were the type of critical evidence evidence that “was not typically available in the past,” says Citrino.  Citrino agrees that the “DeflateGate” investigation’s conclusion that Brady was uncooperative was on point.  Indeed, the lack of cooperation suggested that Brady had motive to hide the ball, not just deflate it.

Where an employee (or NFL player) fails to cooperate with the very mechanisms intended by the employer (or League) to ferret out wrongdoing and wrongdoers quickly and efficiently, a stiff penalty – perhaps even greater than a four game suspension – is merited to ensure that any investigation into allegations of misconduct – whether domestic violence, juicing, or cursing – is taken seriously by all of the employees (or players) involved.  Without the ability to enforce the duty to cooperate it would be difficult, if not impossible, to deter any future players from gaming the system.

__________________________________________________________

workplace investigations groupWorkplace Investigation Group offers a national directory of well-qualified attorneys who conduct impartial internal investigations.  It also delivers training to in-house counsel, risk managers, human resources professionals and others on how to conduct internal investigations that will withstand third-party scrutiny.  Click here for information on upcoming training in Jacksonville, FL, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, PA, and Atlanta, GA. – See more at: http://winwinhr.com/#sthash.rtWhbCZZ.dpuf

Given the Stakes, Should the NFL Have Selected a Different Investigator in Deflategate?

Wells Independence QuestionedYesterday’s press conference by Ted Wells defending the independence of his internal investigation should serve as a reminder of the importance of selecting an investigator who will not only be independent and impartial but also be perceived as independent and impartial.

Wells and his law firm Paul Weiss had been retained by the NFL earlier this year to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into allegations that the Patriots intentionally deflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game against the Colts.

As an organization faced with the need to retain an attorney to conduct an impartial internal investigation into an allegation of misconduct, the NFL was faced with a balancing act.

On the one hand, as regular legal counsel to the NFL, Ted Wells was familiar with the NFL.  Wells had done prior investigations for the NFL and together with his colleagues at the law firm of Paul Weiss is defending the NFL in a lawsuit brought by former NFL players alleging the league deliberately and fraudulently ignored the risks of neurological damage caused by repeated blows to the head that the players suffered.

As such, Wells  was a good candidate for the investigation because he could more easily navigate the organization resulting presumably in an ability to more quickly conduct and conclude the investigation.

On the other hand, the existing relationship between Ted Wells and his law firm would create at least the appearance of a potential conflict of interest, i.e. did Wells make close calls in favor of the NFL in order to keep his current work with the NFL and curry favor for future work?

Here are my two cents: As a general matter, the higher the stakes of the investigation the more important it is to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.  If an investigation is more routine in nature – think employment claims of harassment or discrimination or a potential regulatory compliance violation — then using an attorney at an organization’s regular law firm may be appropriate.

But, where – as was the case with the NFL investigation of the Patriots and Tom Brady – the stakes are high and everyone knows the report will be subject to significant media and legal scrutiny why create even the perception of a conflict of interest by selecting an attorney at the NFL’s regular law firm.

There are any number of well-qualified attorneys in the United States available to conduct an independent investigation of this type.  Given the stakes, one has to ask whether the NFL would have been better served to have selected one of those other well-qualified attorneys to conduct this investigation.

_____________________________________

workplace investigations groupWorkplace Investigation Group offers a national directory of well-qualified attorneys who conduct impartial internal investigations.  It also delivers training to in-house counsel, risk managers, human resources professionals and others on how to conduct internal investigations that will withstand third-party scrutiny.  Click here for information on upcoming training in Jacksonville, FL, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, PA, and Atlanta, GA.

Employment Attorneys React to Supreme Court Decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC

SupremThe United States Supreme Court yesterday settled the question of whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision’s statutory duty to conciliate a remedy to a Title VII violation prior to filing a lawsuit is subject to some level of judicial review. The decision was unanimous and the answer is – yes, the EEOC’s actions are subject to a “narrow” judicial review.

The Supreme Court Decision  

The Supreme Court had granted review to decide the issue of “Whether and to what extent may a court enforce the EEOC’s mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit?”

Under the law, the EEOC is required to “conciliate” cases after having found “reasonable cause” that a violation of the law has occurred before it files a lawsuit against the employer. Significantly, the language of Title VII specifically requires the EEOC to “endeavor to eliminate” alleged discrimination by “informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.”

In the Mach Mining case, the EEOC sued the company for sex discrimination on behalf of a class of women who were denied jobs. Mach Mining accused the EEOC of filing the lawsuit before attempting to conciliate in “good faith” and a battle then ensued over whether the EEOC has complete discretion on conciliation, or whether its conduct should be reviewed by a court.

    EEOC’s Position: The EEOC’s position in that battle has been that the courts have no right at all to review the EEOC’s conciliation efforts. In the alternative, the EEOC argued that should there be some level of judicial review that it would be limited to confirming that (1) the EEOC had notified the employer of its reasonable-cause determination in a letter inviting the employer to conciliate the charge; and (2) the EEOC had subsequently sent a letter to the employer advising it that conciliation had failed. As such, any judicial review would be limited to confirming the existence of those two letters.

    Mach Mining’s Position: Mach Mining argued that although courts should be deferential to the EEOC that judicial review should consist of more than confirming the existence of two letters and that con. Mach Mining insisted that the EEOC’s “conference, conciliation, and persuasion” must be done in good faith, and subject to court review.

    Supreme Court’s Holding: The Supreme Court rejected the arguments of both the EEOC and Mach Mining holding that the EEOC’s conciliation efforts are subject to a narrow review but that there is no requirement that the EEOC engage in those efforts in “good faith.”

Reactions from Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

The plaintiffs’ bar sees the decision as a win for the EEOC and employees.  In fact, Atlanta, Georgia attorney Matthew Billips says “the Court got this one completely right.”  According to Billips, “good faith negotiation doesn’t work when only one side is required to do it” and since  employers are under no obligation to negotiate, much less negotiate in good faith” it would be unfair to “impose a one-sided duty on the EEOC.”

Paul W. Mollica, an attorney in the Chicago office of Outten & Golden says that the “decision abrogates a line of case authority which for years sanctioned searching discovery and judicial second-guessing about EEOC conciliation efforts” and “restores the balance that Congress intended in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, to reward collaborative behavior.”

Donna Ballman (a Florida attorney who wrote Stand Up For Yourself Without Getting Fired and represents employees) says the Supreme Court’s decision “makes perfect sense, since there is absolutely no realistic way for a court to decide if one party is being unreasonable in a settlement discussion. While EEOC has to try to get the employer to voluntarily comply with the law, the courts are not going to tell it how to accomplish that. Frankly, it’s the employers who should be really glad that the Supreme Court didn’t order EEOC to get more forceful with scofflaw employers, and it’s taxpayers and employees who lose out when employers fail to conciliate reasonably.”

Reactions from Defense Attorneys

Although the Supreme Court’s decision was a compromise between the EEOC’s argument and the employer’s position, the defense bar views the decision as being a win for employees. Fisher & Phillips (a national law firm with 300 attorneys and 30 offices) cautions that “the decision frees the EEOC to continue its use of inflexible and frequently unreasonable demands accompanied by the threat of the EEOC’s aggressive litigation tactics and tremendous resources to force employers into settling claims. Employers will now only obtain relief against these tactics by taking cases to judgment and seeking attorneys’ fees, a costly and hardly palatable proposition.”

 

 

Internal Investigations: KBR, Inc. Fined $130,000 Over Standard Confidentiality Statement

Confidentiality in Internal InvestigationsThe Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) just issued a press release announcing its “first enforcement action against a company for using improperly restrictive language in confidentiality agreements with the potential to stifle the whistleblowing process.”

At issue, was KBR, Inc.’s standard practice of requiring employees interviewed in internal investigations to sign confidentiality statements with the following language:

“I understand that in order to protect the integrity of this review, I am prohibited from discussing any particulars regarding this interview and the subject matter discussed during the interview, without the prior authorization of the Law Department. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure of information may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.”

The SEC found those terms violated Rule 21F-17, which prohibits companies from taking any action that would impede whistleblowers from reporting possible securities violations to the SEC.

In addition to agreeing to pay a fine of $130,000, KBR, Inc. also agreed to amend its standard confidentiality statement signed by employees interviewed during an internal investigation to read as follows:

“Nothing in this Confidentiality Statement prohibits me from reporting possible violations of federal law or regulation to any governmental agency or entity, including but not limited to the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Congress, and any agency Inspector General, or making other disclosures that are protected under the whistleblower provisions of federal law or regulation. I do not need the prior authorization of the Law Department to make any such reports or disclosures and I am not required to notify the company that I have made such reports or disclosures.”

A copy of the complete Cease and Desist Order is available here. 

SEC Not Only Governmental Agency Concerned About Overly Broad Confidentiality Requirements in Internal Investigations

            NLRB on Confidentiality

One of the first blogs I published was about confidentiality in internal investigations. That was July 2012 and the National Labor Relations Board had just held that a blanket approach and policy requiring confidentiality during all internal workplace investigations violates employees’ concerted activity rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

In April 2013, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel released an Advice Memorandum that I wrote about here. The Advice Memo provided additional clarification on its position on confidentiality in workplace investigations and suggested the following policy language that would be in compliance with Section 7 of the NLRA:

“[Employer] may decide in some circumstances that in order to achieve these objectives, we must maintain the investigation and our role in it in strict confidence.  If [Employer] reasonably imposes such a requirement and we do not maintain such confidentiality, we may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate termination.”

            EEOC on Confidentiality

It has long been the position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that when investigating complaints of harassment or other inappropriate behavior in the workplace, an employer should keep the matter confidential to the extent possible. This stance was included in its policy guidance issued in 1990 on sexual harassment and again in its 1999 guidance on vicarious employer liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors in which the EEOC stated that an anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure should include “assurance that the employer will protect the confidentiality of harassment complaints to the extent possible.”

The EEOC though is also concerned that overly broad standard confidentiality requirements may be illegal if such policy is so broad that a reasonable employee could conclude from reading it that she could face discipline or charge for making inquiries to the EEOC about harassment if that harassment is being or has been investigated internally by your organization. Here is the blog I wrote about the EEOC’s concern. 

Insights for Employers

Confidentiality continues to be a critical aspect of the vast majority of internal workplace investigations.  It is critical for any number of reasons, including protecting witnesses from harassment, intimidation and retaliation, keeping evidence from being destroyed, ensuring that testimony is not fabricated, and preventing cover-ups. If the internal investigation is being conducted pursuant to the attorney-client privilege in order for an attorney to provide legal advice to the employer, confidentiality is also critical to maintain the protection of the attorney-client privilege as well as under the attorney work product doctrine.

As such, it is imperative that employers be able to lawfully enforce their confidentiality policies and practices when the need arises.

Here are four suggestions for addressing the need for confidentiality in certain internal investigations without running afoul of the SEC, NLRB or EEOC.

1.  Employers are encouraged to review their existing policies and practices and modify the language, as appropriate, to mirror the language approved by the SEC in the Cease and Desist Order with KBR, Inc. and the suggested language provided by the NLRB.

2.  Employers may also wish to implement a practice of documenting, on a case-by-case basis, the reasons for deciding to instruct witnesses to keep an investigation confidential. This is especially important if the investigation is being conducted pursuant to the attorney-client privilege in order to provide legal advice to the employer. In reading the Cease and Desist Order entered with KBR, Inc. the issue of the intersection with the attorney-client privilege and Rule 21F-17 is not addressed. Click here for more tips and templates for preserving the attorney-client privilege in internal investigations. 

3.  For those employers who conduct internal investigations in-house, ensuring that their investigators keep their skills up-to-date is also crucial. Workplace Investigations Group offers training courses in various locations through the year. Customized training for employers and organizations that wish to train larger groups at their own locations is also available.

4.  For employers who do not have professional staff with the experience, knowledge, and expertise to conduct legally defensible workplace investigations, I suggest they proactively identify an outside investigator who possesses these qualifications.  Workplace investigators are kind of akin to plumbers – you hope to never to need one, but when you do need one you need a good one and you need them fast.

One great source for experienced, well-qualified attorney investigators is Workplace Investigations Group. All of the attorney investigators at Workplace       Investigations Group meet or exceed the following qualification criteria:

  • Minimum of 10 years experience in employment law.
  • J.D. from an accredited law school.
  • Have professional liability insurance.
  • Experience in conducting 10+ internal workplace investigations or comparable relevant experience or training.
  • Are an attorney in good standing in at least one jurisdiction.

UPDATE:  For readers interested in other perspectives on the SEC’s Cease and Desist Order entered into with KBR, you may want to read the article in Corporate Counsel:  SEC’s KBR Action Spotlights Whistleblower Confidentiality.  I’m quoted as are attorneys from the law firms of Sherman & Sterling and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.  The article is free to read but you will need to sign up for a Corporate Counsel account if you do not already have one.

Is Ellen Pao Just a Gold Digger?

Gold Digger - Ellen Pao v. Kleiner PerkinsThe Pao v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) lawsuit is now with the jury.

The case pits a single woman – Ellen Pao – against KPCB – one of the largest and most established venture capital firms in the country.

Ellen Pao’s husband is in bankruptcy. Partners at KPCB are clearly not. Founding partner Tom Perkins, for example, is worth over $8 Billion.  General partner, John Doer – $3.4+ Billion.

Yet, despite this huge discrepancy in power and money between the parties, yesterday Kleiner Perkins’ lawyer argued to the jury that Kleiner Perkins is really the victim here – not Ellen Pao.

Essentially, KPCB’s lawyer argued that Pao shouldn’t win because she is nothing but a money grubbing, ungrateful and offensive former employee who they justly fired because she was so hard to get along with no one wanted to work with her.

Thanks to Liz Gannes’ live blog over at Recode, here are a few of the quotes from KPCB’s closing argument:

“[Ellen Pao] made a determined, deliberate, sustained attack on Kleiner, and she made sure the press knew all about it.”

“[Ellen Pao] wanted the eight figures. When Kleiner Perkins refused to pay her, she filed this lawsuit. Not because she wanted an even playing field for women. None of it had anything to do with any woman but Ellen Pao.”

“This twisting of facts isn’t a new development . . . Beginning in the fall of 2011, while her job search wasn’t working out, Ellen Pao wanted the big payout.”

“As happens in a small workplace, [Ellen Pao’s] corrosive pattern of attack alienated her co-workers and led to tension and distrust.”

“The record here is crystal clear about [Ellen Pao’s] conflicts with others despite what you just heard, an attempt to dismiss them.”

Now admittedly Ms. Pao is not without financial resources. She has two graduate degrees from Harvard (including a law degree) as well as bachelors degree from Princeton and her annual compensation when she was fired from KPCB was ~ $560,000. She is currently Interim CEO of Reddit.

But by comparison to KPCB she is still David and KPCB is clearly Goliath.

So, what do you think? How persuaded are you by KPCB’s efforts to cast itself as the victim of a money grubbing, ungrateful employee?  Is Ellen Pao one of those gold diggers Kanye West has warned us about?  

About the Author:  Lorene F. Schaefer, Esq. is an attorney and the President of Workplace Investigations Group, a nationwide network of employment attorneys who conduct impartial internal investigations and deliver training on how to conduct effective internal investigation that will withstand legal scrutiny. She is also the President of Win-Win Resolve, a consulting company founded by a group of employment attorneys to help businesses solve workplace conflict and compliance concerns at the lowest and earliest levels possible.  Lorene is available nationwide as a workplace investigator and mediator.

Will Kleiner Win the Discrimination Battle but Lose the Retaliation War?

#ellen Pao v. #KleinerPerkins Most of the commentary on the Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins jury trial has been focused on whether or not Pao will prevail on her claim of gender discrimination, but the testimony over the last couple of days has revealed that it’s actually Pao’s claim of retaliation that poses the highest risk of a jury verdict.

Under the law, Pao could prevail on her retaliation claim even if she loses her discrimination claim.

If you think about it, that’s not that surprising as somehow it just seems easier for a juror to believe that the partners at Kleiner Perkins changed their behavior towards Pao after she sued them than to believe that they intentionally discriminated against her because she’s a woman.

To prevail on her retaliation claim Pao must show three things:

1) she engaged in a “protected activity”,

2) Kleiner Perkins took an “adverse employment action” against her; and

3) her “protected activity” was a substantial factor motivating Kleiner Perkins’ “adverse employment action.”

Admittedly, I’m not in the court room, but I have been following the mainstream and social media coverage.  In fact, it’s almost addicting and I’ve not been as productive as I normally am since the trial started.  I’ve particularly enjoyed reading the tweets and live blogging of  Liz Gannes and Nellie Bowles at Recode and the coverage by Davey Alba of Wired, Marisa Kendall of The Record, Nitasha Tiku of The Verge, Elizabeth Weiss of USA Today, and Jeff Elder and Deborah Gage of the Wall Street Journal.

Here’s how I see the case shaping up so far on Pao’s claim of retaliation:

#ELLENPAO retaliation claim against #KleinerPerkins

It is undisputed that Ellen Pao filed her lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins on May 10, 2012.  Filing a lawsuit clearly qualifies as “protected activity.”  So — Check on that element of her retaliation claim.

It is also undisputed that Kleiner Perkins terminated Pao only 5 months later – October 1, 2012.  Being fired is clearly an “adverse employment action.”  So — Check on that element of her retaliation claim.

That leaves only the element of causation.  According to Lynn Lieber, a California lawyer and member of Workplace Investigations Group, the California Supreme Court has not ruled on the causation standard for retaliation claims under California law.  Ms. Lieber says the likely outcome when it does is that the the standard will be “substantial motivating factor,” which is the same as it is for FEHA discrimination claims.  If not, she says the standard will be merely “a motivating factor.”

In the Pao v. Kleiner Perkins case, my reading of the commentary coming out of the courtroom is that Pao may well be able to prove the causation element of her retaliation claim even under the higher causation standard of “substantial motivating factor.”  According to media reports, Pao’s supervisor testified this week that he didn’t start documenting her poor performance until 4 days AFTER she filed her lawsuit.  That short time period between her protected activity of filing the lawsuit and the adverse action of starting to document her poor performance creates a strong inference of retaliation.  Yes, Kleiner Perkins has attempted to argue (in its Trial Brief at pages 25-26 and during the trial) that Pao’s performance had been poor for some time and that “the decision to terminate Pao’s employment was made in 2011.”

In light of her supervisor’s testimony this week, I’m not persuaded by Kleiner Perkins’ argument and don’t think the jury will be either.  The reality is that Kleiner Perkins had never placed her on a performance improvement plan or formally documented her allegedly poor performance until 4 DAYS AFTER SHE SUED THEM.

Looks like a duck.  Swims like a duck.  Quacks like a duck.  Screen Shot 2015-03-20 at 8.15.45 AM

It’s April Fools at the Employment Law Blog Carnival!

Employment Law Blog CarnivalWhy yes – Employment lawyers do have a sense of humor and in honor of April Fools Day Robin Shea over at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP has pulled a few pranks in this month’s edition of the Employment Law Blog Carnival.

So stop what you’re doing and head on over to the Employment and Labor Insider to check out the fantastic “EMPLOYMENT LAW BLOG CARNIVAL: April Fools’ Edition.”

http://www.employmentandlaborinsider.com/safety/employment-law-blog-carnival-april-fools-edition/

 

Creating an “Unseemly Sideshow” as a Trial Strategy? Guest Blog

SideShowLive-blogging of the Pao v. Kleiner Perkins trial (claims of gender discrimination in the workplace) continues today, and re/code has shared the judge’s assessment of Kleiner Perkins’ attempt to delve into the finances of Pao’s husband.

Re/code posted the judge’s apparently hastily prepared, overnight Order (it doesn’t even have a physical signature).  In less than a page, the California judge dismantled the employer’s hope to make Pao’s husband a feature of the case.  Indeed, the judge described the strategy as an attempt to create an “unseemly sideshow” that needlessly invades the privacy of the couple, wastes the court’s time, and paints the strategy as irrelevant and distracting.

The judge cited an unpublished Tennessee case to pan the employer’s attempt to paint Pao as money-grubbing, noting that any person or entity bringing a lawsuit has a financial motivation to bring the suit.  Indeed, the suit was brought to make her “whole,” among other reasons.  The fact is so obvious, the order’s citation to an unpublished order in a faraway jurisdiction is to be forgiven by “citation police.”

However, was this move by Kleiner Perkins less of a legal Hail Mary and more of a Public Relations strategy?  Arguably, Kleiner Perkins’ attorneys knew that the likelihood that dragging Pao’s husband and business into her workplace dispute was, at best, a long shot.  The value of raising Pao’s personal issues might have been of more value for attempting to sully her personally in the court of public opinion and create fodder for the media to churn on the employer’s behalf.

The shot fired by Kleiner Perkins, despite the legal loss, may serve a different strategy – not a trial strategy.  An “unseemly sideshow” is something that makes (Kardashians) or breaks (Bill Cosby) a person’s public  career.  Here, it may be a shot at what kind of post-trial career Pao may be able to have in the public’s eye.  For example, her ability to be an inspiration of the civil rights movement that may also include books, speaking engagements and more may be affected, depending on the kind of side show that is whispered into existence at trial.

Jennifer Keaton, Esq.About the Guest Blogger Jennifer Keaton, Esq.:  Jennifer is an employment attorney turned mediator and workplace investigator in Atlanta, GA.  She is also Vice President of Workplace Investigations Group, a nationwide network of experienced employment attorneys who conduct impartial internal investigations and provide training on how to conduct effective internal investigations that will withstand scrutiny.

 

No Matter the Verdict, has Kleiner Perkins Already Lost?

Social Media Battle Kleiner Perkins Ellen PaoIt is day 7 of the sex discrimination jury trial against a high-profile Silicon Valley venture capital firm and the social media debate is raging.

For those not following along, Ellen Pao, formerly a partner at Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers (“KPCB”), sued her then-employer for gender discrimination and retaliation in May 2012.

KPCB’s efforts to keep spectators and the media out of the courtroom failed and tweets have been flying out of the courtroom.   Others are live blogging their comments. Given the amount of main stream and social media coverage of this trial, one can’t help but step back and ask ….

has Ellen Pao already “won” the social media battle regardless of what the jury verdict is?

I’ve been writing about how social media is leveling the playing field for disgruntled employees and how millennials are increasingly using social media to challenge perceived discrimination or harassment for some time but the volume and intensity of social media coverage of this trial has taken us to a new level.

Insights for Business Leaders

If there was ever any doubt that having effective EEO and anti-harassment policies and procedures that are trusted by employees is critical in today’s world, the social media firestorm surrounding the Pao v. KPCB jury trial has surely eliminated it.

Smart employers recognize that it is no longer sufficient to comply simply with the minimal legal standards in responding to employee complaints.  Rather, they are working to implement policies and procedures for conducting internal workplace investigations that comply not only with the law but also adhere to the principles of procedural fairness.

Why?  Because research tells us that employees who perceive an employer’s internal dispute resolution processes and internal workplace investigations as procedurally fair or trustworthy are statistically less likely to sue or raise their complaints publicly on social media or to the government.

Click here to read an article with 6 Tips to Increase Employee Trust of Internal Workplace Investigations.

Is the C-Suite Ready for Trial Tweeting?

Tweets Flying Out of CourthouseThe tweets are flying out of the courtroom in day 5 of the highly anticipated Silicon Valley sex bias jury trial happening right now in a Superior Court of California San Francisco courtroom.

Journalists from the Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, Wired, The Verge, VentureWire, USA Today, and Re/Code are sharing their observations of the jury trial on Twitter®. There are also Tweets from lay people.

To say the least, navigating this strange, new world presents lots of challenges for business leaders. Everyone in the C-Suite knows the importance of being well-prepared for questions from investors and analysts at investor relations presentations, but how prepared are business leaders to respond to questions coming on Twitter or other social media accounts?

Consider, for example, the impact on employee recruitment and retention of the following Tweets coming out of the courtroom in the Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers jury trial:

 

More Women Needed in Leadership

Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 4.08.57 PM

Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 4.08.02 PM

locker room mentality at Kleiner Perkins

Complaints at Kleiner Perkins

Contempt - Ellen Pao v.  Kleiner Perkins

 

Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins

Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins