Legal Updates
The Best Offense Is A Strong Defense: Train Your Supervisors and Employees to Prevent or Defend against Future Litigation
Recently, courts across the United States have instructed juries that an employer’s failure to develop and implement comprehensive “state of the art” employment policies, and to conduct manager and employee training on such policies, can be considered evidence that an employer has failed to comply with applicable anti-discrimination laws.
While certain employers have previously chosen not to conduct manager and employee training because of the cost or the lack of a legal requirement to do so, we urge all employers to maintain current state-specific policies and to provide annual, comprehensive training.
A decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), Clifton v. MBTA, 445 Mass. 611 (2005), illustrates the potential risks of failing to train supervisors about how to investigate and resolve claims of workplace discrimination. (See SHPC Labor and Employment Law Update, May 2006) In Clifton, a maintenance worker for the MBTA complained to supervisors and the MBTA’s EEO office that he was subjected to egregious racial harassment and retaliation by co-workers and supervisors. In response, one supervisor called Clifton a ‘rat’ and joined in the harassment, another supervisor advised Clifton that he would not be considered for promotion until he stopped filing EEO complaints, while other supervisors did nothing to stop the offending conduct. Before the case reached the SJC, a jury returned a verdict of $5.5 million in favor of Clifton, based on the alleged discriminatory conduct and retaliatory responses to the employee’s internal complaints that took place over a period of nine years. Although the trial judge reduced the award, he nonetheless decided that the employee should receive $1 million in damages. On appeal, the SJC ruled that damages could be assessed over such a lengthy period of time, and remanded the case to the trial court for a final assessment of damages.
Employers may also be able to successfully use anti-harassment training as a potential shield against punitive damage awards in Title VII cases. Some courts have held that distributing an anti-harassment policy and conducting anti-harassment training seminars may preclude an award of punitive damages. For example, in White v. BFI Waste Services, LLC, No. 05-1804 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 12749, at *7-8 (4th Cir. May 23, 2006), the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s award of punitive damages in a hostile work environment case because the employer had distributed an anti-harassment policy and conducted training seminars for its employees.
In sum, we strongly encourage all employers to conduct training on a variety of topics, including sexual harassment prevention, diversity and sensitivity, discipline and discharge, interviewing and hiring, performance management, the FMLA and similar state leave laws, the permitted and prohibited uses of employer-provided technology, including e-mail communications, etc. Moreover, certain states, such as California, Connecticut and Maine, require sexual harassment prevention training.
The Firm has developed comprehensive, interactive and enjoyable training programs that we can tailor for an employer’s specific needs and culture – for managers and employees as well.
Please contact the Firm for more information about our training programs.
