About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


17 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 575 (2000-2001)
Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't--Employers' Challenges in Conducting Sexual Harassment Investigations

handle is hein.journals/gslr17 and id is 593 raw text is: DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T? EMPLOYERS' CHALLENGES IN CONDUCTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT INVESTIGATIONS INTRODUMTON Investigating sexual harassment claims can be a costly endeavor for employers. And spending money does not always guarantee protection from the accuser orfrom the accused.2 In the fifteen years since the Supreme Court first recognized sexual harassment3 as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,' lower court decisions have further interpreted the statute and created a strong incentive for employers to combat harassment.5 Courts have held that employers should establish effective anti-harassment policies,' investigate harassment complaints,7 and punish the harassing employees. In 1998, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of employer liability for 1. See, e.g., John Accola, Coors Runs into a Aneffed, Dmv. Romr MoumLUN NEWS, afr. 28, 1999, at 1G. The company spent almost $600,000 investigating a single sexual harassment complaint and protecting the accuser. seAd 2. See, e.g., John Accola, J.uTy Oideis Coors To Pay Ard Workeir, Man D 'Tht. Accusabon ofSexualHarassmen 4 DE . Ro cyMQUNTAINNEWS, Aug. 10,1999, at lB. A victim sued Coors for sexual harassment, and the accused sued for defamation and breach of contract. See Id. The company settled with the victim for $200,000. S. sed. A federal jury ordered the company to pay $730,000 to the accused. S-ald. 3. Slzeeeitor Say. Bankv. Vmson, 477 U.S. 57,73 (1680) (holding that hostile w-ork environmenV' sexual harassment violates Title VII). 4. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994). Title VII prohibits discrimmation on avariety of bases. See id. Specifically, it states: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer.., to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individualwith respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.... Id § 2000e-2(a)(l). 5. Seegenera'yGary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391,1398 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The court found that the employer [had] taken energetic measures to discourage cexual harassment in the workplace and [had] established, advertised, and enforced effectie procedures to deal with it when it [did] occur.... Id. 6. See id. 7. SeeSparks v. Reg'l Med. Ctr. Bd., 792 F. Supp. 735 (N.D. Ala. 1992). 8. See Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991). Employers should impose sufficient penalties to assure a v.,orkplace free from sexual harassmenV id. at 882. 575