Starlite Station, a nightclub and bar located in Casper, Wyoming, agreed to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC alleged that Starlite Station violated federal law by subjecting female employees to a hostile work environment from sexual harassment and then retaliating against them when they complained about the behavior.
According to the EEOC, female employees were regularly subjected to unwanted sexual comments, touching, and other inappropriate conduct by male employees, including management. When several women raised concerns about this treatment, management failed to address their complaints appropriately and, in some cases, retaliated against the complainants, which ultimately led to at least one employee being forced to resign.
In resolving the case, Starlite Station not only agreed to pay monetary damages but also committed to taking significant steps to prevent future harassment and retaliation.
The consent decree includes requirements for the business to implement a new anti-harassment policy, provide regular training to staff and management, and periodically report to the EEOC on how it is managing complaints of harassment and retaliation. The EEOC emphasized that this action demonstrates the EEOC's commitment to holding employers accountable for maintaining workplaces that are free from sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation.
Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/starlite-station-pay-100000-eeoc-sexual-harassment-and-retaliation-lawsuit
Commentary
When there are multiple complainants in a workplace alleging harassment or other discriminatory conduct, if an employer relies solely on an internal investigation, this can present serious risks of bias, perceived unfairness, or conflicts of interest, especially if the alleged misconduct involves members of management or if the organization lacks sufficient expertise in managing complex complaint scenarios.
Bringing in an outside, professional investigator is important in these situations because it helps ensure the investigation is impartial and that all accounts are taken seriously and weighed without prior relationships or organizational pressures clouding judgment.
Multiple complainants also increase the complexity of information that must be gathered, assessed, and reconciled, which further underscores the need for a professionally-trained and neutral investigator who can interview all parties and witnesses and credibly assess conflicting narratives.
All investigations should be initiated soon after the employer receives notice of possible harassment - delays may put the employer at risk for failing its responsibilities under federal law.
The adequacy of the investigation is determined by whether it is thorough enough to fairly establish the truth of the matter, gathering input from all involved and ensuring that the individual alleged to have committed the harassment is not in a position to influence the process.
The investigator should be trained in interviewing and in making credibility assessments, and steps should be taken to protect complainants from retaliation or further harm while the investigation is ongoing.
The final takeaway is that the EEOC expects investigations to be independent, objective, timely, and sufficiently comprehensive to allow the employer to decide what, if any, corrective action is warranted and to demonstrate that it has fulfilled its obligation to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory workplace for all employees.
Additional Sources: https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment; https://www.eeoc.gov/small-business-fact-sheet-harassment-workplace; https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports/promising-practices-preventing-harassment-federal-sector.
