In a case involving the world’s largest law firm and one of the biggest individual sexual harassment awards ever, the California Court of Appeal recently approved more than $3.5 million in damages to a legal secretary who had worked at the firm less than three months. This new ruling and the stunning size of the award are important reminders that failing to respond properly to sexual harassment charges can have disastrous consequences.
Secretary Complains Of Harassment
Rena Weeks worked as a secretary assigned to Martin Greenstein, a partner in the Palo Alto office of Baker & McKenzie. Weeks charged that Greenstein grabbed her breast while dropping M&M’s candies into her blouse pocket, and then pulled her arms behind her, asking which breast was bigger. She also claimed that, on other occasions, he grabbed her buttocks and lunged at her breasts.Weeks complained about Greenstein’s behavior to a co-worker and the office manager. Although Weeks was reassigned to another supervisor, she was later told she wasn’t performing up to the firm’s expectations. She said Greenstein’s behavior left her scared and confused, making it difficult to concentrate on her work.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
History Of Complaints
Weeks quit and sued Greenstein and Baker & McKenzie. As the suit progressed, it became apparent the case was not just about the harassment of Weeks, but about the firm’s failure to act despite years of complaints about Greenstein’s behavior. At least eight other women came forward and said Greenstein had harassed them, too. The women charged that they had been repeatedly grabbed, groped and subjected to crude come-ons.When complaints were initially made, Greenstein denied the allegations, and was never disciplined by the firm. Some of the women who complained, though, were transferred or terminated. In addition, while the firm kept records about the complaints in the women’s files and often took action against the women, no reports of misconduct were placed in Greenstein’s personnel file. He was eventually forced to resign-for reasons unrelated to the harassment-more than a year after Weeks filed her lawsuit and six years after the first complaint against him.
Huge Damage Award
A jury awarded Weeks $50,000 in compensatory damages, plus $225,000 in punitive damages against Green-stein and a whopping $6.9 million in punitive damages against Baker & McKenzie. The court later reduced the punitive damages against the law firm to $3.5 million, but also awarded Weeks $1.8 million in attorneys’ fees.
Employers Must Take Action
Baker & McKenzie and Greenstein appealed. The firm admitted that Greenstein had sexually harassed Weeks, but argued that its own actions did not justify being hit with punitive damages.The California Court of Appeal, however, ruled for Weeks. It did reduce her attorneys’ fees to approximately $1.1 million, bringing the total award to more than $4.8 million. The court said that although employers don’t have an automatic obligation to terminate an employee accused of sexual harassment, you can be forced to pay punitive damages if you fail to take reasonable steps to prevent future harassment. The court concluded it was common knowledge at the firm that Greenstein had harassed female employees for several years before Weeks was hired. But the firm neither documented the misconduct nor took any action to prevent it other than occasional ineffective warnings. This may have been because Greenstein was a top money-maker for the firm. Instead, the women who complained were frequently the ones penalized.As we went to press, it wasn’t clear whether Greenstein or Baker and McKenzie were planning to appeal to the Supreme Court.
How To Avoid Mistakes
This case demonstrates that mishandling sexual harassment complaints can be very costly. Always take every claim of sexual harassment seriously-even if the person accused is a company “star.” You could also have trouble if your own policies are ignored. In the Weeks case, the jury may have been influenced by Baker & McKenzie’s failure to follow standard legal advice and its own training materials on how to respond to sexual harassment allegations.
But a “zero tolerance” sexual harassment policy does not mean an “automatic termination” policy. Investigate every complaint, and if the evidence isn’t completely clear, consider measures short of termination such as a strong reprimand, suspension or transfer. If you don’t terminate the offender, though, you must diligently follow up to make sure the harassment has stopped. And be sure not to penalize or retaliate against the victim.