Estimated reading time: 4 minutes, 2 seconds

Supreme Court Hearing: Lessons for HR

The Supreme Court nomination hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh has sparked widespread controversy that could have an indelible impact on how human resources deals with sexual assault.

The highly publicized hearing has already made an impact, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The scenario is reminiscent of another Supreme Court hearing 27 years ago.

Employees started opening up to their HR departments following Anita Hill's 1991 testimony against Clarence Thomas. Hill's testimony also led to sexual harassment prevention training becoming commonplace at work.

While the Senate eventually confirmed Thomas, Hill helped spur a new movement to address sexual harassment that HR departments, and society as a whole, could not dismiss.

"Women heard her. They recognized her experience," says Emily Martin, a vice president at the National Women's Law Center. "Anita Hill helped the country recognize that sexual harassment isn't just a personal problem you're having at work. It's a systemic issue that deserves a solution."

Christine Blasey Ford's testimony against Kavanaugh last month may have a similar impact when it comes to sexual assault, some experts argue. Kavanaugh has denied Ford's allegations that he assaulted her in their high school years. He has also denied claims from other women as well. 

"Managers everywhere should be cognizant that the content of the hearing will be triggering to some employees, particularly those who have survived sexual assault, but also those who are thinking of a friend or family member as they listen to a story that may sound familiar," Quartz at Work reports. "It would be a good day to remind staff about any resources available to them for mental health assistance and their options for taking time off."

One key takeaway from the hearing is the importance of empathy in the workplace, a crucial skill for employees and leaders.

Other takeaways from the hearing relate to employers looking for new talent. It will heighten awareness for HR to closely scrutinize past actions of job candidates, Daniel Del Castillo tells CBS 8. He is a business professor at San Diego State University, who also has worked 20 years in HR.

"If you show a pattern of behavior that is not conducive to trust, professionalism and respect, chances are you will be back in that same groove," Castillo says.

Social media--another game changer--did not exist in 1991 when Hill testified against Thomas. "Certainly everything has changed with the advent of the internet and social media," Andrew Challenger, vice-president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, tells USA Today. "There's a lot of history about people available very quickly online. And it has changed the way people are hired and it means a job candidate's past is going to be part of the decision in a way it never has before."

How deep HR digs into job candidates' pasts will likely depend on whether they are recruiting for a high-level position where the person's reputation could potentially hurt the brand. "If somebody is going to be the embodiment of the company, if you're hiring a CEO, their personal life is going to be in consideration," Challenger says. "But for a mid-manager role, they're not going to do that type of inquiry, and what somebody did in high school is probably not going to stop them from achieving a certain degree of success in life."

Lessons can be gleaned from others involved in the hearing, including Senate Judiciary Committee minority leader Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Suzanne Lucas writes for HR Acuity. Feinstein did not disclose the allegations when she received them, saying that Ford did not want to go public with them.

Lucas, who spent a decade in corporate human resources and writes a blog, Evil HR Lady, says that in the business world, that approach is a bad one.  

"If an employee complains of sexual harassment, the second someone in authority (a manager, or an HR person) knows about it, liability attaches," she notes. "Your company is now responsible if you do not act."

An investigation needs to immediately follow regardless of whether the alleged victim wants one. Feinstein's actions in a corporate setting could have gotten her fired. Of course, Ford was not an employee of Feinstein, but the lesson still holds true.

"Postponing or forgoing a formal investigation allows harassment to continue," Lucas writes. "Or it makes a manager draw unfounded conclusions. It also increases the company's legal liabilities."

Companies also need to be mindful that any investigation they conduct is not seen as favoring one side or the other. That may entail hiring an outside investigator if HR is not in a position to be viewed as impartial. Ensuring investigations are done properly into the alleged action is important to avoid being hit with a discrimination suit later.

"Remember, every decision you make during a sexual harassment investigation may need to be defended, under oath, in court," Lucas writes. "Don't risk it with sloppy work."

Read 1887 times
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Visit other PMG Sites:

PMG360 is committed to protecting the privacy of the personal data we collect from our subscribers/agents/customers/exhibitors and sponsors. On May 25th, the European's GDPR policy will be enforced. Nothing is changing about your current settings or how your information is processed, however, we have made a few changes. We have updated our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy to make it easier for you to understand what information we collect, how and why we collect it.