Harassment carries a hefty price
Until Anita Hill testified in 1991 against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sexual-harassment complaints were rare.
February 17, 2006
Until Anita Hill testified in 1991 against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sexual-harassment complaints were rare. Since then, the annual numbers of harassment complaints have steadily climbed to close to 20,000 annually, according to the University of Harvard Business School.
In 2005, the foodservice industry settled several Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cases, and the price tags on those settlements were substantial. Here is just a small handful:
- According to the EEOC, the EEOC and CKE Restaurants settled a suit in December stemming from a California Carl's Jr. restaurant. The EEOC filed the suit on behalf of an African-American teenager and other workers who allegedly endured racial epithets and slurs from a shift leader. CKE agreed to pay $255,000.
- According to the EEOC, in October, Boston Market agreed to pay $150,000 to a former employee who claimed sexual harassment and disability discrimination in the company's Ronkonkoma, N.Y., store.
- According to court records, the owners of a Burger King franchise in St. Louis, Mo., paid $400,000 to seven teenage employees. The workers claimed that from December 2000 to April 2001, the restaurant manager subjected them to repeated groping, vulgar sexual comments and demands for sex, according to the lawsuit.
What constitutes harassment?
Harassment comes in many forms, including bullying, racial harassment, gender harassment, disability discrimination and other forms of verbal and physical harassment.
"It all boils down to diversity," said Mary Bresnahan, an HR consultant and president of The Bresnahan Group in Wheaton, Ill. "While you need to train your employees on your harassment policy, you also need to train your employees to respect other genders, other races, other cultures."
Sure, a zero-tolerance harassment policy is essential, but operators need much more than a policy.
"The main problem with zero-tolerance policies is that behavior that passes as acceptable for some people, qualifies as harassment for others," Bresnahan said.
Two male co-workers sharing sexual jokes in the break room might qualify as innocent banter in their eyes. But if a female worker overhears the males' conversation, that's sexual harassment. Challenges and ambiguities like these make harassment training a necessity.
"The key to stopping harassing behavior is to prevent it," Bresnahan said. "A policy sets the protocol, but training is what moves a team even further ahead of the game."
Acting out harassment situations helps all employees understand what can be construed as harassment. "Even facial expression and tone of voice are important," Bresnahan said.
Pal's award-winning approach
Pal's Sudden Service, a drive-thru QSR chain of 19 stores is the only restaurant company to win the prestigious Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, which it received in 2001.
Pal's receives, on average, less than one complaint per 1,000 customer transactions. President and CEO Thom Crosby attributes intense training and an assessment program for the company's success.
"We're the Navy Seals of the restaurant business," Crosby said. "Our training never ends."
Part of this training includes a section on the zero-tolerance harassment policy.
Pal's young employees are drawn to Pal's work structure that sets firm boundaries and doesn't give in to individual requests.
And Pal's does not let managers solve problems for front-line staff. Instead, they engrain in all employees an eight-step problem-solving formula and empower them to solve their own problems.
"It's empowering to youth to be treated as intelligent adults," Bresnahan said. "If you put a lot of emphasis on the training, they will feel as if their job really matters and they'll want to protect that job."
Interview process
A good employee who will adhere to rules can be found during the interview process.
"The interview process is the most important part," Bresnahan said. "It all starts there. You must show up to the interview organized and prepared with questions that will dig deeper."
In addition, she suggested background checks on all of candidates.
Crosby echoes Bresnahan's sentiments. During the interview, his team administers a 60-question personality test he created with the head of the psychology department at his alma mater, East Tennessee State University.
"There are no right or wrong answers, but it gives an indication of how you would align with our culture," Crosby said
Safe harbor
Bresnahan said operators can have policies, but they won't be protected from lawsuits. With that said, the courts do consider an operator's preventative measures when deciding a case.
In 1988, the Supreme Court granted employers a safe harbor to escape liability in sexual harassment cases. Today, employers can receive safe harbor if they took preventive measurements or the accused employee did not respond to anti-harassment actions.
In 2002, the safe harbor ruling favored Pizza Hut. In southeast Kansas, a supervisor accused an 18-year-old male employee of stealing. After threatening to call the police, the supervisor told the employee that he would either spank him or call the police. The employee didn't want to be spanked so the supervisor ordered the employee to spank himself, which the boy reluctantly did as the supervisor watched, according to the Buffalo Law Review.
The next day, the employee told the restaurant manager, and the supervisor was suspended. The boy sued Pizza Hut and although the single act of harassment did not constitute harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, because it was a single incident and not ongoing, the court held that this particular case was severe and humiliating enough to be brought to court. The ruling favored Pizza Hut, because the court said the company had no way of knowing that the supervisor was capable of such acts, and because the manager acted immediately to fix the situation.