Posts

ABA Ethics Committee Releases Discrimination and Harassment Guidelines in New Opinion

/

Lawyers, specifically employment lawyers, are the ones who help employees fight back against discrimination and harassment at work. But what about when they are the victims of the behavior, or the ones doing the harassing? The American Bar Association’s Ethics Committee has released a new formal opinion that provides discrimination and harassment guidelines for lawyers, judges, and state supreme courts across the country.

ABA Sets Discrimination and Harassment Guidelines

The American Bar Association (ABA) is a nationwide organization that guides the practice of law across the country. One way the ABA does this is by issuing its “Model Rules of Professional Conduct”. However, the Model Rules themselves don’t affect anyone. Instead, they represent industry best practices, which individual states’ supreme courts can decide to adopt, adjust, or reject.

In 2016, after years of study and debate, the ABA House of Delegates voted to update Model Rule 8.4(g), which applies to discrimination and harassment. The current version of the model rule says:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.

The official comments on the rule provide some important definitions:

  • “Discrimination” includes “harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others.”
  • “Harassment” includes “derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct.”
  • “Sexual harassment” includes “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”

States Split Over Adoption of ABA Harassment and Discrimination Guidelines

Since the new discrimination and harassment guidelines went into effect, state courts and legal experts have been divided on whether to adopt the Model Rules for themselves. The most vocal opponents to the Model Rules said they unconstitutionally restricted lawyers’ First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. Marc Randazza, a First Amendment attorney from Las Vegas, called the Model Rule, “a speech trap for any lawyer who sticks his or her neck out on issues that might be considered controversial.”

Opponents also said the Model Rule went too far, allowing a single inappropriate action to create grounds for attorney disciplinary action — even disbarment. Because of the controversy, as of June 2019, only two states had adopted the ABA’s discrimination and harrasment guidelines.

ABA Model Rules Hold Lawyers to Higher Standard

Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act and state and local anti-discrimination laws set similar standards for employers across the U.S. These laws generally require employers to take reasonable steps to address severe or ongoing sexual harassment and discrimination that happens in the workplace. Single incidents, unless they are particularly serious, are not enough to trigger the obligation to respond.

The ABA Model Rules go further. As the recent ABA ethics opinion explained, “Although conduct that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would necessarily violate paragraph (g), the reverse may not be true.” The ethics opinion made clear that even a single derogatory sexual comment could violate the anti-harassment guideline. “The isolated nature of the conduct, however, could be a mitigating factor in the disciplinary process.” The opinion acknowledged that this held lawyers to a higher standard than the general public:

“Harassment and discrimination damage the public’s confidence in the legal system and its trust in the profession.”

What Counts as Discrimination and Harrasment Under the Model Rules

To provide guidance to state supreme courts considering adopting the ABA model discrimination and harassment guidelines, the Ethics Committee set out five hypothetical situations, and addressed whether each would count as discrimination or harassment under the rule:

Representation of Organizations Advocating for Discriminatory Policies: Not Misconduct

It is not misconduct for a lawyer to represent a religious organization challenging a local ordinance requiring schools to offer gender-neutral restroom or locker room facilities. Offering advice or advocacy on issues, even if others may disagree with the position, does not violate the rules.

Advocating Controversial Viewpoints at Lawyer Education Programs: Not Misconduct

It would also not be discrimination or misconduct to advocate against affirmative action policies while at a continuing legal education (CLE) program. While attendance at these programs is covered by the anti-discrimination rules, a general point of view is not harassment or discrimination, even if others might find it upsetting or offensive.

Participating in Advocacy Against Existing Anti-Discrimination Laws: Not Misconduct

A lawyer can also not be disciplined for participating in a religious legal organization that advocates in favor of allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Even though the actions the organization advocates for are illegal under federal or state laws, pure advocacy is not harmful discrimination or a violation of the rule.

Unwelcome Physical Conduct by an Adjunct Professor at a Law School: Misconduct

An adjunct professor at a law school clinic who makes unwanted physical advances against the law student can be disciplined for misconduct. Even though his action took place outside the scope of representation of a client, it still qualifies as “conduct related to the practice of law.”

Law Firm Partner Makes Discriminatory Policy Planning Remarks: Misconduct

A partner at a law firm who makes discriminatory comments that the firm should not employ or represent Muslims as clients can be disciplined for misconduct because her behavior is “related to the practice of law”. This is true even if the person listening is not the target of the discriminatory comment.

Most states have some form of anti-discrimination policy included in their bar association’s code of professional responsibility, but few go as far as the Model Rules. In time, perhaps this ABA ethics opinion will quiet concerns about lawyers’ free speech, and shield attorneys from discrimination and harassment in the law offices, bar association programs, and social events that are essential parts of being a lawyer.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our employment discrimination lawyers know how to use model rules and industry standards to your benefit when discrimination or harassment happens at work. Whether you are an attorney at a big law firm or a clerk in the mail room, will review your case and help you prepare a strategy to get the relief you need. Contact us today to schedule a free initial consultation and get your case started.

McDonald’s Sues Former CEO Over Accusations of Sexual Harassment

/

Fast-food retail giant McDonald’s reported a lawsuit against their former CEO, Steve Easterbrook, over accusations of sexual harassment, violations of company policy against relationships with subordinates, and using the company email to send pornographic pictures to himself. Find out what happens when company efforts to avoid public disclosure of sexual harassment problems backfire.

Fast Food Giant Faces Frequent Sexual Harassment Problems

McDonald’s has faced more than one claim of sexual harassment in their fast food restaurants over the years. In 2018, workers walked out in protest of sexual harassment in the fast food industry. Last year, the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund and other civil rights organizations brought 23 complaints against the company for sexual harassment of its employees, including several who were teenagers when their assaults occurred. However, all these complaints involved service-level employees at the business’s various franchise locations.

Then, in October 2019, a McDonald’s employee reported that she had been having a romantic relationship with the company’s CEO, Steve Easterbrook. The employee told the company that she and Easterbrook had been sending sexually explicit text messages, photographs, and at least one FaceTime call for a month, but that it had not been physical. She came forward because she was afraid that this relationship would violate company policy against fraternization and that she might get in trouble for consenting to the contact.

McDonald’s CEO Fired for Accusations of Sexual Harassment

McDonald’s hired outside lawyers to review the complaint and Mr. Easterbrook’s situation. As required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the fast food company investigated the claims of sexual harassment and questioned Mr. Eastbrook about his conduct. He confirmed what the employee had said. The lawyers involved searched Mr. Eastbrook’s company phone and cloud storage account, but said they found no evidence of additional misconduct.

The company’s board of directors decided to remove Easterbrook from his position. But they gave him a golden parachute by avoiding firing him “for cause.” This meant he received a severance package of more than $40 million, including stock options and other compensation.  The board hoped that the compromise would avoid embroiling the company in a lengthy dispute and cause as little disruption as possible to the business.

New Accusations of Sexual Harassment Cast Doubt on Investigation

But McDonald’s sexual harassment problem didn’t go away with Easterbrook’s removal. In July 2020, new accusations of sexual harassment arose against the former CEO from another employee. According to the company’s SEC disclosure, this time the investigation included a review of the company’s corporate servers, where Easterbrook’s emails were archived. It revealed “dozens of nude, partially nude, or sexually explicit photographs and videos of various women, including photographs of these Company employees, that Easterbrook had sent as attachments to messages from his Company email account to his personal email account.”

This new disclosure cast doubt on the company’s previous investigation. Even McDonald’s own filings say the company’s initial review did not include a thorough search of Easterbrook’s email account. As Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at Duke University School of Law, told the New York Times:

“One would think that it would be internal investigation 101 to look at all electronic records right away. . . . The concern, if an investigation doesn’t look at emails, is that it was a halfhearted investigation.”

That concern is consistent with McDonald’s stated intent to resolve things quickly and quietly. In 2017, McDonald’s made an internal statement emphasizing that top executives needed to attend anti-harassment training. Then in 2019, it updated its anti-harassment policy in response to employee complaints.

When executives are called out for misconduct by groups like the #MeToo movement or Time’s Up, their companies often try to quietly remove the problematic executive, rather than risk the bad press that comes with public disclosure of the allegations of sexual harassment. They may also make adjustments to internal training procedures or announcements within the company about anti-harassment policies to placate employees who raise concerns, and avoid letting the issue go public. This can sometimes address the individual employee’s concerns, but it seldom makes significant changes to corporate culture or toxic workplace environments.

Lawsuit Seeks to Protect McDonald’s Corporate Culture

That is why McDonald’s public disclosure of its lawsuit against Easterbrook is so unique. On Monday, August 10, 2020, the company sued its former executive for lying to its investigators, covering up his inappropriate relationships with employees, and committing fraud by transferring hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock grants to one of those employees during their relationship. The company hopes to reclassify his firing as “for cause” and “claw back” the severance compensation Easterbrook received.

Even though it is unusual for a company to publicly air its dirty laundry, the SEC disclosure doesn’t mean McDonald’s has turned a new leaf. The complaint clearly demonstrates McDonald’s attempt to protect its reputation. It emphasizes the company’s integrity, ethics, and values, and lays out efforts the company had taken in response to previous complaints that it had a sexual abuse problem. By filing this lawsuit, in addition to recovering the money it paid to make Easterbrook go away, McDonald’s hopes to distance itself from Eaterbrook’s relationships, and the accusations of sexual harassment that they caused.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our sexual harassment attorneys understand the strategies large corporations use to cover up the sexual harassment claims. We know how to leverage companies’ desire for privacy to help employees receive quick settlements when appropriate, and we aren’t afraid to file formal litigation when settlement isn’t an option. If you work for a large corporation and are facing a sexual harassment problem, contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

Olympic Coach and Figure Skating Organizations Sued for Sexual Abuse and Cover Up

/

Figure skating abuse is not the phrase that conjures up the elegant images of prime athletes oft associated with the sport. Olympic figure skating has long been one of the most popular competitions in the Winter Games. But looking at the beautiful skaters, it can be difficult to remember that many of them are just teenagers. Over the past year, reports of sexual abuse and cover up coming out of the U.S. and France show that coaches and competitors often ignored the line between child and adult, creating situations where teen athletes couldn’t avoid becoming the victims of sexual abuse.

Figure Skating Abuse Allegations Lead to Skater’s Suicide

In June 2008, while participating in a figure skating camp in Colorado Springs, Colorado, at age 17, Olympic figure skater Ashley Wagner woke up to find her teammate John Coughlin on top of her. He was 22 years old at the time. He kissed her neck and put his hand down her pants. At first, she describes herself as being “paralized in fear.” She laid there, pretending to be asleep and hoping he would stop. He didn’t. Eventually she gathered the courage to grab his hand and tell him to stop. Thankfully, he did.

By the next day, everyone around her, including Coughlin, was acting like nothing happened, so she did too. She told two people she was close to, but not her parents because she had been at a party, drinking alcohol. More than a decade later, she told the USA Today:

“There also was this: I was a young skater coming up through the ranks in a judged sport. I didn’t want to stir the pot. I didn’t want to add anything to my career that would make me seem undesirable or dramatic. I didn’t want to be known in figure skating as the athlete who would cause trouble. And I genuinely didn’t feel like anyone would listen to me anyway. Everyone really liked this guy. I even liked him.”

Wagner would go on to receive a bronze medal in the 2014 Olympics and a silver medal in the 2016 World Championships, but that moment would continue to haunt her. Eventually, she reported what happened to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. Wagner’s story was one of three reports of sexual abuse against John Coughlin, who was himself an Olympic champion. The organization issued an interim suspension while it investigated the complaints. However, the next day, on January 18, 2019, Coughlin committed suicide.

USFS Representatives Seem to Blame Teenage Victims for Sexual Assault

Coughlin’s suicide has colored the way the sport talks about figure skating sexual abuse charges. While the U.S. Figure Skating (USFS) issued a statement emphasizing athlete safety education and awareness, its representatives have struggled to uphold that message. Mark Ladwig, an USFS representative, spoke in defense of Coughlin saying that sometimes in skating a man’s hand can slip onto a woman’s crotch during a lift. But on-ice hand placement had nothing to do with the allegations Wagner and her teammate Bridget Namiotka had raised against Coughlin.

A similar incident arose in December 2019, when the USA Today reported on an investigation into French skater Morgan Cipres, age 26. Cipres faced allegations that he had sent photos of his penis to a 13-year-old skater on the U.S. team. Gordie Zimmerman, owner of the ice rink where the two trained called the 13-year-old “dangerous”. Wagner said she had been contacted as well:

“I had people messaging me that the 13-year-old girl was instigating a lot, and I had to remind them that was basically shaming a child for something that she does not even have the brain development to be able to understand. . . . A 13-year-old is still very much a child.”

Olympic Coach Misconduct Leads to Lawsuit Alleging Cover Up

Nor can the trouble with sex abuse in figure skating be dismissed as children and young adults exploring their sexuality. Allegations have also come forward of sexual misconduct by Richard Callaghan, a long-time Olympic coach. Callaghan had worked with Tara Lipinski and Todd Eldredge in 1998. Around the same time, he was also grooming a 14 year-old boy, Craig Maurizi, according to the lawsuit Mr. Maurizi filed in the Federal District Court in Buffalo, New York, earlier this year.

Maurizi says he began taking lessons from Callaghan in 1976 at age 13. The abuse began the next year. His lawsuit says that Callaghan isolated him, offered him pornography and alcohol, and eventually had sex with him, all while Maurizi was still a minor. Maurizi said he developed a substance abuse disorder and an eating disorder as a result of Callaghan’s control and “constant” sexual abuse. The figure skating abuse and behavior continued for years — even after Maurizi had become a figure skating coach himself.

Maurizi wasn’t alone. Last year, the U.S. Center for SafeSport permanently barred Callaghan from the sport after Adam Schmidt and three other skaters publicly accused Callaghan of sexual misconduct. However, Callaghan appealed his penalty to an independent arbitrator, who reduced it to a simple three-year suspension.

That’s not enough, Maurizi says. He filed his lawsuit under the New York Child Victims Act, naming Callaghan, U.S. Figure Skating, the Professional Skaters Association, and the Buffalo Skating Club as defendants. The lawsuit says that Callaghan’s behavior was widely known within the skating associations, but willfully ignored because of his success as a coach. Mr. Maurizi told the New York Times:

“I need for Richard Callaghan to be stopped. . . . I’m committed to stop giving him the opportunity to abuse anyone else.”

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, we have that same dedication to stopping sex abuse when it happens. We have a team of attorneys who know what to do in the face of sex abuse in the context of professional and teenage athletes. If you have been abused because of your participation in a sport, we will help you get the justice and compensation you need to move on. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

Hollywood Seeks to Close Gender Gap but Sex Abusers Find New Work

/

Hollywood’s TV, movie, and streaming producers have been making space for diversity in lead roles and seeking to close the gender gap following years of sexual harassment complaints. But it seems there is still space for those with checkered histories too. Sex abusers are finding new work, and some advocates say the change hasn’t been enough.

MeToo, Time’s Up, and ReFrame Put Gender Gap and Diversity Issues Center Stage

Over the past two and a half years, the #MeToo movement has been calling out sex abusers within the entertainment industry. The most famous of these was producer Harvey Weinstein, co-owner of the Weinstein Company, who was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual conduct earlier this year in New York state court. Similar allegations have been raised against Hollywood A-List actor Cuba Gooding Jr., and John Lasseter, chief creative officer and co-founder of Pixar Animation Studios. The streaming video industry has faced its own problems with sex abuse. In 2018, Roy Price stepped down as head of Amazon Studios after being accused of sexual harassment. He was replaced by Jennifer Sallke, formerly of NBC Entertainment.

Advocates Call for Increased Representation, Starting at the Top

Advocates for women and minorities know that it isn’t enough to remove a few bad actors. That’s why they have been pressuring Hollywood to close the gender gap and introduce more diversity into its programming, both on screen and behind the camera. And it’s been working.

The New York Times reports that the Hollywood entertainment industry is becoming more inclusive, thanks in part to streaming services demanding new and more varied content. Women and people of color have been stepping into more leading roles and director positions, finding their own place in an industry that has historically been male and white. Melissa Rosenberg, creator of the Netflix show “Jessica Jones” and executive producer for “Dexter” said she has begun to notice a change in corporate culture.

“‘There were very specific intentions from the studio and the network to have diverse voices in the room,’ … She added that she had been told, ‘You will not have a room without people of color and diversity of gender and sexual orientation.’

“‘That was a big change,’” Ms. Rosenberg said. “‘When I was coming up it would be sufficient to have one woman in the room — to represent the female voice — and she was often the lowest-paid writer, too.’”

Hollywood Introduces Intimacy Coordinators to Protect Against Sex Abuse on Set

While more women and people of color have been coming into positions of power, their right to consent is also coming into sharper focus. Entertainment industry heavyweights like HBO have begun requiring intimacy coordinators (also called intimacy directors in theater) for scenes involving nudity intimacy. These intimacy coordinators explain their jobs as “fight choreography for sex scenes.” However, they are also responsible for making certain the actors involved are comfortable with role they are playing.

In the past, intimate scenes were essentially improvised until the director was satisfied. Actress Humberly González explained that sometimes that resulted in actors doing more than they bargained for:

“She and her scene partner, whom she met earlier that day, were going to be filmed kissing from outside a camping tent, outlined in silhouette. There was no rehearsal and no specific choreography. When it was time to shoot, the two actors clambered inside the tent and were instructed to ‘just go for it,’ González recalled, while the director watched from outside, shouting evaluations.

In González’s situation, she and her scene partner were touching the whole time, and he became unintentionally aroused. ‘It was so awkward,’ González said.

However, speaking up about their emotional needs often came with a price. González explained that if she had raised her feelings of discomfort, she may have been perceived as a problem or even “lose the job.”

“There’s always this very scary feeling of: If I share my true feelings, am I going to be hired again?”

That’s where the intimacy coordinators come in. They serve as a go-between, helping to choreograph intimate scenes in a way that respects the actors’ feelings and consent, while still allowing directors to get the shot.

Sex Abusers Find New Work, Showing Power is Still in “White Dudes’” Hands

At the same time, many men accused of sexual harassment and abuse have been able to find new work. Lasseter, for example, is now working in a high position at Skydance Animation. David Glasser and Bob Weinstein, former partners at the Weinstein Company, have each opened their own production companies. Mr. Glasser has already raised $300 million in financing to once again become a major player in the industry.

Those women who stepped up to fill the vacuum of power at the top, are also finding themselves pushed back down the ladder. Earlier this year, Amazon brought in former Sony executive Mike Hopkins to oversee Amazon’s video entertainment business, placing him between Ms. Salke and Jeff Bezos, the company founder. Nina Jacobson, a veteran producer and the former president of Disney’s Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group told the New York Times:

“No matter how much things are shifting in the right direction, when you get to the top of these media companies, you will usually find a white dude. . . . The power behind the power is still white and male, and in terms of truly passing the torch in corporate life, the torch has not yet been passed.”

Even in light of Hollywood’s push to close the gender gap and improve diversity in lead roles, it is clear that sexual harassment and abuse are not going away anytime soon. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced sexual abuse attorneys and sexual harassment attorneys know how to respond when sex abuse rears its head on the job. We can meet with you at our headquarters in the heart of New York City, or conference with you remotely, to help navigate the criminal, civil, and regulatory processes needed to help you find justice. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to a sexual abuse attorney.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations Shake Leadership at Gaming Giant Ubisoft

/

More than a dozen current and former Ubsioft employees have come forward, complaining that the game producer has downplayed and ignored their claims of sexual harassment against top management for years. The French-based family business, run by 5 brothers, has employees all over the world, but as their workers have spoken up, saying “Me Too”, some of Ubisoft’s leadership is finally being held accountable for their actions.

If you or your children play video games, you probably have seen the work of gaming giant Ubisoft. With titles like Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry, Ubisoft is one the world’s largest game publishers. The gaming industry has been plagued with misogyny and sexism for years. Women software developers are routinely under-represented and underpaid compared to their male counterparts. But while employees at tech giants like Amazon and Google have made headlines, more specialized studios have flown under the radar of mainstream news until recently.

More Than a Dozen Sexual Misconduct Investigations Swept Under the Rug

Earlier this year, Bloomberg Businessweek published a report, pulling back the curtain on sexual misconduct investigations at Ubisoft Entertainment SA. The report detailed over a dozen female employees who had raised concerns about toxic work environments within Ubisoft’s offices in Canada, France, and here in the U.S. Ellen Lee, who worked in Ubisoft’s San Francisco office in the marketing and promotions department, told Bloomberg:

“The culture there is really hard as a woman. . . . If you weren’t part of the boys’ club, you were just working hard on the outskirts.”

The sexual misconduct complaints ranged from work outings held at strip clubs to one incident where a creative chief choked an employee at a release party. Employees have complained for years, but the company has done little to address their complaints. Fey Vercuiel, a former designer for the company said:

“You complain about something, it just gets swept under the rug.”

When Nina Stewart raised concerns that her manager was making sexist and fatphobic remarks, she was told to “talk it out” with him. Ubisoft did nothing until a male co-worker corroborated her third complaint. Then the company removed her boss and sent her a thank you card with a $200 gift card.

International Family Business Shields Friends’ Sexual Misconduct

Here in the U.S., employers are legally required to investigate claims of sexual misconduct, harassment, and gender discrimination. When they find the complaints are true, federal and state laws require employers to take reasonable steps to correct the problem — including by removing the offending employee (not the one who complained). But all too often, biases among those responsible for investigating sexual misconduct claims mean managers and executives are trusted, even when faced with multiple sexual misconduct complaints.

That appears to have been the case among the Ubisoft leadership. Unlike many other game publishers, Ubisoft has remained largely a family business since it was founded in 1986. The 5 Guillemot brothers who founded the company continue to own 21% of the company, maintain 5 seats on the board, and serve as executive officers within the large company.

They have also developed nearly familial relationships with some of their top executives. Serge Hascoët, chief creative officer, has been a close friend of the Guillemots’ for decades. He was given ultimate authority over which games the company would produce. In spite of allegations against Hascoët that he demeaned women and engaged in predatory behavior he was treated as a permanent fixture of the company. He and his team were “golden children,” said Cindy Fitzpatrick, who worked in Ubisoft’s public-relations department:

“No matter what they do, they seem untouchable.”

Sexism in Gaming Comes from the Top

The sexist and often frat-like culture at Ubisoft even affected its products, according to its employees. Several of the products in the Assassin’s Creed franchise — a historically based open-world action-adventure game — were originally supposed to have female protagonists. However, in 2014, Hascoët said the next chapter of the game wouldn’t let players choose a female avatar, because “it was really a lot of extra production work” to add women’s animations and clothing to the game. Later games shrank the roles of women in their stories, minimizing female protagonists and moving men to the lead roles in their games.

#MeToo Publicity Leads to Shakeup in Ubisoft Leadership

By going public with their #MeToo stories, Ubisoft employees seem to have accomplished what internal sexual misconduct complaints could not. Chief Executive Officer Yves Guillemot has announced extensive changes — even removing “golden child” Serge Hascoët — in response to the negative publicity. Guillemot issued a statement announcing several changes in Ubisoft leadership saying:

“Ubisoft has fallen short in its obligation to guarantee a safe and inclusive workplace environment for its employees. . . . This is unacceptable, as toxic behaviors are in direct contrast to values on which I have never compromised—and never will. I am committed to implementing profound changes across the company to improve and strengthen our workplace culture.”

In addition to the chief creative officer, Ubisoft is removing the heads of HR and the Canadian studios. These departures could signal a change in the way the company responds to sexual misconduct in their workplace, and sexism within their products. In the past, employees were simply told to find a way to work with their harassers or look elsewhere. Now Ubisoft is demanding that its leaders “manage their teams with the utmost respect” and “drive the change we need” for the company.

Whether the new Ubisoft leadership — notably still all men — can drive systemic change in the workplace remains to be seen, but for the employees whose complaints had been ignored, the departure of Hascoët and others shows that the company may be open to listening to them after all.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our sexual harassment attorneys know what it feels like when sexual misconduct claims get swept under the rug in favor of executives’ family and friends. If you have been sexually harassed by a manager or supervisor who seems untouchable, we can help. We will meet with you and review your options when your employer chooses to believe their friends over your complaints. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

Secrecy Clouds Catholic Cardinal’s Sex Abuse Acquittal

/

The victims of sex abuse often fight personal battles between the need for privacy and the desire to make their abusers’ actions known. But when secrecy is the rule of law, it can create questions about what really happened in court. The gag orders and confidentiality surrounding a Melbourne Catholic cardinal’s sex abuse acquittal are leaving even the victims wondering what happened.

A Note About International Law

This blog post discusses an Australian criminal conviction and later acquittal on appeal. While both Australia and U.S. law are derived from the British common law, there are centuries of court opinions and statutes that drive them apart. That means that sex abuse victims here in the U.S. will not necessarily face the same procedural issues, or be entitled to the same confidentiality, as those described here. Nor do the decisions of Australia’s top court make it more or less likely that U.S. cases will have similar outcomes.

Catholic Sex Abuse Victims Found Justice in a Guilty Verdict

For years, the Catholic Church has been accused of covering up sex abuse scandals worldwide. States and national governments have identified hundreds of priests and thousands of victims, many of whom have been unable to get relief because of the Church’s internal policies. The Church protected its own, denying the problem publicly, and creating difficult procedures for those who did come forward.

Now, governments and individuals have begun to hold the Church and its officials accountable. Still, most of the sex abuse cases have been against individual priests. While bishops (the regional managers of the Catholic Church) had been charged and convicted for their roles in the cover-ups, until late 2018, none had been convicted of personally perpetuating sex abuse.

That changed on December 14, 2018, when Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Melbourne, was found guilty of sexual abuse. The charges related to sexual assault of two 13-year-old altar boys. The allegations said he grabbed one boy’s genitals and forced his penis into the mouth of another. With that guilty verdict, Pell became the highest-ranking member of the Roman Catholic church to be convicted. He was also responsible for handling the Vatican’s financial response to sex abuse allegations against Australian priests. The charges against him began a wave of additional charges against cardinals and other officials in the highest levels of the Church.

Australia’s Top Court Hands Catholic Cardinal an Acquittal

But then, in April 2020, that conviction disappeared. Australia’s highest court reversed the conviction, saying that the jury ignored “compounding improbabilities” based on the conflicting testimony of the primary accuser and other witnesses. Here in the United States, juries and fact-finding judges are given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to weighing the credibility of conflicting witness testimonies. Unless a jury’s decision doesn’t match the evidence presented at trial, the appeals courts will leave it’s decision alone. (There may be other grounds for appeal based on procedural or legal issues.)

In this case, however, the Australian high court said the jurors put too much faith in the main sex abuse victim’s testimony and failed to adequately consider the “unchallenged evidence” from other witnesses. Specifically, the judges’ order seems to suggest that the prosecutor failed to prove the priest would have had time to commit the sexual assaults when he would have been too busy following a Sunday Mass. Because the judges believed the jury had made those mistakes, it reversed the guilty verdict, handing the Catholic Cardinal a Sex Abuse Acquittal.

Privacy Laws for Child Victims and a Gag Order Create Shroud of Secrecy

Commentators and sex abuse advocates have complained that they could not evaluate the Australian court’s decision because the evidence in question is not publicly available. Australia has sexual abuse laws that automatically protect the identities of child victims. The accuser here was 13 at the time of the sexual assault, though he was an adult when he came forward in 2015. Australia also has strict confidentiality rules for all criminal cases, which are intended to protect juries from receiving prejudicial information while they deliberate.

These confidentiality laws layered with a strict “gag order” prohibiting journalists from publishing information about the court proceeding. This suppression order was so comprehensive, even reporting about the order itself. A previously published book, Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell, by journalist Louise Milligan, was pulled from bookstores rather than running the risk of contempt charges. The New York Times reported:

“A problem in this case is that the public mostly couldn’t watch,” said Jeremy Gans, a professor at Melbourne Law School who closely followed the trial. “Most of us didn’t know any of the details, and none of us have seen the complainant’s testimony.”

Advocates called for some way to review the transcript without identifying the sex abuse victim. Jason Bosland, a law professor at Melbourne University said:

“The only way the judicial branch of government is held accountable is through principle of open justice, and that requires that the public be given as much information as possible.”

Here in America, concerns over victims’ privacy must be balanced against the First Amendment freedom of the press. While judges may often issue gag orders or protect the identities of witnesses, court records, and transcripts are generally matters of public record unless specifically sealed by the court.

For some victims, this level of transparency can make coming forward intimidating. They risk damaging their own reputations by publicly testifying about the abuse inflicted upon them and cross-examination that often blames the victim and uses other, unrelated past acts to tarnish their credibility. However, for those who do come forward, publicly exposing their abuser is often almost as important as any financial damages that may be available. Many sex abuse victims say their primary goal in coming forward is making sure their abuser cannot take advantage of anyone else

That is why sex abuse victims need zealous advocates who can help them balance privacy and publicity. They need someone who can push for sealed records and gag orders where appropriate, but who are willing to take the matter public and pull back the shroud of secrecy that their abusers hide behind. At Eisenberg & Baum, our sexual abuse attorneys to stand beside child victims and their families against their abusers and the churches and other organizations who protect them. We can help you balance publicity and confidentiality and receive the compensation you deserve. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

Could Productivity Apps Give Bosses Keys to Online Sexual Harassment?

/

How much personal information do you want your bosses to have about your home life? Thousands of New York residents are working from home as a result of the Coronavirus, but could their computers be opening them up to unwanted sexual advances? As more employers turn to productivity apps to monitor remote workers, could sexual harassment take on a new virtual form?

Employers Turn to Productivity Apps to Monitor Remote Workers

The nationwide response to COVID-19 has caused as many people as possible to work from home to reduce their risk of exposure. While essential workers, medical professionals, cooks, grocery clerks, and others have been working on the front lines, many employers with office workers have suddenly discovered that they can work from home, rather than being laid off.

However, employers aren’t simply trusting that their employees are really working while they are on the clock. Demand is surging for software to monitor employees and their productivity. These apps are not new. Wall Street firms have been using them for years, often without giving their employees much say in the matter. However, the coronavirus outbreak has turned them into a hot commodity. One such program, Hubstaff, reported that its monthly users have tripled since March.

As one New York Times reporter soon learned, these productivity apps often pick up more than even employers intended. In one month of using Hubstaff’s productivity app, reporter Adam Satariano and his editor, Pui-Wing Tam quickly found the app got a little too close for comfort:

“After three weeks of digital monitoring, the future of work surveillance seemed to both of us to be overly intrusive. As she put it, ‘Ick.’”

Employees clock in to the app on their work devices. Every few minutes, the app:

  • Takes screenshots of websites visited
  • Notes which documents have been opened
  • Tracks social media sites visited
  • Maps where the employee goes through GPS on a mobile device
  • Screenshots conference calls with other employees

Satariano says:

“The technology raises thorny privacy questions about where employers draw the line between maintaining productivity from a homebound work force and creepy surveillance.”

Shared Use Devices Give Employees Glimpses of Employees’ Personal Lives

However, not everything the productivity app captured was work related. Satariano related one occasion when he had not logged out of the app and it captured him participating in an internet exercise class. This raised concerns for him about what would happen if he had used his work computer to view medical documents or financial information.

“I trust Pui-Wing, but the monitoring systems have few safeguards to prevent abuse, and they rely on managers exercising judgment and restraint.”

That lack of safeguards makes the productivity app a tool for managers and bosses looking for ways to manipulate their employees. A stray email or even an advertisement could give a boss key information about an employee’s personal life and expose that employee to discrimination or online sexual harassment. Here’s a hypothetical example.

How Productivity Tracking Apps Could Turn Into Sexual Harassment

Let’s assume that Alice is a newly home-based worker for a company that has just begun using Hubstaff. She doesn’t have a company-assigned laptop, so she has been using her personal computer for work. Her boss, Bradley, requires her to install Hubstaff on that computer and to log in and out each day.

In the course of the day, Alice opens her personal email during lunch. She receives an email from a clothing company about a lingerie sale. Curious, she clicks. Now, the search engines and ad targeting algorithms know she’s looking for bras. When Alice logs back in to work, the targeted ads keep showing her women’s underwear. In an office setting this might be slightly embarrassing, but the chance a manager would see the misplaced ads would be minor. However, because Alice’s company is using a productivity app, everything Alice does on her computer is captured and presented to her manager for review.

When Bradley goes over Alice’s Hubstaff report, he can see the ads even though Alice was logged out while she was shopping online. Bradley threatens to report Alice for looking at indecent pictures on company time. He says that unless she agrees to an intimate video conference call he will send the pictures of bras to his boss and recommend disciplinary action.

Responding to Sexual Harassment of Remote Workers

This kind of quid pro quo sexual arrangement — where Bradley demanded sexual favors from Alice to avoid negative employment actions — falls clearly in the category of sexual harassment. Other productivity apps that use a computer’s webcam could also result in sexual harassment claims based on stalking or unwanted surveillance. However, many employers won’t have taken the time to develop strong anti-harassment policies for their newly remote workers. If an employer fails to respond to claims that a manager is using the company’s productivity app for sexual purposes, it could open the company up to a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the New York State Human Rights Commission, or even in federal or state court.

However, sometimes it doesn’t have to go that far. The current working climate means that many employers are making adjustments on the fly. They may be more receptive to constructive criticism about their new work-from-home policies than if an employee was trying to challenge an established way of doing things in the office. This can work in favor of the employee who doesn’t want to lose their job just for filing a complaint.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced gender discrimination and sexual harassment attorneys have seen all kinds of employment discrimination cases, including those involving remote workers. We know when to file a claim with the EEOC and how to make the New York State Human Rights Law work for work-from-home employees. We also know that sometimes a well-placed letter or phone call can get employees the relief they need. Contact us to schedule a consultation at our office in New York City, or over the phone.

Victoria’s Secret “Angels” Face Misogyny, Bullying, and Sexual Harassment

/

Working as a lingerie model naturally exposes a woman to certain amounts of sexual energy. However, no employee should be forced to submit to sexual harassment just because of the nature of their job. Find out how the Victoria’s Secret “Angels” have lived through misogyny, bullying, and other forms of sexual harassment within the company and what its board of directors is doing about it.

Culture of Sexuality and Misogyny Guides Hiring

Across the country, women and men have been pushing for a broader definition of beauty on the covers of magazines, in catalogs, and on the runway. Companies have been adopting plus-sized models and those with athletic body types from a diverse range of ethic backgrounds in an effort to break out of certain stereotypes about modeling.

But those changes haven’t made it Victoria’s Secret. The lingerie giant is a subsidiary of L Brands, founded by billionaire Leslie Wexner. He and his long-time chief marketing officer Ed Razek, have resisted the urge to feminize the brand. While its competitors began including a wide range of women in their advertising, Victoria’s Secret filmed ads based on the stereotypical male fantasy, with scantily clad models, helicopters, motorcycles, and even fiery explosions.

And that same misogyny affected the company’s hiring choices as well. A New York Times report describes 6 current and former executives of the company sought to change its “porny” image. Instead, in 2018, Razek rebuffed their efforts, driving some out of the company. When interviewed about that year’s fashion show, he told Vogue:

“So it’s like, why don’t you do [size] 50? Why don’t you do 60? Why don’t you do 24? It’s like, why doesn’t your show do this? Shouldn’t you have transsexuals in the show? No. No, I don’t think we should. Well, why not? Because the show is a fantasy.”

False Recruitment by a Famous Sexual Criminal

That sexual fantasy mindset made its way beyond the runway as well. Models and prospective models told the New York Times that they had been misled to believe they were being recruited for a model, when really it was a setup for sexual harassment and abuse.

Wexner was close friends with Jeffrey Epstein, who was charged with sex trafficking in 2019 and sexual assault of children as young as 14 by New York state prosecutors. Epstein had served as Wexner’s personal financial manager. According to the New York Times, he had used that position to pose as a recruiter for Victoria Secret and lure young women into posing for him between 1995 and 2006. He is said to have invited them into auditions, at least two of which ended in sexual assault. The New York indictment against Epstein contained this statement by an unnamed prospective Victoria’s Secret “angel”:

“I had spent all of my savings getting Victoria’s Secret lingerie to prepare for what I thought would be my audition. . . . But instead it seemed like a casting call for prostitution. I felt like I was in hell.”

Unpaid Pornography Shoots as a Condition of Employment

Epstein wasn’t the only one taking advantage of the tough competition for models hoping to land a contract as a Victoria’s Secret angel. Razek himself is said to have exuded “toxic masculinity.” Models reported him approaching women in their underwear and asking for their numbers, urging them to sit on his lap, and even touching them over their underwear during fittings. Several witnesses report him saying (in regard to whether network television would allow the broadcast of a particular set of lingerie):

“‘Forget the panties,’ he declared, according to three people who were there and a fourth who was told about it. The bigger question, he said, was whether the TV network would let Ms. Hadid walk ‘down the runway with those perfect titties.’ (One witness remembered Mr. Razek using the word ‘breasts,’ not ‘titties.’)”

However, perhaps most disconcerting were allegations that Victoria’s Secret models were compelled to participate in nude photo shoots, often without pay, for fear that they would be cut from the runway. Some of these pornographic images were then published in a coffee-table book selling for $1800 to $3600. This made even some L Brands executives uncomfortable and concerned that the women were pressured to take their clothes off.

Changes at L Brands Follow Years of Sexual Harassment Claims

Many of these incidents and others resulted in complaints to HR. Some even resulted in sexual harassment settlements. However, until recently, the “Angels” seemed to feel that the company did not take their concerns seriously. Casey Crowe Taylor, a former public relations employee, told the New York Times:

“What was most alarming to me, as someone who was always raised as an independent woman, was just how ingrained this behavior was. . . . This abuse was just laughed off and accepted as normal. It was almost like brainwashing. And anyone who tried to do anything about it wasn’t just ignored. They were punished.”

In response to Jeff Epstein’s criminal indictment, the L Brands board of directors hired a law firm, Davis Polk & Wardell to conduct “a thorough review” of his involvement with the company. However, Davis Polk wasn’t an independent investigator of the company’s actions. Wexner’s wife Abigail had previously worked at the firm and one longtime partner was a former L Brands board member. Epstein’s subsequent suicide while in jail awaiting trial, that investigation seemed not to come to much of a conclusion.

Then Mr. Razek stepped down in August 2019. Wexner has announced he is exploring plans to retire and sell Victoria’s Secrets. Since L Brands is a publicly traded company, that has shifted more power to the company’s board of directors. Spokeswoman Tammy Roberts Myers said that the company “is intensely focused” on corporate governance and workplace and compliance practices. She said the board’s independent directors  were “fully committed to continuous improvement and complete accountability.” However, what that will mean to the models and employees who had been the targets of bullying, misogyny and sexual harassment at the company remains to be seen.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced sexual harassment attorneys believe that every employee has the right to be free from sexual harassment at work, even models. We know how to use federal and state anti-discrimination laws to get you the protection and compensation you need from misogyny, bullying, and sexual harassment in the workplace. We can meet with you at our headquarters in the heart of New York City, or conference with you remotely, to help you plan a strategy to put an end to sexual harassment at work. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to an attorney.

New York Human Rights Law Protects Small Business Employees

/

Small businesses employ millions of American workers. Without the administrative oversight of larger companies, these businesses may not give their employees the same protections against discrimination and sexual harassment. The smallest of the small fit through gaps in federal anti-discrimination laws, leaving their employees without legal recourse. But now, the New York Human Rights Law is closing those gaps for New York companies, protecting small business employees no matter how few there are on the payrolls.

America Depends on Small Business Employees

According to the Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of Entrepreneurs, 89% of all employers have less than 20 workers on the payroll. They make up nearly 17% of all employees, and that number is growing. In 2018, the Small Business Association reported that:

“Firms employing fewer than 20 employees experienced the largest gains, adding 1.1 million net jobs.”

In spite of their numbers, small business employees often have a hard time enforcing their right to a discrimination-free and harassment-free workplace. Small businesses often don’t have non-discrimination policies or dedicated HR departments to respond to discrimination complaints. With a more intimate working environment, these employees may also find it harder to file those complaints out of fear of retaliation. This is especially true in the smallest of small businesses, where federal anti-discrimination laws may not even apply.

Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws Don’t Protect All Small-Business Employees

Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination and harassment based on sex, gender, race, and many other inherent traits. Employers may not discriminate in hiring, firing, promotions, pay, or any other employment-related decision. They also are required to respond to employee concerns about harassment in the workplace.

But not all employers are created equal under Title VII. The federal law defines “employer” as “an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. . .” Any business with less than 15 employees, or with a primarily seasonal workforce may not qualify.

The Equal Pay Act has a similar limitation. It, and the Fair Labor Standards Act it references, defines an employer as an enterprise with not less than $500,000 in gross sales or business done. Many startups and small businesses fall well below that income threshold, which means the employees of those businesses may not be eligible to file suit when they are paid less for the same work because of their gender.

New York Human Rights Law Applies to All Businesses With Even One Employee

Federal law may not cover the smallest of small businesses, but as of February 8, 2020, workers in New York may still be protected. The New York State Human Rights Law has long applied to much smaller businesses — covering employees with 4 or more employees, rather than 15. Last year, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law, effective February 8, 2020, expanding that coverage to include all New York employees, no matter how small. It also includes other workers who don’t technically qualify as “employees”, such as independent contractors, vendors, consultants, and service providers.

NYSHRL Gives Small Business Employees a Tool For Relief from Discrimination and Harassment

These changes mean that small business employees will be able to get relief, even if the company they work for isn’t set up to address sexual harassment or discrimination claims. Starting in 2019, the NYSHRL required all employers to prepare sexual harassment prevention policies and provide training that includes explaining how to report abuse when it happens. However, many small businesses may not have come into compliance. Even where a policy exists, it may be difficult for small business employees to lodge complaints when the person doing the discrimination or harassment is the owner of the company and their direct boss.

Small business employees can work with an experienced New York workplace discrimination attorney to prepare and file a complaint with the New York State Human Rights Commission, or in state court. These complaints can help facilitate changes in policy and enforcement within the small business, and can compensate workers for the discrimination they have faced.

At Eisenberg and Baum, LLP, our New York City-based sexual harassment attorneys know how hard it can be to get relief if you are a small business employee. We’ve seen how startups and inexperienced business owners sometimes treat their workers. We know how to use the New York State Human Rights Law to protect rights, and what you can do if your employer isn’t keeping up with the state’s requirements. We will help you negotiate with your employer, file the necessary administrative claims, and represent you in court. Contact us to schedule a consultation.

Federal #MeToo Complaints Push Government Agencies to Confront Sexual Harassment

/ ,

A year after the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights began its investigation of federal #MeToo complaints, the agency has finally issued recommendations for federal employers and Congress. The report calls for the federal government to act as a “model employer”. But it also shows just how far short governmental agencies fall from that mark.

U.S. Federal Government Investigates #MeToo Trends

On May 9, 2019, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hosted a public briefing named “Federal Me Too: Examining Sexual Harassment in Government Workplaces.” The briefing invited academics, legal experts, victims advocates, and federal employees with personal experience to testify about the government’s response to sexual harassment in the workplace. This briefing spurred further investigation, including a review of EEOC complaints and internal administrative procedures at the EEOC and in two representative federal agencies: the State Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

On April 1, 2019, nearly a year after hearing testimony, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released its report. It included an assessment of federal policies and procedures as they exist today, and recommendations for the future. The general consensus was there is a lot that can be improved. Catherine E. Lhamon, Chair of the commission, said in a press release:

“The federal government’s longstanding and persisting failure to take adequate steps necessary to address this form of serious workplace misconduct is especially concerning given its dual role as the largest employer in the United States and as the principal enforcer of federal civil rights protections. We urge all agencies and Congress to take up the Commission’s recommendations immediately to protect federal workers and serve as the model employer government should be in our nation.”

Federal #MeToo Complaints are On the Rise

The Commission reviewed workplace sexual harassment complaints within the federal government from 2016-2018. During that period, 1 in 7 federal employees experienced sexually harassing behaviors. And those numbers are on the rise. Federal employees filed 2,257 sexual harassment complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during fiscal years 2015-2018. Before getting to that step, they first had to complete an internal Equal Employment Opportunity claims process (EEO Complaint). Those claims numbered:

  • 6,990 in 2016
  • 7,560 in 2017
  • 8,418 in 2018

Even those numbers likely represent only a fraction of the actual sexual harassment taking place within federal government workplaces. The EEOC estimates that three out of four sexual harassment victims never tell a supervisor or file a complaint, many due to fear of retaliation.

Sexual Harassment is About Power, Not Sex

One of the key points made by the Commission is that federal agencies and the general public continue to misunderstand the reason sexual harassment occurs.

“[S]exual harassment is not about sex or sexual attraction: instead, sexual harassment is ultimately about power. . . . ‘[T]he bottom line is that harassment is more about upholding gendered status and identity than it is about expressing sexual desire or sexuality. Harassment provides a way for some men to monopolize prized work roles and to maintain a superior masculine position and sense of self.’ . . . ‘[W]here unwanted sexual misconduct occurs, it is typically a telltale sign of broader patterns of discrimination and inequality at work such as sex segregation and gender stereotyping.’”

This was supported by the commission’s findings of characteristics that made sexual harassment more likely to occur:

  • Differentiated roles and duties based on sex stereotypes
  • Gender imbalances in leadership and managerial positions
  • Isolated, remote, or decentralized workplaces

Federal EEO Processes Make Reporting Sexual Harassment Difficult

The Commission noted that federal employees have a particularly difficult time preserving their sexual harassment claims and getting compensated for the physical and psychological harm done to them. It noted that the internal EEO processes across different agencies were “unduly complex” and vulnerable to conflicts of interests as departments acted as both fact finder and defendant. This was especially true in the State Department, where claims by foreign nationals or locally employed staff working abroad were handled locally and “often not addressed adequately.” The Commission also noted that the short, 45-day reporting window and “confusing time restrictions” caused many employees to “unwittingly forfeit their right to bring formal claims at all.” Together, these policies put federal workers at a distinct disadvantage, compared to their private-sector counterparts.

The Commission’s Recommendations

The United States Commission on Civil Rights made several direct recommendations for the specific agencies evaluated, the EEOC acting in oversight, and to Congress for legal changes needed to protect federal employees:

  • The Office of Personnel Management send out model employer sexual harassment policies and practices that protect the rights of all workers
  • Federal agencies should use department-wide uniform penalties for all disciplinary actions
  • Perpetrators should be banned from receiving promotions or performance awards
  • Perpetrators should not be reassigned to other divisions
  • Employees should complete bystander intervention training
  • Agencies should implement mandatory anti-harassment trainings
  • Non-disclosure clauses in discrimination settlements should be closely scrutinized
  • Congress should enact laws to protect federal government contractors and interns from sexual harassment (many do not qualify as employees under the current law)
  • A federal ombudsperson should be empowered to investigate sexual harassment claims in cases where the existing structure creates conflicts of interest
  • Additional funds should be assigned to the EEOC for proactive and preventative measures
  • The EEOC should collect and report intersectional data on sexual harassment and racial and other forms of discrimination
  • Existing anti-harassment laws should be strictly enforced to address “the culture of sexual harassment and misogyny in grant-receiving research institutions.”
  • State Department workplaces globally should have zero tolerance for sexual harassment and retaliation, and workers should have access to fair access to the claims process

Many of these recommendations would take legislative change. Others might be implemented at the agency level. However, there is little motivation for the federal government to move quickly in response to the report. Federal employees facing sexual harassment in the meantime will still need to navigate the complex and often intimidating EEO procedures to protect their rights and preserve their claims.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced gender discrimination and sexual harassment attorneys have seen all kinds of employment discrimination cases, in the private sector and the federal government. We know how to meet the EEO procedural requirements and file a claim with the EEOC. We are ready and able to work for federal employees whose claims might otherwise be lost. Contact us to schedule a consultation at our office in New York City, or over the phone.