The news got out quickly that University of Minnesota (U of M) Athletic Director Norwood Teague resigned following revelations that he engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with two other U of M administrators . Although this situation involved someone with a high public profile, it seemed like a relatively straightforward workplace harassment matter – employee allegations surfaced, the offender acknowledged his behavior (in the face of irrefutable evidence) and a departure quickly ensued.
But there was more. The next day, Amelia Rayno, a sports writer for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, published a story recounting sexually aggressive behaviors she encountered from Teague, with whom she interacted regularly in her role as the beat reporter for U of M basketball. Rayno had agreed to meet Teague for a drink, as she had done several times in the past in pursuit of information about Gopher sports. She assumed that this would also be a discussion about basketball and U of M athletic department but, as Rayno reported, Teague grabbed at her, tried to put his arm around her and talked about their “chemistry.” Rayno said nothing to anyone about this incident at the time, but subsequent repeats of the behavior eventually led Rayno to seek out the Star Tribune Human Resources Department.
Rayno’s story described what is often referred to as “third party harassment”, i.e. harassing behavior endured by an employee at the hands of someone who does not work for the same company. It might be a customer or client, a vendor, an independent contractor or a member of the general public. Still, the behavior likely conflicts with the employer’s anti-harassment policy which usually promises protection against such behavior even if the perpetrator is employed by someone else.
Harassment Game Plan
In a typical harassment scenario involving two employees of the same company, the employer generally is not liable for the harassment unless they knew or should have known about the issue and then failed to take timely remedial action. This remedial action could take the form of disciplinary action or even termination depending on the seriousness and frequency of the harassing behavior. In addition, the employer might consider changing the offender’s work location or schedule to minimize further interaction with the complaining employee. Other methods of persuasion might include a demotion, a salary reduction or additional training on appropriate workplace behavior. Since the employer control’s the offender’s employment circumstances, they have a great many options from which to choose.
An employer’s menu of options for responding to a claim of third party harassment is much more limited because of the diminished ability to exercise control over the offender’s employment. In some cases, the employer might be able to contact the offender’s employer to seek relief, or perhaps reassign their own employee to an account or location that eliminates their contact with the offending individual.
If these methods are not viable, or if they did not relieve the problem, the employer might have to consider discontinuing the relationship with the offender and the customer or vendor who assigned that individual to work with the company. In all such cases, the employer must try to minimize any actual impact on the complaining employee so as to avoid any appearance of reprisal for having raised the concern. For example, if reassignment to a new account or location is to be considered, the employer should make sure that this does not represent a loss of pay, status or convenience for the complaining employee.
This can be tricky. If the offending person is, or works for, the employer’s biggest customer, the harassed employee may not want to miss the opportunity of working on that account, and the employer may be wary losing the business. Similarly, if the employee’s job absolutely requires interaction with the offender because that is what the employee was hired to do, the choices for how to respond to harassment may not be all that clear.
Response was a Slam Dunk
In Rayno’s situation, the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s response was a slam dunk. Rayno reported that after informing the newspaper, they gave her several options:
- The company could contact Teague to demand that he cease the inappropriate behavior;
- They could contact Teague’s superiors to inform them of his behavior;
- They could switch her to a different (but presumably equally prestigious) beat; or
- They could accept Rayno’s request that she simply be allowed to wait to see if Teague’s behavior persisted.
Ultimately, the Star Tribune accepted Rayno’s request that they hold off on taking any further action so that she could continue covering Gopher basketball the way she wanted. Still, they let her know that they stood behind her and would carry the matter forward if need be. This fulfilled their legal obligation to protect her from harassment by a third party, but it also respected the employee’s desire not to impair her working relationship with her primary “customer.” In so doing, Rayno’s and the Star Tribune’s patience carried the day – Rayno’s work with U of M basketball continues but now without the burden of facing further inappropriate advances from Teague.
Bottom Line
Third party harassment cases can be nuanced and complex. Employers facing those challenges would be wise to follow the Star Tribune’s lead in making sure that your employees are protected against harassment regardless of its source and to take timely and appropriate action whenever such harassment shows itself.