Best Buy’s Workplace Investigation: Quick, Effective, Newsworthy

Best Buy recently received and published highlights from an investigation in to several allegations of misconduct by higher level executives and others.  The lessons from this investigation are still to be culled, but the bottom line is that the company responded swiftly to unsavory allegations, a response that has left them in control of fixing the problem(s), responding credibly to employees, customers, and shareholders with lemonade rather than lemons, and demonstrating a commitment to values-based leadership.

Is your company prepared to respond promptly, credibly, and with integrity to allegations of misconduct?  Ensure that your Risk Management team is prepared.  One Mediation can help through its workplace investigation training modules, professional investigators, and training offerings.

 

Agendas: Workplace Investigation Training Modules I and II

One Mediation provides Human Resources professionals, in-house counsel and risk managers with engaging, active training on conducting an internal, workplace misconduct investigation.

Module I provides a strong foundation on the role of an investigation in resolving concerns, along with specific activities geared towards interviewing witnesses professionally and competently.  Module II is a practicum for attendees to work through the components of a workplace investigation, through to a mock deposition, with immediate feedback from Labor & Employment litigators.   Registrants may choose to attend only Module I; though completion of Module I is a pre-requisite to registering for Module II.  The agendas for Module I and for Module II are available.

Credits through HRCI are available.

REGISTRATION:
Module I is offered in Buckhead on June 15, 2012 and September 29, 2012, starting at 9:00 a.m. and ending at 4:45 p.m. Early Bird Registration ($295) closes 30-days before the session. Regular tuition: $395.00.
Module II Practicum is offered on a Friday/Saturday format. In 2012, it is offered two times: June 22-23 and again October 5-6. Regular tuition: $995.00 (Early Bird: $825).
Registration for both Module I and the Module II Practicum is $1,300 (Early Bird $1,100).
FACULTY:
Faculty include Lorene Schaefer, Esq. and Jennifer Keaton, Esq.  These attorneys and workplace investigators have significant Labor and Employment litigation experience regarding EEOC Charges, Sarbanes-Oxley Charges, tort claims, and internal grievances that involve concerns of harassment, discrimination, bullying, poor leadership/supervision, and whistleblower and retaliation concerns. They put their litigation and investigation experience to work with these active-learning seminars.
Call One Mediation for more information (404-720-0599) or visit them online.

Internal Complaints….The Lids Fly Off When!!

A 37 Page Complaint…recently, a major agency received this written complaint from a high ranking official in the organization that blasted an even higher ranking official.  Politically motivated?  Do-gooder doing the right thing?  Someone who’d “had it up to here”?

Too often, employers dismiss internal complaints rather than move them into a credible investigative process because they are too concerned with what may appear (and may actually be) questionable motives in raising the concern rather than focusing on “clearing the air” to determine if a problem exists.

Employers should have an investigative process in place before a need to investigate internal concerns arise.  Some employers utilize “hot lines,” while others have “open door policies” and harassment policies with a stated complaint process.  These options often suffice, but employers who have been through contentious litigation regarding the workplace usually can point to opportunities that they wished they’d offered to hear about the concern before hearing it from opposing counsel, a governmental agency, or through a court pleading.

Interested in learning about options for your workplace?  Contact One Mediation regarding its internal dispute resolution programs, E-Resolved hotline options, and more.  Simple solutions at work!

 

Workplace Investigation Training: Module I Agenda

Workplace Investigation Training: Module I

April 20, 2012 from 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Atlanta, Georgia
This event requires registration: http://www.OneMediation.com.  Click Here for an Agenda of the seminar.
This advanced program, along with the Module II Practicum, is designed to cross train in-house counsel and to enhance the skills of Risk Management and HR professionals for conducting investigations into bullying, discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
Module I is day-long seminar that provides a detailed overview of how properly to investigate concerns or allegations of personnel misconduct in a thorough, fair, and well-documented manner that contemplates potential litigation. Significant time is spent on investigation plans, document gathering, techniques for interviewing witnesses, and report writing. Both Module I and Module II focus on putting information into action through group and individual activities that reinforce the learning objectives.
REGISTRATION:
Module I is offered on April 20, 2012, June 15, 2012 and September 29, 2012, starting at 9:00 a.m. and ending at 4:45 p.m. Early Bird Registration ($295) closes 30-days before the session. Regular tuition: $395.00.
Module II Practicum is offered on a Friday/Saturday format. In 2012, it is offered two times: June 22-23 and again October 5-6, 2012. Regular tuition: $995.00 (Early Bird: $825).
Registration for both Module I and the Module II Practicum is $1,300 (Early Bird $1,100).
FACULTY:
Faculty include Lorene Schaefer, Esq., Jennifer Keaton, Esq., and Suzanne Deddish, Esq. These attorneys and workplace investigators have significant Labor and Employment litigation experience regarding EEOC Charges, Sarbanes-Oxley Charges, tort claims, and internal grievances that involve concerns of harassment, discrimination, bullying, poor leadership/supervision, and whistleblower and retaliation concerns. They put their litigation and investigation experience to work with these active-learning seminars.
Call One Mediation for more information (404-720-0599).

Workplace Investigation Sins 6 and 7: Failing to Protect the Process

Jennifer Keaton is a Workplace Investigator with One Mediation.

A recent article detailed 5 “sins” of a workplace investigation.   The article details five requisite skills for interviewing individuals, but it admittedly does not provide an exhaustive account of all the deadly sins.

Adding two more sins to this article, to make a complete “Seven Deadly Sins,” must include (6) not advising employee witnesses of anti-retaliation provisions that exist and (7)  requesting that employee witnesses not discuss the investigation with other employees and to advise the investigator if someone does discuss the investigation with them (while it is pending).

Advising witnesses about retaliation protections provides some assurance that participating in the investigation will not bring some measure of hardship or retribution on them, at least not without the threat of recourse.  This step is often a critical step to establishing rapport and obtaining cooperation from a witness.

Where an investigation requires multiple days’ of interviews and credibility determinations are a concern, an investigator should take steps to assure that witnesses do not influence the information solicited by the investigator.   One means to mitigate such influence is for an investigator to request (or have an employer direct an employee) not to discuss or communicate about the interview or the investigation with other individuals, at least until the investigation is complete, and to inform the investigator of any individuals who do discuss it with them or attempt to discuss it with them.  For some witnesses, the request is a relief as they can “blame” the investigator for their disinterest in discussing the matter with other employees or individuals. This kind of gag order also is effective in promoting accountability because it lets the interviewee know that someone else may “tell on them” if they discuss the interview.

Finally, if the investigator receives any reports of discussions of the investigation or the interview, it may factor into credibility determinations of witnesses and help illuminate certain motivations.   If an accused harasser, for example, spends time telling individuals what they “should say,”  ”better say,” or even asks what the interviewee “plans to say,” this conduct could constitute witness intimidation.  It may also suggest that the accused is trying to influence the outcome of the investigation, which may demonstrate retaliatory motives or admissions of misconduct.

All told, a workplace  investigators who fail to protect the investigation process may find that the investigation is compromised or otherwise ineffective.  Good pre-planning with regard to an investigation can assist an investigator with avoiding such fatal flaws.

Workplace Investigation training is critical to an investigator providing a proper and professional investigation.  One Mediation’s Workplace Investigation Training Modules provide a deep dive into the investigative process (Module I) and experiential learning opportunity (Module II) that provide a strong foundation for investigators in these areas.  It is offered two-times per year.

Mediating with a Public Entity in Georgia

In Georgia, mediation of litigation that involves a public entity can be a bit trickier than just getting the agreement to mediate, along with a date, time and location.   When Georgia’s public entities mediate a dispute, the mediation may require compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.

Often, litigation can only be settled through an act of the legislative body of  a county or city, for example.   So, does mediation require that the City Council or County Commission convene for the mediation session?  If so (or if a sufficient number of members of that body attend), the mediation will be subject to the Open Meetings Act.

The Open Meetings Act requires, among other things, that notice of certain meetings be published to the public and that these meetings be open to the public.  On the other other hand, one of the hallmarks of mediation is that it is a process that is typically confidential, though it does not have to be.

In litigation, often the parties want mediation to be confidential.  Consider the mediation of a personal injury case.  The injured party or that party’s family may not want the public to hear or see information that is sensitive or private.  The person or entity accused of causing the injury may also be less willing to negotiate or make concessions if the matter is public, particularly if it is before voters.    Simply put, privacy can aid resolution.

So, how can negotiations with a public entity through mediation be shielded from public view?  In Georgia, only to a certain degree.

There are typically two commonly used routes that public entities use in Georgia to provide some measure of confidentiality to mediation proceedings:

The first route involves negotiating in mediation with a public entity’s representative, such as an attorney, with the understanding that the agreement forged during mediation would be subject to approval by the City Council/County Commission.  In short, this route involves creating a tentative agreement at mediation and requires a measure of faith on the part of the party opposite the public entity.   It’s usually worth the leap of faith.

The second route involves the public entity satisfying the notice requirements of the Open Meetings Act and the meeting must be open to the public.  However, there are a few instances where the Council or Commission may retreat into “executive session,” whereby the public is not permitted.  One of the authorized reasons for going into executive session is “pending litigation.”   In executive session, perhaps, a Council or Commission can discuss settlement offers during a mediation.   The approval of any settlement, of course, would require the Council or Commission to exit executive session and publicly act on the agreement.

At the end of the day, a court or a party’s insistence that a Council or a Commission be present at mediation may not only be very impractical, but also counterproductive.   As such, a little faith in the mediation process and a little faith that the public entity’s representative is not trying to waste its own time negotiating a deal that is unlikely to be approved is a recommended route that has worked time and time again in Georgia.

Reasonable Accommodations & the ADA & HR

HR professionals should give their sick leave and ADA-related policies a quick review this season.  Many employers have a policy that permits their provision of “reasonable accommodations” to disabled employees, but few really explain how the “interactive process” works when creating these accommodations.

The University of Ohio has a fairly detailed process that involves multiple steps, review of accommodation effectiveness, and other smart steps for compliance purposes.  

Employers should take note of good processes, but also consider Med-Arb as part of the process.  “Med-Arb” is shorthand for Mediation-Arbitration, a hybrid version of these processes.  Employers should give some consideration as to whether their interactive process should involve an individual, whether an employee or external vendor, to serve as a “Mediator and Arbitrator” Neutral over the interactive process.  

In so doing, the Neutral hears both sides ideas about what is and is not needed to assist an employee with successfully performing the duties of the position in light of the disability.  The Neutral can review medical information, ask questions, and attempt to forge an agreement on what accommodation would be appropriate.  If an agreement cannot be reached, then the Neutral ”makes the call” on what accommodation will be made – thereby transitioning to an Arbitrator.

Employers should give significant consideration to the use of an external Neutral in these ADA situations, as it may reduce the likelihood of discrimination, retaliation and interference claims by employees.

FINRA Arbitrator Duane Sevillian

Congratulations to Arbitrator and Mediator Duane Sevillian on becoming a FINRA Arbitrator!

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.  FINRA oversees over 4,000 brokerage firms and over a half-million registered securities representatives.  In their oversight, FINRA also facilitates mediation and arbitration of securities-related disputes.  One Mediation’s panelist, Duane Sevillian, arbitrates securities matters through FINRA and One Mediation.

Find out more on Duane Sevillian by clicking here.

New Panelist Burke Johnson joins One Mediation

Burke Johnson graduated from Emory University in 1984 and from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1987. While in law school, he was a member of the Editorial Board of the Georgia Law Review.

Burke has handled a wide variety of cases in his career, including matters related to elder care and adult guardianships; probate and estate litigation; personal injury matters arising from motor vehicle liability claims, premises liability claims (including claims for negligent security) and product liability; construction defect claims; insurance coverage claims; life, health and disability insurance claims; and ERISA benefit claims.

Burke’s experience in trying and mediating a myriad of cases over the course of his legal career provides him with a keen ability to identify the issues and bring parties together to settle cases during mediation.

Burke previously served as the Chair of the Atlanta Bar Association’s Elder Law Section. He is a registered neutral with the Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution and he has received an AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale Hubbell.

More about Mr. Johnson can be found by clicking here.

Father’s Day and Divorce

With Father’s Day upon us, many co-parents may be consulting their parenting plans to figure out whether the Father’s Day holiday trumps the “every other weekend” routine.  For parents who are reading the fine print, it suggests that they have not yet arrived at the place where they again are partners – but partners in parenting.  A real partnership will serve the kids best – and even a divorce that might not have been overly contentious can leave kids with fantasies of reconciliation and hope.

Years after his divorce, Christopher Perry can still recall minute details of the “discussion” about his leaving the home as he entered the divorce process.  However, he still celebrates his fatherhood with pride – “Lots to celebrate on post-divorce Father’s Day” (http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/06/16/dad.tells.divorce.sons/index.html?hpt=Sbin).  He notes an episode three years after the divorce when one of his children asks when he’s moving back… 

Children process divorce differently, but there are patterns as to how they might absorb it based upon their age and developmental stages.  Parents can arm themselves with knowledge of what will be important to their children’s processing of the divorce when the pleadings are filed and as they continue to grow up.  Indeed, this aspect of child development – where the trauma of divorce has left its mark – is something parents should take the time to explore as they begin figuring out “how to tell the children” and revisit as the children grow.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 152 other followers