Investigating employee harassment via social media

Previously the investigation of employee harassment within the workplace would typically have involved obtaining evidence regarding physical contact, verbal contact (face to face or via telephone) or written contact (via letters or notes or email) between a suspect and a victim. Social media has added a new avenue to the investigation of employee harassment that goes beyond the physical workplace and normal working hours. In this paper we examine the process of computer forensic investigation of employee harassment via social media and the legal aspects of such. In particular we examine employee harassment via social media in terms of the reporting of harassment, the computer forensic investigation process, the relevant UK legislation and its application, and discuss good practice guidelines for educating employers and employees regarding how to use social media in the workplace and beyond in an acceptable manner

Bullying - The Perspective of the Accused

Bullying - The Perspective of the Accused takes a practical, realistic view of interactions between people and demonstrates that accusations of bullying are not always as easy to interpret and to unravel as might be thought. This work considers that whilst research and understanding of the bullying and the effect on targets, the voice of the alleged bully is seldom heard. The confusion between performance management and bullying is considered along with a comprehensive examination of employers' duty of care, organizational policies and procedures and the levels of support offered to those accused of workplace bullying. While there are many case studies outlining shocking, undoubtedly bullying behaviour by individuals or organizations, it seems there are very few detailing the extremely negative impact on some of those who are accused

Responding to Sexual Discrimination: The effects of societal versus self-blame

While self-blame has been considered to be a useful coping tool for victims, its benefits within the context of group discrimination are equivocal. The present research hypothesized that women encouraged to engage in self-blame for sex discrimination would be more likely to endorse accepting their situation or endorse the use of individual, normative actions. In contrast, women encouraged to engage in societal blame for sex discrimination would be more likely to participate in non-normative actions aimed at enhancing the status of the group as a whole. Female students in Canada were subjected to a situation of discrimination and were encouraged to blame either themselves or social discrimination. They were then given the opportunity to respond to the discrimination by endorsing various actions. A profile analysis of the endorsed actions indicated that women encouraged to blame themselves were most likely to endorse accepting their situation, while women encouraged to blame society endorsed non-normative individual confrontation

Panel: Finding All Sides of the Truth: Investigating and Handling Employee Discipline (CLE)

Labor Case Scenario 3: Investigating and Handling Cases Involving Disciplin

Panel: Finding All Sides of the Truth: Investigating and Handling Employee Discipline (CLE)

Labor Case Scenario 3: Investigating and Handling Cases Involving Disciplin

Discounting Credibility: Doubting the Stories of Women Survivors of Sexual Harassment

For decades, federal and state laws have prohibited sexual harassment on the job; despite this fact, extraordinarily high rates of gender-based workplace harassment still permeate virtually every sector of the American workforce. Public awareness of the seriousness and scope of the problem increased astronomically in the wake of the #MeToo movement, as women began to publicly share countless stories of harassment and abuse. In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace published an important study analyzing a wide range of factors contributing to this phenomenon. But the study devotes only limited attention to a factor that goes straight to the heart of the problem: our reflexive inclination to discount the credibility of women, especially when those women are recounting experiences of abuse perpetrated by more powerful men. We will not succeed in ending gender-based workplace discrimination until we can understand and resist this tendency and begin to appropriately credit survivors’ stories. How does gender-based credibility discounting operate? First, those charged with responding to workplace harassment--managers, supervisors, union representatives, human resource officers, and judges—improperly discount as implausible women’s stories of harassment, due to a failure to understand either the psychological trauma caused by abusive treatment or the practical realities that constrain women’s options in its aftermath. Second, gatekeepers unjustly discount women’s personal trustworthiness, based on their demeanor (as affected by the trauma they often have suffered); on negative cultural stereotypes about women’s motives for seeking redress for harms; and on our deep-rooted cultural belief that women as a group are inherently less than fully trustworthy. The impact of such unjust and discriminatory treatment of women survivors of workplace harassment is exacerbated by the larger “credibility economy”—the credibility discounts imposed on many women-victims can only be fully understood in the context of the credibility inflations afforded to many male harassers. Moreover, discounting women’s credibility results in a particular and virulent set of harms, which can be measured as both an additional psychic injury to survivors, and as an institutional betrayal that echoes the harm initially inflicted by harassers themselves. It is time—long past time--to adopt practical, concrete reforms to combat the widespread, automatic tendency to discount women and the stories they tell. We must embark on a path toward allowing women who share their experiences of male abuses of workplace power to trust the responsiveness of their employers, judges, and our larger society