Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Zero-Tolerance Policies Hurt Harassment Reporting and #MeToo

By Salvatore G. Gangemi on May 7, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

I’ve said before and I’ll say it again.  Zero-tolerance policies are a bad idea when addressing sexual harassment complaints.  In fact, they shouldn’t even apply to complaints about discrimination or workplace infractions.  Although zero-tolerance policies convey the impression that an employer is taking a hard line stand against conduct it wants to discourage or eliminate, the reality is a little more complicated, just like the workplace.

For example, last year when New York State issued an initial draft of its model sexual harassment prevention policy, it initially contained statements that sexual harassment and retaliation for engaging in protected activity were subject to a zero-tolerance policy.  These statements were removed in the final version, as they should have been.

Also, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) disfavors zero-tolerance policies, viewing them as a “one-size-fits-all” approach to handling sexual harassment complaints. Last year, Chai Feldblum, who was then an EEOC Commissioner, expressed concerns that a zero-tolerance policy could potentially “chill reporting.”  She expressed similar concerns in 2016 in her report issued in connection with the EEOC’s Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace.

The purpose of reporting perceived sexual harassment or discrimination is to make it stop.  An employee might not want to report harassment or discrimination if the result will be that a co-worker automatically gets fired.  Not reporting the conduct, however, makes it more likely that it will continue.  The bottom line is that some acts of harassment are so severe that termination is the only appropriate response.  However, termination might not be appropriate, for example, for an employee who has never had any problems, but was overheard telling an inappropriate joke.

The same applies to zero-tolerance statements in workplace violence prevention policies. The threat of terminating an offender might prevent complaints, which would result in an ineffective policy.  That’s not the result we want.

Employers should comb their policies to make sure that they don’t contain absolute statements that imply termination for every offense.  Policy violations, including those involving sexual harassment, must be considered on a case-by-case basis following an appropriate investigation.  As always, Murtha’s labor and employment group is available to assist you in reviewing and revising your policies as appropriate to ensure that they comply with law and are effective, as well as conducting workplace investigations.

Photo of Salvatore G. Gangemi Salvatore G. Gangemi

Salvatore G. Gangemi, a partner at Murtha Cullina, is a veteran labor and employment lawyer with nearly 30 years of litigation and counseling experience.

Employers from across the industry spectrum, including established companies in the senior living and health care fields; manufacturing, construction…

Salvatore G. Gangemi, a partner at Murtha Cullina, is a veteran labor and employment lawyer with nearly 30 years of litigation and counseling experience.

Employers from across the industry spectrum, including established companies in the senior living and health care fields; manufacturing, construction, retail and service firms; and emerging companies, seek Sal’s legal counsel to navigate today’s complex local, state and federal employment laws. His practice includes resolving disputes; advocating in courts and before administrative agencies; counseling on employment-related issues arising from acquisitions; and guiding clients in both long-range strategy and day-to-day administration of their workplaces and employees.

At the federal level, Sal brings extensive experience in OSHA investigations, audits and proceedings; the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); Title VII discrimination matters; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). He is also well-versed in state and local employment regulations.

Sal regularly represents clients in matters before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Department of Labor and other federal agencies. On the state level, he appears before the New York State Division of Human Rights; the New York City Commission on Human Rights; the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities; the Connecticut Department of Labor; and the New York State Department of Labor. He has litigated cases involving misappropriation of trade secrets, restrictive covenants, breach of employment contract, fiduciary duty and other work-related common law claims.

Clients rely on Sal’s advice on routine human resources matters that arise in their businesses, including requests for reasonable accommodation for those with disabilities, family and medical leave issues, hiring and termination, and wage and hour concerns. Known for his proactive approach to identifying issues before they escalate, he conducts compliance training on sexual harassment prevention and other topics, performs worker classification practice and policy audits, and drafts employment policies and agreements. Sal shares his knowledge of the ever-evolving employment law landscape by speaking at events, conducting continuing legal education seminars and writing articles for a variety of publications.

Read more about Salvatore G. GangemiEmailSalvatore G.'s Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Employment Law Perspectives
  • Organization:
    Murtha Cullina LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo