Corporate Services, Inc.
208 Kishwaukee St. · Rockford, IL 61104
(p) (815) 962-8367 · (f) (815) 962-0940

Harassment Investigations: How Good Is Good Enough?


When an employee reports an allegation of sexual harassment, they trigger a duty on the part of their employer to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation.

Sexual Harassment Complaint Form
Sexual Harassment Complaint Form

But how prompt is prompt enough — and how thorough does the employer have to be?

She was a senior manager

Emily Forsythe worked as a senior manager at Wayfair. In August of 2019, she sent an email to Matt Witte — who used to be her supervisor but had moved on within the organization.

In the email, Forsythe accused a co-worker, Michael McDole, of sexual harassment. McDole was not Forsythe's supervisor.

She said he touched her legs and shirt. She also said he talked about online dating and asked her about her dinner plans. He also sometimes sent her "aggressive, critical emails," she added.

Witte sat on the email about the alleged sexual harassment for four or five days. Then he sent it to Wayfair's human resources department. Human resources investigated, asking Forsythe if there were any direct witnesses. She said there were not.

Sexual harassment is alleged

Human resources also talked to another employee about the relationship between Forsythe and the alleged harasser. That person did not substantiate Forsythe's allegations of sexual harassment.

At about the same time that she sent her email, Forsythe told a friend outside the organization what was going on. She did not volunteer that information in connection with Wayfair's investigation, and Wayfair did not specifically ask her if there was anyone outside the company who could back her story.

In the end, the human resources investigator told Forsythe that he was unable to substantiate her allegations. That happened about a month after Forsythe sent her email.

Forsythe said her direct supervisor then threatened to remove her from his team. In an email to human resources, she accused the supervisor of retaliating against her. But the same person in human resources again told her he was not able to substantiate her allegation.

Forsythe eventually resigned. She later sued Wayfair, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and Massachusetts law.

A lower court ruled against her, and she filed an appeal.

Employee appeals

On appeal, Forsythe insisted that Wayfair did not conduct an adequate investigation.

She said Wayfair dropped the ball by relying solely on the accused harasser's denials to reach its conclusion that her allegations were not proven.

In addition, she added that if human resources had only asked her, she would have given Wayfair the name of her friend, who did not work there but could corroborate her allegations.

But the appeals court was not swayed in Forsythe v. Wayfair Inc..

Wayfair followed up on every lead Forsythe provided, the court said. No meaningful lead emerged that Wayfair did not pursue, it added.

Moreover, there was nothing to indicate Wayfair would not have followed up on any other meaningful information Forsythe provided, the court said.

Forsythe asked for too much when she faulted Wayfair for not asking her if anyone outside of the organization could corroborate her story, the appeals court said. There was nothing to show Wayfair prevented or discouraged her from volunteering that information, it added.

It may have been more prudent for Wayfair to ask that question, the court observed. But it was not legally required to do so, it ruled. Wayfair's investigation was good enough to avoid liability, it decided.

The appeals court affirmed the ruling in favor of Wayfair.

Lesson: If an employee alleges sexual harassment, conduct a prompt and thorough investigation.

Best practice: Ask the employee for all sources of information that could help their case, regardless of whether those sources are inside or outside the organization.

Posted In: Sexual Harassment; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)

Want to know more? Read the full article by at HR Morning

More News from Corporate Services, Inc.

Good-Faith Belief Is Not Always Enough

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court poked holes in what many considered an infallible employer defense to employee discrimination claims known as the "good-faith belief" doctrine.more

Texas District Court Narrowly Stays and Enjoins FTC's Non-Compete Rule

On July 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a limited stay and preliminary injunction of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) final rule that would render almost all non-compete agreements, with very limited exceptions, unenforceable (commonly referred to as the "Non-Compete Rule").more

Texas District Court Narrowly Enjoins White-Collar Overtime Regulations

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a limited injunction of the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) new regulations increasing the minimum salary that certain executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) employees must be paid to qualify for the so-called "white-collar" exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). more