With the salacious details of the Sterling Jewelers pay-discrimination lawsuit still sickeningly fresh in our minds, many of us have been asking how such behavior — as alleged by some of the 69,000 former employees involved in the suit– could happen at such a large company.
From security guards with overactive wands to district managers with overheated libidos, the sexual-misconduct accusations truly run the gamut of the perverse, according to court filings.
“But don’t they have programs in place to prevent this sort of behavior?” we wonder.
For its part, the company has denied any wrongdoing. On the matter of pay and promotion discrimination, the accusations are “not substantiated by the facts,” Signet Jewelers Limited, the parent of Sterling, said in a statement. In addition, Sterling said it found the claims of sexual misconduct to be without merit.
But today’s New York Times takes a look at some of the programs that may have unwittingly contributed to the harassing behavior being alleged by the suit plaintiffs:
…[L]awyers and academics who specialize in gender discrimination say the documents — more than 1,300 pages in total — provide a rare insight into how a company’s policies work in real life. Whether it is a not-so-confidential tip line or an in-house court, they say, some widely used corporate procedures can mask problems that women often face in the workplace. Here is a look at what the documents revealed.
The Times article looks at three employee-centric programs in particular: the company’s employee hotline, its arbitration policy and its “tap on the shoulder” promotion policy.
The entire article is well worth a read, if only to remind HR leaders that, just because you have a program in place to remedy a problem, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily working. In fact, it could actually be covering up more issues than it is resolving, as Sterling is now learning the hard way.