Workplace Affairs Fraught With Danger

Connecticut employers shouldn’t wait for an ESPN — or David Letterman-style sex scandal to land on their doorsteps before addressing that kind of legal, financial and public-relations liability, experts say.

Firing an employee — as the Bristol sports programmer did last week, ousting both baseball commentator Steve Phillips and a female production assistant after their tumultuous affair became embarrassingly public — is but one option for employers, legal, business and ethics scholars say.

But even among businesses that lack the glamour of sports and TV celebrity, the best course is a regular review and update of policies on harassment and workplace fraternization, experts say. Also in order is a review of employees’ contracts to ensure that employers can terminate them for contractual breaches that include sexual harassment.

Those are some of the lessons for employers from these two episodes in which a high-profile celebrity or commentator had a relationship with a much younger female co-worker.

Letterman, longtime host of his eponymous late-night talk show on CBS, was the target of an alleged $2 million extortion plot by the boyfriend of a member of his show staff with whom Letterman admitted at one time having a sexual relationship.

In ESPN’s case, the Phillips episode is the latest in a series of public — and private — allegations of sexual harassment or inappropriate fraternization between on-air personalities or managers and subordinates. The ESPN cases underscore a rising tide of these kinds of workplace abuses.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which oversees workplace discrimination complaints, 13,867 sexual harassment complaints were filed nationwide in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008. In fiscal 2007, 12,510 complaints were filed, up from 12,025 in fiscal 2006. In fiscal 2006, 12,679 were filed.

Boston workplace attorney Richard Glovsky said it shouldn’t be hard for employers — especially ones where celebrities often rub elbows with the rank-and-file — to avoid these kinds of entanglements.

“It’s a context fraught with danger,’’ said Glovsky, who chairs the employment group at Prince Lobel Glovsky & Tye. “Any employer who doesn’t recognize that a high-profile or on-air personality or executive who has a relationship with someone who reports to him … then they have a great deal to learn.’’

ESPN spokesman Mike Soltys said ESPN permits workers with equal job duties to date. He said ESPN regularly reviews and updates its harassment policies and realizes that it may have to communicate them better to employees.

Karla Fox, professor of business law who also teaches business ethics at the University of Connecticut, said her impression is that many employers have taken steps to prevent sexual harassment among employees.

These include clearer definitions and examples of sexual harassment, better training for supervisors in handling complaints, and a clear recognition of their responsibilities and duties as outlined by various sex-harassment court cases, beginning in 1998.

In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court, through its rulings this decade, has made it clear that it is not enough for employers to just draft and hand out non-harassment policies and guidelines to employees, Fox said. They must, the court has held, support those guidelines with a formal process for collecting and investigating complaints when they arise, she said.

“It’s uncomfortable and awkward,’’ Fox said. “Even investigations (of allegations against an employee) can be bad for a career.’’

For employers, Glovsky said, the threat of high-dollar court judgments and bad publicity is usually enough to push employers to respond properly when complaints surface.

“First and foremost, it’s the adverse publicity,’’ he said, that many companies seek to avoid.

At the same time, attorneys for the alleged victims openly use the court to push lurid details of an affair into the public, seeking to drive publicity about the case and push the parties toward a settlement.

Glovsky, whose clients have or had operations or employees in Connecticut, said beyond annual checkups of their sex-harassment policies, he has other advice for employers.

One is that when it comes to on-air personalities or others whose work makes them publicly visible is that employers review their contracts to ensure the agreements aren’t an impediment to them taking disciplinary steps in situations where sexual harassment is involved.

Training also is important for employers in regulating appropriate behavior, Glovsky said. That may include instructing them on some of the limitless number of situations, conversations and images that may constitute sexual harassment.

“The best they can do is make their policies as clear as they can make them,’’ Glovsky said.

Some employers are starting to ban fraternization between co-workers, a policy not easily policed during employees’ off hours, he said.

But since many workplace relationships tend to be out in the open, he said employers might consider a policy permitting employees to notify them about co-workers who are in a relationship.