The National Labor Court published a ruling recently regarding employers’ obligations when investigating complaints pursuant to the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law.

In the case at hand, the complainant studied and worked at a university as a statistician. The accused was a senior faculty member, who was one of the complainant’s lecturers as well as her work supervisor. The appointed officer for sexual harassment prevention at the university also had collaborative work relations with the accused lecturer.

The complainant filed a sexual harassment complaint against the accused to the officer. Considering the close association between the officer and the accused and their collaborative work relations, the officer asked to appoint an alternative investigator to conduct the investigation of the complaint. The university began investigating the complaint six months later, after various efforts to find an alternative investigator who fulfilled the threshold criteria for performing the role. The university only issued a summary report of the investigation eleven months after the complaint was filed. It found that the accused had committed acts of sexual harassment, inter alia, by way of frequently voicing sexual innuendos to female subordinates.

Regional Labor Court Ruling

The Regional Labor Court ruled there were several failures in the university’s conduct. These included the time it took to investigate the complaint, which was longer than expected; the university did not take action to distance the accused from the complainant; and the university did not forward a copy of the summary report of the investigation to the complainant. In light of the failures, the Regional Labor Court awarded the complainant compensation totaling ILS 100,000 and legal expenses totaling ILS 30,000.

The National Labor Court’s Ruling

The National Labor Court overturned the ruling and ruled that the university had acted pursuant to the provisions of the law. Even though a long period elapsed from the filing of the complaint until the conclusion of the investigation (11 months), the court found this a reasonable period under the circumstances, because the employer took action to find an alternative investigator in order to ensure a substantive and comprehensive investigation.

The National Labor Court further ruled that there was no practical possibility of distancing the accused from the complainant, and that there was no defect in the university’s conduct in this regard.

The National Labor Court’s ruling shows there is no fixed or standard format for the proper conduct of an investigation pursuant to the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law. Rather, complaints should be clarified within their specific context while considering the unique issues that arise during the process.

Notwithstanding the National Labor Court’s ruling, we recommend you not accept matters at face value and continue to conduct investigations pursuant to the provisions of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Law and its regulations. In particular, you should be diligent about conducting investigations that are efficient, discreet, and fair toward all those involved.

[View source.]