The Genpact Case: Lessons for HR Professionals
The Genpact case of sexual harassment and the unfortunate suicide of an AVP due to charges of sexual harassment (SH) against him by two women employees, and the management's action of his suspension, has sent chilling waves among HR professionals, internal committee members, and women employees across the board. After the Me-Too movement, the issue of sexual harassment has once again come to the center of debate, but this time it has a different angle. The incident has brought forward a few dimensions to understand and take some lessons from it because the senior executive who committed suicide left a note stating that the allegations of sexual harassment against him were false. He was not given an opportunity for a hearing and was suspended. His wife has lodged an FIR against top company management executives and IC members for committing the offense of abetment of suicide. The matter is under investigation. Without commenting on the merit of the case, organizations and especially HR professionals may draw the following lessons:
1. Handling Sexual Harassment Complaints
Though the complaint of sexual harassment should be taken up with due sensitivity and priority, the panic button should not be pressed in all incidents. In this case, it appears, as reported in the media, that on the day of complaints, the AVP was put under suspension, he was not allowed to work from home, and his access to his computer was also disallowed. Here, the complaints should have first gone to the IC. Then it was for the IC chairperson or any member, as may be deputed, to initially investigate the complaints to assess the correctness and gravity, interview the complainants in camera, and if prima facie the complaints were found to have a case of SH, the IC is under obligation to issue a show cause notice to the respondent (Harasser) with a copy of complaints and documents provided by complainants asking him to reply to the complaints. Though management has powers to suspend the employee as per his terms of employment or service rules in cases of misconduct, the POSH law does not give any powers to the employer to suspend the respondent (Harasser) immediately on receiving the complaint against him. The employer can transfer such a person to some other location on the recommendation of IC after a request from the aggrieved woman employee. If the organization has no such rules or policy or terms of employment prescribing the disciplinary procedure, drawing powers of suspension, duly agreed by the employee, it may be difficult for any organization to justify such action because it is not a case of a workman who falls under certified standing orders applicable to him. The matters of SH not only involve two employees but two independent lives leaving an impact on their families and society as a whole. It can make or break.
2. Investing in Prevention
Instead of preferring a redressal mechanism only, organizations also need to invest much in the prevention of incidents of sexual harassment because it is more of a social evil having its deep root in a male-dominated society than a workplace or legal issue. This can be achieved by constantly coaching, training, and making all aware of the do’s and don’ts about such issues. Workplace culture has to be tuned up with zero tolerance for such incidences so that a safe and dignified environment is provided to women employees. At the same time, it should not be undermined that male colleagues also have some social existence and dignity. Striking a balance between the two is a must. Unless charges of sexual harassment are proved, organizations must hide the identity of the respondent too, as mandated by law. Nowhere does the law permit disclosing the identity of complainants and the respondent. Proceedings are to be held in camera.
3. Understanding Sexual Harassment
There is still much confusion among employees and organizations as to what constitutes sexual harassment or sexual abuse. Workplace culture determines acceptable behavior to a great extent. Employees should be well-versed in this. IC members are also not fully trained to conduct inquiries into the complaints of sexual harassment. The inquiry under POSH law is quite different from the normal domestic inquiry management conducts in disciplinary matters involving acts of misconduct. Organizations should prioritize getting IC members trained in this respect.
4. Role of IC Members
IC members should act impartially and judiciously. They should not be afraid of any consequences because the IC is discharging its duties by investigating and inquiring into the charges of complaint mandated by law. IC cannot be accused of abetting the suicide of someone merely because the committee is inquiring into the matter against him unless deviating from the laid-down procedure or acting with bias or their actions or orders indicate abetment to suicide.
5. Encouraging Women Employees
Women employees should not get discouraged or scared of such unfortunate incidents. They should continue to speak up truthfully and genuinely. The law has given women a legal arm to guard them against sexual harassment at the workplace, but it is a double-edged weapon. If it is used to malign someone or take revenge or meet self-interest, it may harm not only that woman but also cast a shadow on other genuine victims at large.
6. Avoiding Mechanical Reactions
Organizations should not act mechanically in such incidents and overreact just to demonstrate their sensitivity towards such matters. Every complaint should be dealt with with the same sensitivity and dignity; otherwise, in the long term, organizations may have to bear a heavy cost in terms of image and employer branding.
7. Legal Precedents
There are judgments of the Supreme Court where it is held that management officers are to be held responsible for abetment to suicide merely on the note of the deceased unless some other material evidence and facts exist and co-relate confirming abetment. However, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The Genpact case of sexual harassment and the unfortunate suicide of an AVP due to charges of sexual harassment (SH) against him by two women employees, and the management's action of his suspension, has sent chilling waves among HR professionals, internal committee members, and women employees across the board. After the Me-Too movement, the issue of sexual harassment has once again come to the center of debate, but this time it has a different angle. The incident has brought forward a few dimensions to understand and take some lessons from it because the senior executive who committed suicide left a note stating that the allegations of sexual harassment against him were false. He was not given an opportunity for a hearing and was suspended. His wife has lodged an FIR against top company management executives and IC members for committing the offense of abetment of suicide. The matter is under investigation. Without commenting on the merit of the case, organizations and especially HR professionals may draw the following lessons:
1. Handling Sexual Harassment Complaints
Though the complaint of sexual harassment should be taken up with due sensitivity and priority, the panic button should not be pressed in all incidents. In this case, it appears, as reported in the media, that on the day of complaints, the AVP was put under suspension, he was not allowed to work from home, and his access to his computer was also disallowed. Here, the complaints should have first gone to the IC. Then it was for the IC chairperson or any member, as may be deputed, to initially investigate the complaints to assess the correctness and gravity, interview the complainants in camera, and if prima facie the complaints were found to have a case of SH, the IC is under obligation to issue a show cause notice to the respondent (Harasser) with a copy of complaints and documents provided by complainants asking him to reply to the complaints. Though management has powers to suspend the employee as per his terms of employment or service rules in cases of misconduct, the POSH law does not give any powers to the employer to suspend the respondent (Harasser) immediately on receiving the complaint against him. The employer can transfer such a person to some other location on the recommendation of IC after a request from the aggrieved woman employee. If the organization has no such rules or policy or terms of employment prescribing the disciplinary procedure, drawing powers of suspension, duly agreed by the employee, it may be difficult for any organization to justify such action because it is not a case of a workman who falls under certified standing orders applicable to him. The matters of SH not only involve two employees but two independent lives leaving an impact on their families and society as a whole. It can make or break.
2. Investing in Prevention
Instead of preferring a redressal mechanism only, organizations also need to invest much in the prevention of incidents of sexual harassment because it is more of a social evil having its deep root in a male-dominated society than a workplace or legal issue. This can be achieved by constantly coaching, training, and making all aware of the do’s and don’ts about such issues. Workplace culture has to be tuned up with zero tolerance for such incidences so that a safe and dignified environment is provided to women employees. At the same time, it should not be undermined that male colleagues also have some social existence and dignity. Striking a balance between the two is a must. Unless charges of sexual harassment are proved, organizations must hide the identity of the respondent too, as mandated by law. Nowhere does the law permit disclosing the identity of complainants and the respondent. Proceedings are to be held in camera.
3. Understanding Sexual Harassment
There is still much confusion among employees and organizations as to what constitutes sexual harassment or sexual abuse. Workplace culture determines acceptable behavior to a great extent. Employees should be well-versed in this. IC members are also not fully trained to conduct inquiries into the complaints of sexual harassment. The inquiry under POSH law is quite different from the normal domestic inquiry management conducts in disciplinary matters involving acts of misconduct. Organizations should prioritize getting IC members trained in this respect.
4. Role of IC Members
IC members should act impartially and judiciously. They should not be afraid of any consequences because the IC is discharging its duties by investigating and inquiring into the charges of complaint mandated by law. IC cannot be accused of abetting the suicide of someone merely because the committee is inquiring into the matter against him unless deviating from the laid-down procedure or acting with bias or their actions or orders indicate abetment to suicide.
5. Encouraging Women Employees
Women employees should not get discouraged or scared of such unfortunate incidents. They should continue to speak up truthfully and genuinely. The law has given women a legal arm to guard them against sexual harassment at the workplace, but it is a double-edged weapon. If it is used to malign someone or take revenge or meet self-interest, it may harm not only that woman but also cast a shadow on other genuine victims at large.
6. Avoiding Mechanical Reactions
Organizations should not act mechanically in such incidents and overreact just to demonstrate their sensitivity towards such matters. Every complaint should be dealt with with the same sensitivity and dignity; otherwise, in the long term, organizations may have to bear a heavy cost in terms of image and employer branding.
7. Legal Precedents
There are judgments of the Supreme Court where it is held that management officers are to be held responsible for abetment to suicide merely on the note of the deceased unless some other material evidence and facts exist and co-relate confirming abetment. However, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.