HR Infrastructure
Case #1: Good policies empower employees to do the right thing. – A large non-profit with several separate businesses needed HR policies that were both standardized and tailored to each organization. Employee Handbooks had to be clear for non-native English speakers, as well as introduce best HR practices and ensure legal compliance.
Starting with the two most complex businesses, Employee Handbooks were developed by Clark Associates and introduced in small all-hands meetings. Several months later a serious complaint of misconduct was lodged by two non-English speaking employees who had been intimidated into keeping silence for some time. The Handbook meetings, with explanations of key policies and guaranties of no retaliation for making good faith complaints, gave staff the courage to finally come forward.
The employer promptly authorized an investigation and took quick action, resulting in a much healthier work culture and proof that management would take all employees’ concerns seriously. The employer was pleased the complaint was resolved quickly and the underlying problem was unlikely to recur.
Case #2: Rapid growth, even more rapid retrenchment. – A start-up technology company with big ambitions needed immediate staffing and HR infrastructure. Using contract recruiters, Clark Associates developed a comprehensive staffing and compensation program. Then we helped recruit an experienced HR director to help the company grow. We developed HR infrastructure (e.g., policies, benefits, compensation) to support the client’s goal of being acquired or going public.
A few years later, when IPO/acquisition opportunities failed to materialize and the HR director had left, Clark Associates designed and implemented a “soft landing” staff reduction.
Case #3: What is an employer's responsibility to disabled employees? – A professional services company was asked by a pregnant employee about benefits during her leave. They were at a loss to explain the complex and overlapping legal requirements in light of company policy. What about working part-time from home after the baby was born? Could they replace her while she was gone? What about pay?
Clark Associates showed the employer what disability laws applied and how to integrate legislated benefits with company benefits. We illustrated how the employee should be paid during her absence. Everything was summarized in a letter that provided a roadmap for the entire leave of absence.Internal Investigations
Case #1: She said, he said. – A young woman filed a police complaint of sexual assault against a male building security guard. Claiming he was wrongfully accused, the guard countered with a complaint that that he had been assaulted by the young woman. There were further accusations of racial discrimination and the guard’s union got involved. Management’s counsel requested Clark Associates do an independent investigation to determine what happened and whether to fire the security guard.
There were no witnesses or usable video evidence, so the investigation had to rely on in-depth interviews, analysis of logs and records, and the personal credibility of each party. While facts were not conclusive, a reasonably clear picture emerged. It was thoroughly documented in case there were further problems. Management was presented with several options once the investigation was finished. The dispute was resolved without civil or criminal proceedings.
Case #2: Where there was smoke, there was fire. – Employees complained about their supervisor to HR. The supervisor and her manager responded that the complaining employees were poor performers trying to avoid disciplinary action. HR was uneasy because there was a history of complaints and rumbling from employees in the department. After several internal inquiries, HR turned to Clark Associates for a neutral investigation.
Our interviews revealed misconduct by the supervisor beyond what was currently alleged. Using targeted IT research, specific documents were found that substantiated the employees’ complaints. The department was reorganized; the offensive supervisor, dismissed.
Case #3: There was a problem, but not what they thought. – An African-American warehouse employee alleged racial discrimination by his new Asian supervisor. Clark Associates’ investigation decided the complaint was unfounded, but there was other unreported discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, nepotism, favoritism and a potential hostile work environment.
As a result of the investigation, the company’s legal counsel worked with management to strengthen HR practices, train the local HR representative, and re-educate local management regarding preventing discrimination and sexual harassment.Expert Witness
Case #1: How good was the internal investigation? – An employee, dismissed for poor performance, filed a DFEH charge of pregnancy discrimination and further alleged that stress caused by the employer’s disciplinary process caused her to miscarry. Counsel asked Clark Associates to review the quality of management’s internal investigation.
Clark Associates reviewed all relevant documents to evaluate the employer’s fact-finding process. On the eve of depositions, while awaiting a ruling on the defense’s motion for Summary Judgment, the plaintiff withdrew her case.
Case #2: The Board fires a spendthrift CEO. – As an Unemployment Insurance claim was under appeal, counsel for a medical device manufacturer asked Clark Associates to review the Board’s decision to fire the CEO. This investigation had to rely on careful review of internal documents going back almost two years.
Our report detailed lavish personal expenses charged to the company by the CEO, as well as other inappropriate conduct. We presented the findings at a Board meeting and testified for the company at an Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board hearing. The company was pleased to have their decision confirmed.
Case #3: Each case stands on its own merits. – When a former HR Director sued her municipal employer for wrongful termination, counsel approached Clark Associates to be an expert witness for the plaintiff.
After a review of the primary documents, we could not fully support the plaintiff’s claim that her termination was without merit. We reported our concerns to her counsel, who continued the search for an expert witness.
