MSN Hotmail -
      adrsi@hotmail.comPrinted: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 1:35 AM 





      From :  Employment Practices Solutions 
      <epexperts-coravue@list.epexperts.com> 
      Reply-To :  EPS <eps@epexperts.com> 
      Sent :  Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:49 PM 
      To :  <adrsi@hotmail.com> 
      Subject :  HR Experts' Musings: Learning From the Disasters of Others 







            HR Experts Musings:
            Learning From the Disasters of Others
            Authors:
            Laurie R. Jones, Esq., SPHR, President
            ljones@epexperts.com
            Denise Kazlauskas, Esq., SPHR, Consultant, Denver
            dkazlauskas@epexperts.com
            Stephanie Davis, Esq., Consultant, New Jersey, Tri-State Area
            sdavis@epexperts.com
            Did you ignore my clients complaint before or after you retaliated 
            against her?

            I understand you heard my clients complaints. You took no notes?

            You previously stated that your organization takes harassment very 
            seriously. Please tell the jury how often you trained your employees 
            and management on the subject?

            So if you dont have a human resource manager or human relations 
            director and your policy states to report experiences of sexual 
            harassment to your supervisor or human resources manager what do 
            you do to inform employees of how they should report problems 
            concerning allegations of sexual harassment by their supervisor? 
            Answer: We havent done anything else.
            These are all questions from real attorneys to real defendants in 
            discrimination lawsuits. Are you prepared to answer them? Will your 
            answers help or harm your employer? Finally, is your organization 
            ready to withstand the scrutiny an expert will make into every facet 
            of the employment relations decisions at issue? 

            With over three decades of combined experience working with hundreds 
            of managers and human resources professionals, first as employment 
            attorneys, and currently as human resources consultants, the authors 
            have enjoyed consulting on numerous organizations human resources 
            practices and policies. This experience enables us to offer our 
            services as expert witnesses in employee relations litigation, 
            testifying on behalf of clients as to the sufficiency of 
            investigations, policies, training and other management practices. 
            In the role of consultant, we constantly strive to help our clients 
            stay one step ahead of litigation: to proactively address and 
            resolve issues before they reach an attorneys desk. In the role of 
            expert witness, we have the rare opportunity to view the conflict as 
            a third party much like the jury and judge would do, and to opine 
            whether the organization acted within acceptable parameters within 
            the human resources industry. Wearing both hats for this article, we 
            will share some observations from our combined expert experience to 
            assist employers in proactively addressing employee relations 
issues.
            Training: If A Thing Is Worth Doing, Do It Right The First Time
            Since Faragher and Ellerth, many courts have stated that simply 
            having an anti-harassment policy is not enough the organization 
            must show that the workforce received and understood the policy. 
            While some organizations have successfully shown an effective 
            distribution process as part of this defense, most rely on training 
            their employees to get the message across. Many states mandate 
            sexual harassment training by law; however, even in states that do 
            not legally require training, employers face significant liability 
            if they fail to provide comprehensive and accurate training to 
            employees. All aspects of sexual harassment should be covered, 
            including recognizing and identifying sexual harassment, responding 
            to claims of harassment, and conducting prompt and thorough 
            investigations. The reason for this is clear: imagine sitting next 
            to your front line manager during a deposition when s/he is asked to 
            define sexual harassment. In our experience, the answer that 
            spills forth rarely reflects the organizations policy and, even 
            worse, is often completely incorrect. He had a copy of our manual 
            and the monthly memos the organization sent out detailing the policy 
            and what we consider to be unacceptable behavior, you think to 
            yourself as you are kicking him under the table. Unfortunately, most 
            employees do not open that manual their employer so carefully 
            crafted, nor do they retain much of what they do read. 

            It is common sense: An organization spends money on what it believes 
            is important. Persuading a jury to believe that the organization 
            highly values diversity and stands firmly against harassment in 
            every way when the organization has failed to spend even 30 minutes 
            in training on the subject is a hard pill to swallow. Experts will 
            rail against your organizations efforts as meaningless and juries 
            may follow. Even the briefest of training sessions allows the 
            employer the opportunity to focus very specifically on its equal 
            opportunity policies as well as deliver a resounding message of zero 
            tolerance. The employees retention level is heightened by an 
            interactive process rather than leaving them to the passive role of 
            merely reading (or not!) a policy. Conducting internal training not 
            only reduces liability at trial, but also employees ignorance of 
            the values your organization holds dear. 

            Create and conduct training with care, however. Attempting to 
            present topics such as anti-harassment or diversity with unskilled 
            trainers or outdated content can easily lead an organization right 
            back into the liability tar pit it was seeking to avoid. Many 
            harassment complaints include an allegation that the training 
            provided by the employer, if any, was inadequate or inaccurate. 
            Challenges often encompass the ability or skills of the trainer, 
            discriminatory content included in the training provided, or lack of 
            attentiveness of the trainer or inaction on the part of the trainer 
            to control role-playing or eliminate discriminatory references or 
            content occurring during the training. Experts who evaluate training 
            procedures in light of harassment complaints will analyze the 
            qualifications of the trainer, and will critically evaluate every 
            aspect of the training, including training materials, transcripts of 
            the sessions, and documents and notes that were taken during the 
            training. 

            In a specific example, EPS was retained as an expert for a 
            restaurant chain that was being sued for discrimination. The 
            complaint revolved around conduct that occurred in a management 
            diversity training class. The trainer asked the class the following 
            hypothetical: If white patrons are seated at a table that is 
            serviced by a black waitress and the patrons ask to be moved to a 
            white servers table, how should you handle that request? The 
            trainer had little experience in diversity or harassment training 
            and even less experience with litigation of these issues. 
            Unfortunately, the trainers advice was not only incorrect, but also 
            against company policy. The company was left with a lawsuit trying 
            to explain that the trainers advice was not the companys position. 
            This is not a comfortable place to be. Once the organization is 
            willing to invest the time and resources necessary to conduct 
            training, make sure it utilizes the most appropriate trainers and 
            course materials possible. Otherwise, save those dollars for defense 
            attorneys.
            Personnel Policies: Silence Is NOT Golden!
            Some misguided organizations reason that it is better not to have 
            personnel policies. Written policies put mischievous ideas into 
            peoples heads some think. Others hypothesize that by not having 
            written policies, their organization will avoid trouble for failing 
            to follow them. Though the landmark Supreme Court decisions 
            addressing sexual harassment, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton1 and 
            Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth,2 do not specifically mandate 
            that employers have a written policy in order to succeed with the 
            affirmative defense, most have incorporated explicit policies in an 
            effort to prevent harassment. Recent statistics show that as many as 
            ninety-fiver percent (95%) of U.S. employers currently have 
            anti-harassment polices.3 Not having a policy, therefore, looks very 
            suspicious to a jury. It is likely that an employment practices 
            expert, like one of us, will testify that most employers now 
            implement policies and that accepted human resource practice 
            requires organizations to have a harassment policy. In our opinion, 
            the lack of a policy speaks volumes about an organizations sincere 
            interest in maintaining a harassment free workplace. 

            In our experience, the majority of problems arise in open door 
            policies and procedures and anti-retaliation provisions. 
              Open Door Policies -- Employers are required to have multiple 
              reporting avenues and opportunities for people to report 24/7, 
              particularly if the organization is a round-the-clock business. 
              The EEOC Guidelines, Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer 
              Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, No. 915.002 
              (June 18, 1999), recommend a policy and complaint procedure that 
              contains a clearly described and accessible complaint procedure. 
              (emphasis added). It is well established that an organization who 
              fails to provide adequate reporting avenues or who has an 
              illusory reporting policy without the means or intention of 
              following through, will be found as having a deficient policy if 
              an employee challenges the procedure. Yet, many organizations we 
              see have not properly assessed their reporting and investigation 
              procedures for weaknesses or holes in the process. For example, in 
              a case involving a night janitor at a college who was stalked and 
              assaulted by another employee, the court found that while the 
              college had a grievance policy that addressed reporting of 
              harassment, the policy was deficient and inadequate in addressing 
              employee problems in a twenty-four hour operation. The court 
              stated that a policy requiring someone to report to his or her 
              Supervisor or to the Director of Personnel, where the supervisor 
              or Director was located in a separate facility and is not 
              accessible during the evening or weekend hours when many employees 
              and students are on the various campuses, was deficient.4 Another 
              similar example was outlined in the opening of this article where 
              the Companys policy indicated that the proper reporting channels 
              were the Supervisor or Human Resource Manager, but the 
              organization never hired a Human Resource Manager.

              As experts, we have opined as to the lack of availability of 
              employees to whom incidents of misconduct of harassment behavior 
              should be reported and the stifling effect that limited reporting 
              opportunity can have on the ability of an organization to properly 
              address employment-related issues. For example, to address the 
              issue of availability of their twenty-four hour operation, one 
              company has instituted a confidential e-mail address that filters 
              directly to human resources and is checked regularly, affording 
              employees the opportunity to present a concern or complaint at 
              their work station or through company computer kiosks. This same 
              organization has also enlisted an employee hotline that is staffed 
              sixteen hours per day and utilizes a voice messaging service that 
              pages an operator for the remaining eight hours per day. In any 
              event, the individuals concern will be heard by a live, trained 
              party within eight hours maximum of the precipitating phone call 
              or e-mail. 

              Furthermore, the open door concept means that even if an employee 
              ignores the delineated complaint procedure and reports his/her 
              concerns to someone who is not designated in the policy, the 
              organization should nonetheless, receive and process the complaint 
              appropriately. In our experience, it is not uncommon for a manager 
              to stop a complaining party mid-sentence and suggest that they 
              contact the complaint intake personnel designated by employer 
              policy. Because this practice could have a chilling effect on 
              harassment complaints, it is not consistent with best employment 
              practices, and all employees who work in human resources or are of 
              a management or supervisory level (or higher) should know how to 
              identify and appropriately address harassment complaints. 
              Similarly, some employers require a written, signed statement of 
              harassment or discrimination before the employer would begin to 
              address the concern. This practice is also discouraged due to the 
              chilling potential.

              Anti-Retaliation Provisions  Of course, all anti-harassment 
              policies should clearly explain that retaliation against those who 
              assert their rights under the policy or who participate in a 
              harassment investigation is prohibited. Some organizations have 
              gone a step further by explicitly warning against bad faith or 
              maliciously false complaints, or implicitly doing so by stating 
              that they will not tolerate retaliation or adverse action against 
              employees who bring internal complaints in good faith. The 
              purpose of such admonitions is to discourage employees from 
              manufacturing allegations and to make clear that if they do so, 
              they will be duly disciplined. The position of the Equal 
              Employment Opportunity Commission is that such provisions can 
              amount to unlawful retaliation because they imply the employer 
              determines bad faith and they deter reporting.5 Therefore, 
              including such a clause may amount to trouble for the employer.
            Complaint Procedures: Doing Whatever It Takes
            In our expert experience, employers committed to resolving 
            complaints and mitigating harm to both complainants and alleged 
            harassers take certain measures to ensure reasonable and prompt 
            corrective action is taken once a complaint is lodged. Such measures 
            typically include immediately stopping the harassment, promptly 
            conducting a thorough investigation, and taking any and all 
            appropriate correction measures. Best practices in the industry 
            suggest the following steps be taken with regard to correcting 
            harassment when an organization becomes aware of an issue or 
            receives a complaint:
              Stop the Harassment: Time Is Of The Essence
              The EEOC Guidelines indicate that an employer should take 
              immediate and appropriate corrective action by doing whatever is 
              necessary to end the harassment, make the victim whole by 
              restoring lost employment benefits or opportunities, and prevent 
              the misconduct from reoccurring. EEOC Policy Guidance on Current 
              Issues of Sexual Harassment, Mar. 19, 1990, No. N-915-050. While 
              there is no definitive legal guidance on what is prompt remedial 
              action and circumstances will differ for each case, some examples 
              of poorly handled complaints come to mind that provide a 
              foundation for what an expert would deem inappropriate. For 
              example, take the case of an organization that became aware of 
              alleged same-sex harassment on a Thursday. The allegations as 
              relayed to a Company Board Member were egregious enough to curl 
              your toes, including testimony by the complaining party, a 
              traveling sales executive, that his Sales Manager repeatedly asked 
              the man to engage in sexual activities, obtained keys to the sales 
              executives hotel room, and threatened to tell the Sales 
              Executives wife about a sexual relationship between the two men. 
              Nonetheless, the employer did not take any action until the 
              following week. The parties were expected to spend one or two 
              additional evenings out of town together, were expected to return 
              to their home state on the same flight, wait the weekend, and 
              return to work the following Monday in the same facility before 
              anyone in management addressed the issue. The parties were not 
              immediately separated as would be expected for immediate 
              corrective action. Standard industry practice would suggest making 
              scheduling changes to avoid contact between the parties or placing 
              the alleged harasser on a paid non-disciplinary leave pending a 
              complete investigation.
                
              Investigate The Complaint Thoroughly And Impartially: 
              Opportunities Favorite Disguise Is Trouble, Frank Tiger. 

              It is our opinion that selecting the proper investigator is an 
              essential first step in conducting a proper investigation. Several 
              considerations typically enter into choosing an investigator 
              including privacy, attorney-client privilege, employee rights, and 
              the training and preparedness of the selected investigator. 
              Impartiality is also a major concern regarding a proper 
              investigation. An investigation that is handled promptly, fairly 
              and effectively can actually positively impact the workplace not 
              only by attending to and eliminating the negative behavior, but by 
              bolstering employee confidence in the system. Conversely, an 
              inappropriate or ineffective investigation will have a 
              corresponding deleterious effect on the work environment. 

              In one case where we were asked to provide an expert opinion, the 
              employer chose an investigator with marginally relevant 
              experience. She was never trained on performing harassment 
              investigations, nor did the employer have regular training for the 
              general workforce or management, on preventing discrimination and 
              harassment. This investigator waited two weeks before initiating 
              the investigation, tape recorded her interview with the 
              complainant, but not the accused, failed to remind the 
              interviewees about confidentiality and non-retaliation, 
              interviewed no other witnesses, admitted in a deposition that she 
              concluded the harassment did occur, but never reported that 
              conclusion to anyone, never followed up with the complainant while 
              the harassment persisted, and was generally unfamiliar with 
              internal policy and procedure, as well as the law. Of course, this 
              investigation was ineffective in our opinion, and we wrote as much 
              in our expert report. However, the damage did not stop there. That 
              workplace was riddled with communication problems and conflict 
              that continued to escalate after the ineffective investigation. It 
              is not surprising that external6 complaints of harassment 
              increased exponentially in the months subsequent to that 
              investigation, as employees were left with little confidence in 
              the internal process.
                
              Taking Appropriate Corrective Action: An Ounce of Prevention

              Another frequent downfall of an organizational investigation is 
              the failure to properly conclude the investigation, document the 
              results, and determine the outcome. In many cases the 
              organizational investigation is inconclusive; therefore, the 
              employer is hesitant to determine whether the alleged conduct 
              occurred or if any of the parties should be disciplined, counseled 
              or reprimanded. Instead, the employer just calls it a day and 
              moves on to the next issue. In one case, an opposing expert stated 
              that the companys investigation into allegations of sexual 
              harassment were thorough and adequate considering the fact that 
              there were no witnesses to the allegations, making the allegations 
              he said, he said in nature. We challenged this opinion as an 
              incomplete and negligent investigation. It is our opinion that 
              even in the not uncommon scenario of a total absence of witnesses, 
              employers can assess the credibility of the parties, the 
              surrounding circumstances, ulterior motives, and behaviors, to 
              assist in forming a conclusion and identifying remedial actions 
              that the organization can undertake to ensure that inappropriate 
              conduct does not occur going forward.

              Further, in our opinion an employer should never assume that the 
              problems have ended simply because the situation has seemingly 
              resolved itself. Even if an investigation is inconclusive as to 
              whether harassment occurred, and the organization is justified in 
              taking no substantial corrective action against the accused, 
              corrective action is not only about disciplining a harasser but 
              also about righting the situation of the complainant and making 
              improvements in the workplace when necessary. Employers who use 
              these situations as learning tools to reevaluate current policies 
              and/or implement effective anti-discrimination policies and 
              procedures are better prepared and responsive in the event that 
              another complaint surfaces in the future. 
            Recordkeeping: Lest We Forget 
            Good recordkeeping practices are often the key to minimizing 
            employment challenges. In many cases, when the organization can 
            point to well articulated, dated, and complete employment 
            documentation that is authenticated, the employee challenging an 
            issue or decision may reconsider given the sound recordkeeping 
            practices. On the other hand, shoddy recordkeeping looks terrible to 
            a jury and minimizes the jurys faith in the organizations 
            practices and credibility and may cause the jury to doubt the 
            employers integrity. It is Murphys Law that if an employee files a 
            complaint regarding unfair treatment in the work environment, s/he 
            is the one employee in one hundred that you failed to collect a 
            signed employee handbook acknowledgement from upon hiring. An expert 
            will opine as to the incomplete, and therefore questionable, 
            recordkeeping practices of the organization as a whole. A jury may 
            construe that as careless, or even reckless, behavior on the part of 
            the employer and punish the employer for failing in its duty to 
            practice proper recordkeeping standards.

            On the flip side, an employer may have too many documents. In one 
            case, the defendant employer had a complete second set of personnel 
            files in a supervisors office that was never disclosed to their 
            attorneys or the plaintiffs until well into the case. It was only 
            after the expert was interviewing the manager and casually inquired 
            as to the whereabouts of documentation regarding a supervisors 
            discipline that the expert learned of this second (different) set of 
            files. The manager, at that point, said he suspected that it was not 
            in the personnel file because the department manager had a practice 
            of keeping disciplinary write-ups in a separate file locked up in 
            the department and not forwarding it to the permanent employee 
            file. The defendant had a hard time explaining the failure to 
            disclose so late in the game and we would expect the plaintiffs 
            counsel to use that late disclosure as ammunition at trial.
            Performance Evaluations: Ignorance Is BlissUntil It Comes Time To 
            Terminate A Poor Performer 
            Why does Jane have to be told again that she is doing a poor job? 
            Isnt that just cruel? Why do you have to write down conversations 
            relating to performance management? Why cant we just turn the other 
            way and let Jane take her own time to improve? After all, its 
            easier that way, right? WRONG! Seasoned human resources 
            professionals and experienced management know that there is nothing 
            worse than ignoring poor performance. While Janes performance might 
            not be that bad now, what is around the corner for Jane? What 
            happens if she has a quick and unpleasant downturn in attitude and 
            productivity? Terminating her with acceptable written reviews in her 
            file (or, more commonly, no reviews or written evaluations at all in 
            her file), opens the organization to liability and severe employee 
            morale issues. 

            While the authors understand that Jane may have had every 
            opportunity to improve because you spoke to her daily about her 
            performance, this does not always persuade the jury of the same. 
            Where is the evidence? they will ask. Regardless of the law, 
            juries expect everyone to be treated fairly, as they would want to 
            be treated. Terminating an employee with no evidence of a warning or 
            opportunity to improve goes against this fundamental expectation. 
            Further, jurors are often instructed to listen to experts for 
            assistance in understanding how an organization should have handled 
            the performance crisis and what steps organizations usually take in 
            managing performance. I have been asked on numerous occasions to 
            discuss best practices in the human resources industry relating to 
            performance management. How often should an employee be told to 
            improve? How much time should the organization allow for improvement 
            before taking steps such as suspension or termination? As in every 
            employee relations scenario, there is no simple right or wrong 
            answer that applies to every case. A complete failure to supervise a 
            poor performer prior to termination for that same lack of 
            performance is, however, unacceptable. The jury will conclude that 
            it is unreasonable and unconvincing to discipline someone for a 
            fault they were ignorant of; therefore, the organization must have 
            been acting with another purpose. The jury will then look to an 
            alternative reason for termination offered by the plaintiffs 
            counsel, such as retaliation, discrimination, etc. Following best 
            practices and managing performance issues as they arise will 
            alleviate the need for jurors to find alternative causes of 
            discipline.

            Not only should organizations continually work with poor performers 
            to improve and document counselings, they should also ensure 
            performance is measured with input by as many people as possible 
            with oversight by a single (if possible) reviewer to ensure accuracy 
            and fairness. An organization recently hired us for expert advice in 
            a sexual harassment/discrimination case. The key problem from our 
            perspective was that the employee was supervised by her father for 
            years with no input by others on her review. Needless to say, every 
            review under her fathers supervision was exceptional. After her 
            father retired, her new supervisor had serious concerns with her 
            performance. Apparently, her co-workers and peers also had similar 
            concerns about her work conduct during her fathers supervision, but 
            had no avenue to express them. After receiving low evaluations from 
            her new manager, and no raise, she complained of discrimination and 
            harassment. The companys battle was up-hill: explaining to the jury 
            that she had always been a poor performer while the documents spoke 
            otherwise. Allowing formal input on reviews by co-workers, peers or 
            other managers would have alleviated this conundrum, as would a 
            central oversight committee or management official who could have 
            seen the potential for abuse in the father/daughter reporting 
            relationship.
            Termination: Breaking Up Is Hard To Do
            Terminating someones employment is rarely easy. Occasionally, you 
            are more than happy to see the last of an employee; however, more 
            often the termination is painful for both the employee and the 
            organization. Handling a termination in a respectful, professional 
            and gentlemanly manner not only speaks well of the organization, it 
            often avoids costly litigation. Is it always necessary to escort a 
            terminated employee from the building with an armed guard? Of course 
            not. Is it sometimes necessary? Absolutely. Parading an employee in 
            front of their peers in such a manner, however, should be used only 
            when absolutely necessary for the event will often predictably be 
            followed by a process server. An armed escort is necessary only when 
            safety is a real concern. 

            Another common termination misstep is terminating someone while they 
            are on leave. While sometimes necessary, terminations of an employee 
            on leave should be handled with supreme care and thoughtfulness. A 
            reduction in force during an employees leave might require a 
            termination. Or, an employee has failed to return to work after the 
            time allowed by organizations policy. Again, either of these could 
            be valid reasons for termination. The cases where the organization 
            runs afoul of fair play are terminations for poor performance or 
            misconduct. The employee returns to work only to find they have no 
            desk and their personal belongings are boxed in the storage room. 
            When they ask their co-workers what is happening, they hear, didnt 
            you know? Herb said he fired you! While this sounds like an absurd 
            scenario, it is real and happens regularly. Herb, seeking to avoid a 
            confrontation or too uncomfortable to tell the employee to her face 
            why she is fired, took the easy way out, termination by ambush. An 
            expert will offer guidance to the jury on the normal and acceptable 
            steps to take in the termination process. Surprise and embarrassment 
            do not have a place in this process. 


            In conclusion, this article attempts to forewarn organizations that 
            every action, or inaction, your organization engages in with respect 
            to employment decisions and challenges is subject to scrutiny during 
            an employment complaint or legal challenge. Be prepared, act 
            promptly, thoroughly, and accurately in employment issues, document 
            and file appropriately, and respond effectively to disciplinary and 
            termination issues. Be prepared to speak confidently and with 
            assurance regarding your employment policies and practices and never 
            underestimate the strength of the microscope an expert evaluating 
            your case will use. 
            1 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
            2 524 U.S. 742 (1998).
            3 Frank Dobbin and Erin Kelly, A Tale of Two Sectors: the Spread of 
            Anti-Harassment Remedies among Public and Private Employers, 
            (forthcoming publication in comment phase) (on file with authors). 
            4 See, e.g., Wilson v. Tulsa Junior College, 164 F.3d 534, (10th 
            Cir. 1998); Ocheltree v. Scollon Productions, Inc., 335 F.3d 325 
            (4th Cir. 2003).
            5 Jathan Janove, The Faragher/Ellerth Decision Tree, Society for 
            Human Resource Management, , Sept. 2003 www.shrm.org/articles.html
            6 By external we are referring to complaints that are not handled 
            internally, i.e. by state/federal agencies or courts.
            About the Authors
            Laurie R. Jones, Esq., SPHR, President After graduating from the 
            University of Virginia School of Law, Laurie practiced exclusively 
            in the area of employment and labor law with the Dallas office of 
            Littler Mendelson, PC. In 1996, she left the practice of law and 
            co-founded EPS. Laurie heads EPS nationwide-consulting and training 
            business, supervising investigations and managing expert witness 
            projects performed by EPS personnel. She has been a featured speaker 
            and author on employment topics on numerous occasions. A noted 
            expert in the area of investigations and employment law, Laurie has 
            been published in business and legal publications and is a frequent 
            reference for the media. ljones@epexperts.com 
            Denise Kazlauskas, Esq., SPHR, Consultant Denise graduated cum laude 
            from Georgia State College of Law following years of experience as a 
            Human Resources Manager and Consultant with Coopers & Lybrand, LLP. 
            She practiced exclusively in the area of employment law with Littler 
            Mendelson, PC, and in 1999 joined EPS as an employment consultant 
            focusing on training, investigating, and providing expert witness 
            services in employment-related matters. Denver, Colorado office. 
            dkazlauskas@epexperts.com
            Stephanie Davis, Esq., Consultant Stephanie has five years of hands 
            on experience practicing employment law at several New York 
            plaintiffs' firms. Stephanie is admitted to the New York and New 
            Jersey bars. Since joining EPS, Stephanie has facilitated employee 
            and management training on numerous employment-related topics, 
            investigated and reported on internal employee complaints, and 
            functioned as an expert on several employment cases. New 
            Jersey/Tri-State Area office. sdavis@epexperts.com
            About EPS 
            Employment Practices Solutions, Inc., www.EPExperts.com is based in 
            the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex with offices in Atlanta, Houston, 
            Los Angeles, Denver, Colorado Springs, Boston, New York, New Jersey, 
            Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. EPS provides organizations with 
            assistance in Spanish and English in preventing and minimizing 
            workplace employment claims and lawsuits by providing the highest 
            quality human resources consulting available, including: 
              Employee, management, executive, and human resources training 
              Complaint investigations and hotline services 
              One-on-one sensitivity training 
              Mediation and facilitation of employment disputes 
              Expert testimony 
              Training videos and reference products 
            Corporate Headquarters: 502 N. Carroll Ave. Suite 100
            Southlake, Texas 76092
            800/727-2766

             


            Copyright 2003 Employment Practices Solutions, Inc. All Rights 
            Reserved.
            Feel free to reprint any articles from this newsletter with 
            appropriate notification to eps@epexperts.com and attribution to 
            author and publication. 
            We respect your privacy and will not release your email address to 
            any third parties. If you are an employment attorney or HR 
            professional and would like to submit an article, please contact us: 
            eps@epexperts.com. Questions or comments? eps@epexperts.com. 
            To unsubscribe go to 
            http://epexperts.coravue.net/exec/gt/ct_u.html,user=1c99fed66821. 
            You are subscribed as: adrsi@hotmail.com 

