Employer Liability and the Dignity at Work Act
Part 2 of 3
Last time, ChatGPT and I assessed to what degree the Healthy Workplace Bill addresses employer liability.
Why ask? Because employer liability is satisfactorily addressed, it is actually in the best interest of the employer to do precious little to confront workplace abuse as an organization.
Today, I turn my attention to DAWA (the Dignity at Work Act) endorsed by the National Workplace Bullying Coalition.
I asked ChatGPT:
Does DAWA resolve the dilemma of liability for the employer who would admit to the targeted employee that workplace abuse did indeed occur here?
ChatGPT:
The Dignity at Work Act (DAWA) aims to address workplace bullying and harassment, providing a framework for both prevention and recourse. The Act sets detailed requirements for employers to implement anti-bullying policies, investigate claims, and take remedial action. However, when it comes to the specific scenario where an employer admits that workplace abuse has occurred, DAWA creates a nuanced situation regarding liability.
Admission of Abuse: An employer's admission that workplace abuse occurred could serve as evidence in any claims made under DAWA. Such an admission might make it easier for the employee to prove their case.
Employer Responsibilities: Under DAWA, employers are mandated to prevent, detect, remedy, and eliminate workplace bullying. The Act requires employers to have policies and procedures in place that address these issues, which could include training, reporting mechanisms, and remediation strategies.
Liability and Affirmative Defense: Despite an employer’s admission, DAWA allows for an affirmative defense, where an employer could potentially limit their liability if they can demonstrate that they took all necessary steps to prevent and address bullying, as mandated by the Act. This includes having effective anti-bullying policies and procedures in place, conducting timely and thorough investigations, and taking appropriate corrective actions.
Impact of Admission on Legal Proceedings: An employer’s admission might limit their ability to use certain defenses, particularly if it shows that they were aware of the bullying and did not take adequate steps to stop it or failed to follow their own policies. However, if the employer can show that after admitting the abuse, they took swift and appropriate action to remedy the situation, this could potentially mitigate some aspects of their liability.
In essence, while DAWA does not explicitly solve the dilemma of employer liability in the case of an admission of workplace abuse, it does create a legal framework that encourages employers to actively manage and prevent workplace bullying. This framework could potentially reduce liability by demonstrating compliance with the Act’s requirements, even if an incident has occurred. However, an employer's admission of abuse certainly complicates their legal standing and could influence the outcomes of any legal proceedings under DAWA.
As with the HWB, that answer didn’t completely satisfy, so I asked:
If DAWA doesn't completely absolve employers from liability if they were to admit that workplace abuse occurred, how might they yet be on the hook for damages?
ChatGPT’s reply, in just over 400 words:
Under the Dignity at Work Act (DAWA), an employer's admission of workplace abuse does not completely absolve them from liability, and they might still be on the hook for damages in several ways:
Proof of Violation: An admission by the employer that workplace abuse occurred can serve as direct evidence of a violation of the Act. This admission could simplify the employee's task of proving that the abuse happened, thereby shifting the focus to the adequacy of the employer's response.
Inadequate Response: If the employer admits to the occurrence of workplace abuse but fails to take appropriate and timely remedial actions, they could be held liable for damages. DAWA requires that once aware of abusive behavior, employers must effectively address and remedy the situation. Failure to do so can result in liability for any ongoing or resultant harm experienced by the employee.
Insufficient Preventative Measures: Even if an employer admits to abuse and responds to the specific incident, they might still face liability if it is determined that they did not have adequate preventative measures in place initially. This includes the absence of comprehensive anti-bullying policies, training programs, and effective reporting and investigation processes.
Repetition of Behavior: An admission of workplace abuse indicates that such behavior occurred at least once. If the employer does not take sufficient steps to prevent future occurrences and the abuse continues, they could be liable for not only the initial incident but also for subsequent incidents.
Impact of the Admission on Affirmative Defense: DAWA allows employers to use an affirmative defense to limit liability, showing that they took all necessary steps to prevent and remedy prohibited behaviors. An admission could undermine this defense if it shows that the necessary steps were not taken prior to the incident.
Damages: Under DAWA, employers are liable for economic, compensatory, and punitive damages if they are found responsible for violating the Act. An admission could potentially increase the likelihood of punitive damages if it is shown that the employer knowingly allowed a hostile work environment.
In summary, while an admission of workplace abuse under DAWA does not inherently resolve all liability for the employer, it does influence the legal landscape by providing clear evidence of a violation. Employers must not only admit to such incidents but also demonstrate that they have effectively addressed and prevented further occurrences to mitigate liability and protect their employees.
My final question to ChatGPT:
Can you summarize then, in a single statement, what the writer of DAWA is missing re the POV of employers?
ChatGPT’s answer:
The writer of the Dignity at Work Act (DAWA) may be overlooking the perspective of employers regarding the potential for overly burdensome regulations and the need for more flexible, realistic measures to prevent and address workplace abuse without compromising operational efficiency or creating excessive legal liability.
Next time, I’ll be looking at the Workplace Psychological Safety Act, endorsed by End Workplace Abuse.
If you see the value I’m providing to the cause, please consider buying me a cup of coffee. Thanks.
Your positions about these bills don’t seem logical. Are you a Republican trying to defend your party because it doesn’t actually care about you? Accepting that would be too devastating?
What language would be necessary, do you think, for bipartisan support of workplace abuse legislation? It doesn’t seem fair to blame the Democrats. Either Republican leadership values workers’ rights (which always costs businesses money), or it does not. Why haven’t Republicans proposed such a bill? Why haven’t Republican leaders negotiated a bill with Democrats that would satisfy both parties? I’ve watched legislative sessions on this topic. Democrats are the only ones even trying to support worker rights. Businesses don’t want the expense or effort involved in protecting employees. There is no mystery here. Even Chat-GPT seems like it is trying to tell you that, although it doesn’t understand the irrationality politics inspires in people who would be too ashamed to admit they were misled or betrayed. The Republicans are the problem. Democrats support workers rights - the GOP does not. Look at your own publicly available facts. You are clearly not the enemy, Mr. Jensen - so why are you defending them?