Firm revises harassment policy
Under the changes, Holland & Knight's managing partner has sole discretion in determining the accused's guilt or innocence, and imposing penalties.
By SCOTT BARANCIK
Published May 4, 2005
The women, all young lawyers in the Tampa office of Holland & Knight, were irate.
An internal committee investigating their claim against Tampa partner Douglas A. Wright found he had violated the law firm's sexual harassment policy. But managing partner Howell Melton Jr. disputed some of the committee's findings and chose not to impose the toughest punishments it recommended.
The resulting clash eventually helped push Holland & Knight into a public controversy and Melton into the thick of a leadership crisis.
It's a scenario that's unlikely to happen again.
Shortly after Holland's internal committee completed the Wright case last summer, the firm's director's committee revised the sexual harassment policy to give the managing partner sole discretion in the outcome of such cases. Under the new policy, the Fair Employment Practices Committee serves only a fact-finding role, no longer reaching conclusions or recommending penalties. Instead, the managing partner alone determines the accused's guilt or innocence and what punishment, if any, is appropriate.
The change was part of a sweeping yearlong overhaul Holland officials say brought its sexual harassment policy in line with current legal trends, and that outside experts called a change for the better.
Holland officials downplayed the significance of the change in the role of the FEPC.
"The final authority is essentially unchanged," general counsel Kin Cannon said. "You're talking about ceding power; I don't think that's the case at all. It's just that under the new policy, the FEPC does not go through the process of crafting sanctions."
Cannon called the change a sensible way to limit the administrative burden on FEPC members and speed the resolution of harassment cases.
Martha Barnett, a Tallahassee partner who chairs the director's committee, said there was no connection between the timing of the June 29 revision and the Wright case.
"There was absolutely no consideration given by the director's' committee (in approving the new policy) to any particular case that had been presented to the FEPC," she said. "Indeed, the director's' committee had no reason to know about any particular case that might be pending or had been resolved by the FEPC, because that information is confidential."
Outside experts who compared Holland's old and new policies liked many of the updates.
Gary J. Anton, an adjunct professor at Florida State University's law school and one of only 182 Florida attorneys who are board-certified in labor and employment law, said the policy does a better, if not perfect, job of explaining how to report harassment and of compelling witnesses to come forward.
"I definitely look overall at the changes being made as a positive remedial measure," said Joan Vecchioli, a board-certified shareholder at Johnson Pope in Clearwater and chairwoman of the Florida Bar's labor and employment law certification committee.
But the decision to reduce the FEPC's responsibilities is one of several policy revisions that expanded the powers of Holland's top executive. Given Melton's controversial decision in March to make Wright the firm's third-ranking officer just months after reprimanding him for sexual harassment, it's a decision some Holland lawyers may question.
Last month, Chicago partner Charles Knight wrote Melton a seven-page e-mail that said promoting Wright showed "an astonishing and unacceptable lack of judgment" and urged Melton to resign. Firm managers tried to confiscate copies of the letter, though some refused to give it up.
"I don't think the changes in formal structure are as important as who the managing partner is," said Deborah Rhode, a Stanford law professor who wrote a 2003 pamphlet for the American Bar Association on sexual harassment in the legal profession. "Then as now, that person has enormous power. The key is having someone in that role who is widely respected and responsive to gender-related concerns. It needs also to be someone who will consult broadly and ensure that the investigation is, both in fact and appearance, fair to all concerned."
The Wright case erupted into controversy in late March when a copy of the investigation report was anonymously leaked to local newspapers. Wright promptly resigned his leadership post.
The revised harassment policy contains several other notable changes:
Gone is a requirement that the FEPC issue partners an annual summary of sexual harassment cases investigated and their resolution. "I don't know personally what (the report) accomplishes," Cannon said, "other than to give somebody a barometer of the number of instances in a year . . . and provoke people's curiosity," which could jeopardize the parties' confidentiality.
Members of the FEPC are appointed by the managing partner. Under the old policy, the FEPC found its own replacements, though the managing partner had to approve them.
By adding office business managers to the FEPC, every Holland location is represented on the FEPC.
Times staff writer Kris Hundley contributed to this report. Scott Barancik can be reached at barancik@sptimes.com or 727 893-8751.