As with last week, all remains relatively quiet in COVID-19 news, notwithstanding that we keep hearing about surges and subvariants in other parts of the world. As I reported way back the first week of March, Los Angeles City Council members voted 12 – 0 to repeal the ordinance that required many indoor venues to check the vaccine status of patrons. We all thought that would be followed by a quick draft by the City Attorney. But apparently, they had another vote, and because this time there was one dissent, it now goes to a full session on March 30 with a draft proposal. And yet, I have not been anywhere in Los Angeles that has checked my vaccination status in the last two weeks. Most people are looking the other way. But I warn you, it is, for now, still the law. And in West Hollywood, I have seen no movement to change anything. So stay tuned, again, all.
THE OSCARS – A REMINDER TO NOT USE SOCIAL MEDIA AS AN INVESTIGATION TUTORIAL
Many of us were witness to the chaos that erupted last night at the Dolby Theatre when Will Smith seemingly out of nowhere arose from his seat, strode down the runway, belted Chris Rock, the dialogue was silenced for quite a bit of time, and the trajectory of the show was thereafter changed. Since then, most of us have heard the full dialogue, learned that the blow was a “slap,” and social media has taken over in its judgment on the events. The memes abound. One person announcing on Twitter said just now “if you defend Will Smith in his actions on this, you can just go ahead and defriend me.” Such harsher words were never spoken on social media.
We reach conclusions on social media instantaneously. Not only do we make snap judgments; we post them for all the world to see. Now, while I could go into a diatribe on my issues with social media, instead, I want to contrast this process in the employment world. As employers, we have a legal duty NOT to jump to those kinds of rash conclusions. We have an obligation to do a much more thorough job of investigating and hearing all sides before we come to any conclusion about what occurred, even though we often think we know what the outcome will be.
And this happens all the time in the workplace. Clients call me and say that they have a complaint of harassment. The alleged victim is very convincing. Maybe the event, like here, was witnessed by many. Or maybe we even have an altercation in the workplace, like here, and let’s say someone threw the first blow. Or we think we have caught someone with all the evidence of embezzlement. The inclination is often to call the person in to fire them – before we have even heard that person’s “side of the story.” YOU ALWAYS, ALWAYS, have to hear the other side of the story. That is what we, as investigators, must do. California law says that we do not have to perfect, omniscient, or even “right” in our investigations. In fact, we could be outright wrong. Years ago, the California courts decided a case of Cotran v Hollins Hudig Hall. There, a supervisor was accused of harassing three separate women in the workplace. The company did a very thorough investigation, spoke with many witnesses, and had strong evidence of his involvement with these women. But when they confronted the supervisor, he vehemently denied having any involvement with any of them. After he was fired, it turned out that in fact, he had dated them. All of them. He came back and admitted that he was in consensual relationships with them and he lied to the company while he had been employed. Later, the three women admitted that they found out that he was dating all of them, at the same time, and got together to get him in trouble. So the relationships had been consensual. But since the supervisor denied the relationships completely, the court said, the company had no way of knowing. HE lied and said he wasn’t involved with them. The company did a very detailed investigation, so they were exonerated. They didn’t have to be mind readers, just charged with doing a good faith investigation and coming up with a good faith decision.
So let’s look at Chris Rock and Will Smith. What do we know? What could have made Will Smith so upset. I didn’t understand the “GI Jane” comment. Why was it so triggering? That is always the first thing I ask my clients when there is an altercation – who started it and why. It may not excuse the violence, but I always want to know context, because if there is punishment to be taken against the perpetrator (and there may be a decision that has to be made by the Academy), context may be relevant. So it turns out that apparently the comment was made in reference to Will Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, and the fact that she was bald. Why was she bald? According to social media, she has Alopecia, a condition I know well because one of my dear friends has battled it for years. I know the pain, the stigma, and the tears it has caused her. I now have a better understanding of the emotions that drove Will Smith to erupt the way he did. Did Chris Rock have any sense of Jada Pinkett Smith’s condition? As an employer, that would be highly relevant, especially if these two had worked together (and might have to continue to work together). And we would need to find that out. Here, I doubt it; hard to imagine that the joke was told with malice. But we would definitely need to know more if this were a workplace situation. Maybe even talk to witnesses, co-workers.
So now if you are an employer and you know this situation, you would have a decision to make. How long have these two employees worked together? Do you have a zero tolerance policy about any kind of violence in the workplace, regardless of the triggering situation (in other words, how have you handled other employee altercations in the workplace before?) What is Will Smith’s history as an employee? Same with Chris Rock? All those kinds of issues would be relevant.
In our personal judgment of the Oscar situation, you can all come to your own conclusions, and the Academy will come to its own, obviously. Personally, as a mother of a daughter with special needs, I can relate to the part about feeling protective when people make hurtful comments about someone you love. The mama bear comes out in me, too. But of course, violence is NEVER the right response, and especially in front of that audience, where it steals the thunder from a very deserving Questlove and everyone else who deserved to be recognized that night (and SO many did). But at least I can make that final conclusion after I have digested far more information than I had in the first five minutes.
I do hope that Will and Chris find a way to mend fences. I actually respect them both in their fields. And remember what I keep saying about people being fragile during this pandemic? I think you just witnessed another example last night. I warned you – the trauma coming out of this pandemic is far from over, and no one is immune from it.
Wednesday is the Viking River Cruises oral argument. If anyone wants to wake up early, I can send them the link. Fingers crossed, all!
Until then, stay safe and have a good week, and take deep breaths yourselves.
#StandWithUkraine