Employees Terminated: Could there have been a better outcome?

Two lively young women work as aides in a nursing home. One evening, as they are preparing a resident for bed, they start goofing around, and one of them takes a video of the other, with the bewildered resident in the background. Then, as young people so often do, they post the video on Instagram. A viewer alerts the nursing home. Now what should happen to these employees?

The correct legal response is, termination. Although the resident was not physically harmed, and this was not malicious, it was a clear violation of HIPAA, and the employees knew this very well. They don’t deserve to continue to work at this facility, and residents are safer without them.

But then what happens? The young women apply to work at another facility, disguising the fact of, or at least the reason for, their previous termination. They speak ill of their former employer to anyone who will listen, because they’re bitter about being fired for what they consider to be a minor offense. Meanwhile, the facility hires new workers, who may be tempted to make the same mistake as their predecessors.

Could there be a better outcome?

What if the employer slowed down the response? What if the employees were suspended, instead of terminated, while everyone figured out next steps? What if the young women, when confronted with the enormity of their actions, were asked what they thought would be an appropriate response? What if the resident and family were consulted on what response they’d like to see—and could express their pain to the offenders if the employees still thought it was “no big deal”? What if this incident were viewed as an opportunity for education as well as punishment?

If one goal is to impress on these young people the dangers of social media, job loss makes a big impression. But there are other ways to make that impression: what if they had to acknowledge publicly what they did? Another goal is to remind all staff that HIPAA violations are taken seriously; firing an employee is one way to do that, but there are other ways: what if the offending employees had to give a workshop on the stupidity of posting videos of residents, especially ones who could not consent? Might that be more powerful than hearing it from supervisors? Might it make a stronger impression on the offending employees?

What if the offenders were encouraged to consider whether they were remorseful enough to apologize to the resident and family, as well as to staff, and maybe even other residents? That too could make a powerful impression on the offenders, while allowing the incident to be acknowledged instead of hushed up. And it would allow some relational closure, with the residents and with other staff, that immediate termination prevents.

Termination is always an option; but what if it were the secondary option instead of the first?

My relative was the resident in the video. The employees were fired immediately. But I’m left to wonder: could there have been a better outcome?

Pastor as Mediator

Pastor Lester L. Adams posted a good article on mediate.com, “The Minister, Mediation and the Protective Order,” advising pastors how to deal with a domestic violence case involving a couple in the church. His article includes both what to do (stop the meddling, cut off the gossip) as well as what not to do (don’t take sides, don’t give legal advice even if you’re qualified to give it). Especially helpful is the advice, as the title indicates, regarding response to a protective order, and how to ensure that both spouses continue to attend church services while honouring the order. Pastor Adams rightly emphasizes tending to the spiritual health of both parties, including the need for repentance and possibly discipline, all with the goal of restoring the relationship.

Pastor Adams is himself a mediator so it makes sense that he would attempt to mediate a marital dispute involving a couple in his church. (I have not had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of Pastor Adams; I discovered this article on mediate.com.) In my experience, many pastors are neither called nor qualified to serve as the actual mediator, and will be more helpful serving as a spiritual advisor and counselor while someone else serves as the mediator. So I would footnote his assumption that the pastor will serve as mediator, to suggest that the pastor should carefully discern what role to play in the process, and not attempt mediation without some training.

But his overall message is important. Many pastors have no idea how to respond to domestic violence allegations within their flock; this article offers a thoughtful, biblical approach that could be helpful to many church leaders.

 

Actor’s Apology: “A New Low”

Actor Shia LaBeouf issued an apology this week for his disrespectful behavior towards police officers who arrested him last weekend. He was arrested in Savannah, Georgia, last Saturday, and charged with disorderly conduct and public drunkenness. The police body-camera video of his behavior during the arrest was released and posted on CNN, showing him hurling epithets at the officers and resisting their attempts to subdue him. I broke down the tweeted apology to add some comments:

“I am deeply ashamed of my behavior and make no excuses for it.” This is a good start. We hold our breath to see whether the offender will indeed refrain from making excuses as the apology unfolds.

“I don’t know if these statements are too frequent, or not shared enough…” I have no idea what he’s talking about here; this would’ve been better omitted.

“… but I am certain my actions warrant a very sincere apology to the arresting officers, and I am grateful for their restraint. The severity of my behavior is not lost on me.” An essential element of a sincere apology is to be specific about the offensive behavior. It’s not clear here that the offender knows specifically what he did, but at least he knows it was bad. Acknowledging the other party’s restraint in the face of the offender’s offense is admirable. It would’ve been even better had he acknowledged the impact on those officers.

“My outright disrespect for authority is problematic to say the least, and completely destructive to say the worst. It is a new low. A low I hope is a bottom.” Acknowledging the severity of the behavior, and the impact on others generally, is good.

“I have been struggling with addiction publicly for far too long, and I am actively taking steps towards securing my sobriety.” Victims want to hear how the offender plans to avoid the offensive behavior in the future; if he’s really sorry, he’ll be specific about behaving differently from now on, is their thinking. While mentioning addiction can sometimes sound like an excuse, here it sounds more like an admission of the problem. But, given Mr. LaBeouf’s history on this issue, it may lack the credibility necessary for an effective apology.

“… and I hope I can be forgiven for my mistakes.” The last element of a good apology, according to Peacemaker Ministries’ “7 A’s of Confession”, is to ask for forgiveness.

This apology has some nice turns of phrase (“the severity of my behavior is not lost on me”; “a low I hope is a bottom”) and does not try to minimize the misconduct.

So, scoring according to the “7 A’s of Confession,” giving 2 points maximum for each element for a possible total of 14 points:

  1. Address everyone involved – 2 pts
  2. Avoid “if,” “but,” “maybe” – 2 pts
  3. Admit specifically – 1 pt
  4. Acknowledge the hurt – 1 pt
  5. Alter behavior – 1 pt
  6. Accept consequences – 1 pt
  7. Ask for forgiveness – 2 pts

Total: 10 out of 14. Pretty good apology!

New Congressman Apologizes for Assault

Greg Gianforte won a special election yesterday for Congressman from Montana. His acceptance speech last night included an apology for assaulting a reporter the day before.

“When you make a mistake, you have to own up to it. That’s the Montana way. Last night, I made a mistake and I took an action that I can’t take back, and I’m not proud of what happened. I should not have responded in the way that I did, and for that I am sorry. I should not have treated that reporter that way, and for that I am sorry, Mr. Ben Jacobs. That’s not the person I am, and that’s not the way I’ll lead this state. Rest assured, our work is just beginning, but it does begin with me taking responsibility for my own actions.”

Jacobs allegedly questioned Gianforte Wednesday about his position on health care, and Gianforte responded angrily; the two got into a scuffle, during which Jacobs’ glasses were broken. The Gallatin County sheriff issued a warrant to Gianforte on a charge of misdemeanor assault, for which he’ll answer next week. Gianforte’s campaign office originally blamed Jacobs for the incident, but last night, Gianforte took responsibility. Both House Speaker Paul Ryan and Reporter Ben Jacobs had said publicly that an apology would be appropriate.

The apology itself is not bad. He calls it a “mistake” and says he’s “not proud” of it. He says he’s sorry, and names the reporter he harmed. He sounds contrite. He doesn’t specify exactly what his mistake was but, with criminal charges pending, perhaps he was advised by counsel not to admit guilt. A good apology offers plans for avoiding similar offenses in the future, and this one has none of that. (His “rest assured” offers no assurance for rest.)

What undermines this apology is the timing. He waited until after he’d won the election. Would he have apologized had he lost? We would have admired him more had he apologized immediately, willing to accept the consequence of losing the election. But it takes courage to apologize publicly, perhaps even moreso in the midst of an otherwise happy event. He will not regret it.

First Do No Harm

Australian mediator Greg Rooney posted an interesting article on mediate.com this month, The Profound Apology, about managing apologies in mediation. Three aspects stand out: (1) Don’t permit an offender in a sexual abuse case to apologize to the victim; (2) Prepare each party ahead of time by telling them not to prepare; (3) An example of a formal apology that might come from an institution responsible for harm done.

(1) Not permitting an abusive offender to apologize: In cases involving sexual and extreme physical abuse, he advises against permitting an offender to deliver a personal apology to the victim, out of fear that the original harm will “be compounded” for the victim. Instead, he advises mediators to follow the rule of “do no harm,” by having a third party apologize on behalf of the actual offender.

The advice to “do no harm” is sound. It comports with the mediator’s ethical duty to honor party self-determination by truly eliciting what the parties—not just one, but all, and not their lawyers but the clients themselves—seek to accomplish in the mediation. This duty takes on heightened importance in cases of power imbalance, such as those involving sexual or physical abuse; sexual harassment could be added to this category. If the victim in mediation still has less power than the offender, the victim might agree in mediation to hear the offender’s apology, not out of the victim’s desire for an apology but rather out of fear of the offender, thus perpetuating the abuse. This is the concern Rooney would have mediators avoid. I imagine Rooney is making it a blanket statement because mediators cannot always discern whether a party is agreeing to hear an apology out of genuine desire or out of a sense of coercion, so it’s safer simply to adopt a rule of never permitting an abuser to apologize directly to their victim.

I have not mediated a case involving sexual or physical abuse, but I know colleagues who have done so. In some cases, permitting the abuser to apologize (in Christian cases, to confess sin) to their victim can begin the healing for both parties. While “do no harm” may be their default stance, mediators also need to discern when to “do some good,” by permitting offenders to apologize to their victims in those rare cases where it may help.

(2) Preparing each party for a mediated apology: Rooney recommends that the mediator develop a personal relationship with both the victim and the offender to discern whether an apology will be helpful. But he then advises that the offender not prepare ahead of time what to say. This is the opposite of my practice, so I’m intrigued by Rooney’s reasoning: He acknowledges this is a “paradox” that “helps create dissonance” and believes it draws the offender “away from the rational intellectual plane,” which is essential if the offender is going to connect personally with the victim.

Having presided over delivery of ineffective apologies, my response as a mediator has been to prepare both parties carefully. I typically give the offender the “Seven A’s of Confession” from Peacemaker Ministries as an outline to help them collect their thoughts, encourage them to write out their thoughts, and even rehearse with me privately. I also typically talk with victims about their expectations, and how they’ll respond if they don’t hear everything they want. In my experience, people appreciate this aid.  Not preparing them feels like abandonment. But I do like Rooney’s emphasis on the importance of the offender connecting personally with the victim. I wonder if preparation and personal connection are mutually exclusive; perhaps the ideal mediator does both?

(3) Example of a formal apology: Rooney also describes the very different situation where a person apologizes on behalf of an institution (a police department, a church, a business, etc.). Here he agrees that preparation helps, and offers a sample of what the person might say. Mediators could add this sample to their tool-kit to aid in these situations.