CORPORATIONS IN DARK ABOUT DISCIPLINE FOR CELEBRITY EMPLOYEES
Recent legal woes of celebrities including Canadian journalist Jian Ghomeshi, comedian Bill Cosby and NFL players Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice illustrate how public opinion prompts employers to impose punishment in lieu of due legal process.
In each case, when employers for each man first learned of misconduct, their reaction was muted. And in each case, when new information appeared on social media and was promoted in traditional media, public outcry and sponsor concerns prompted employers to impose much stricter punishments without regard for legal implications of their decisions.
When Ghomeshi first had conversations with his superiors after allegations surfaced about his practice of rough sex, he was put on indefinite leave -- not fired. http://bit.ly/1ya1wm4 Ray Rice was suspended two games by the NFL when he was charged with assault in February after punching and knocking his then fiancee unconscious in the elevator of an Atlantic City casino. http://bit.ly/1vyp55W Reports of Cosby assaulting women were circulating for years before his latest partnership with NBC to create a new family comedy to debut next year. http://nyti.ms/1rIg4Yy When Peterson in May was found to have disciplined his four-year old son by hitting him with a wooden stick called a switch, the Minnesota Vikings de-activated him for one game in September. http://bit.ly/1HPPkdj
To date, legal proceedings are progressing against Ghomeshi, Rice and Peterson. However the NFL, CBC and NBC cut ties with Peterson, Rice, Ghomeshi and Cosby in advance of any legal resolution or decision of current cases. The NFL ruled Peterson ineligible to play football again until the 2015 season. Rice was suspended indefinitely by the NFL. Ghomeshi was fired by the CBC. NBC canceled the show Cosby had in development and Netflix cancelled a stand-up Cosby comedy special. Several concert venues have cancelled their dates and TVLand pulled lucrative re-runs of The Cosby Show from their schedule. http://reut.rs/1B3rnxb It's clear these employers were motivated to punish their employees more to respond to the outcry of the public and sponsor concerns rather than protect the rights of the accused.
The law punishes some crimes much less harshly than the public expects. For example, according to New Jersey prosecutor Jim McLain, even if Rice had been tried and convicted of second-degree assault, he would not have gone to jail. http://bit.ly/1y0yQa6 . Added to this societal-legal imbalance is the long time span for the legal process to run its course in these times where instant gratification is expected in all things from overnight delivery to legal decisions.
These examples are the pioneering steps into a dangerous area of corporate 'frontier justice' where innuendo and media sensationalism prompt snap judgments that replace measured decision-making based on evidence and due process. Corporations are appeasing the public today with punishments that open themselves up to future legal challenges from the accused that could have serious implications on their businesses.
It's a "shoot first, ask questions later" strategy that sacrifices long-term stability at the alter of short-term expediency. As a precursor of the messy situations created by these corporations, an arbitrator on Friday 11/28 overturned the NFL's indefinite suspension of Ray Rice, making him immediately eligible to play football again for any team he signs with. http://nyti.ms/11GdmWV
The decision called the penalty 'arbitrary' and in conflict with the facts of the case.
Companies have wide latitude to treat employees as they choose and to revise and adjust discipline according to corporate guidelines and employment agreements. A better solution for high-profile cases that involve criminal charges may be to impose an indefinite suspension with pay while legal issues are resolved while allowing the accused to seek other employment and end their current contract if they are hired elsewhere.
A consistent and measured response by management that can be applied equally to all employee activity involving criminal investigation or charges is in the interest of both parties.
