Here’s the entire thing if you don’t want to go to that link:

There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest employment and labour law firms in Western Canada.” They work with both private and public sector employers.

To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same. Now that the investigation is complete, we’re able to provide a summary of the findings.

The investigation found that:

  • Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

  • Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

  • Any concerns that were raised were investigated. Furthermore, from reviewing our history, the investigator is confident that if any other concerns had been raised, we would have investigated them.

  • There was no evidence of “abuse of power” or retaliation. The individual involved may not have agreed with our decisions or performance feedback, but our actions were for legitimate work-related purposes, and our business reasons were valid.

  • Allegations of process errors and miscommunication while onboarding this individual were partially substantiated, but the investigator found ample documentary evidence of LMG working to rectify the errors and the individual being treated generously and respectfully. When they had questions, they were responded to and addressed.

In summary, as confirmed by the investigation, the allegations made against the team were largely unfounded, misleading, and unfair.

With all of that said, in the spirit of ongoing improvement, the investigator shared their general recommendation that fast-growing workplaces should invest in continuing professional development. The investigator encouraged us to provide further training to our team about how to raise concerns to reinforce our existing workplace policies.

Prior to receiving this report, LMG solicited anonymous feedback from the team in an effort to ensure there was no unreported bullying and harassment and hosted a training session which reiterated our workplace policies and reinforced our reporting structure. LMG will continue to assess ongoing continuing education for our team.

At this time, we feel our case for a defamation suit would be very strong; however, our deepest wish is to simply put all of this behind us. We hope that will be the case, given the investigator’s clear findings that the allegations made online were misrepresentations of what actually occurred. We will continue to assess if there is persistent reputational damage or further defamation.

This doesn’t mean our company is perfect and our journey is over. We are continuously learning and trying to do better. Thank you all for being part of our community.

  • ashok36@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    7 months ago

    Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

    The only way to read this, assuming the lawyers wrote the statement, is that sexual harassment did happen but was “addressed”. Otherwise they’d just say the claims of sexual harassment were unsubstantiated.

    I’d like to know more about how those claims were addressed before making final judgement.

    • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Correction, the only way to read this is that allegations happened, and said allegations were not ignored, but investigated. The statement doesn’t tell us wether those allegations were found to have merit.

    • TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s not the only way to read that at all. Your interpretation is that sexual harrassment was not ignored & was addressed; but the sentence is actually that allegations were not ignored and were addressed.

      • ashok36@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s fair, I suppose, but awfully ambiguous. It would be better if they just said, “Allegations of sexual harassment were found to be unsubstantiated” or similar if that’s actually the case.

    • bitfucker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t think of it that way. I think the allegation of sexual harassment were ignored is false means sexual harassment report is not ignored, not that it did happen. It means there is a procedure to report it, and to handle it. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. If you just fire the accused employee before the proof is sufficient, it is also giving the accuser power to misuse the reporting procedure. Didn’t like someone? Accuse them of sexual harassment.

      Why do I interpret it that way? Because for sexual harassment to be noticed, it must be reported. Otherwise, how tf will the company know anything? So, a report did come, now what to do? A. Ignore it, told every party “tough shit” B. Do something and give sanction/disciplinary action if proven true

      But what do I know, I am not a lawyer so I know jack shit about workplace regulation.

        • TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          This is silly.

          If it was reported, it was reported. The whole point of Roper Greyell being involved is to identify if there were events that weren’t reported, or were reported and not acted upon.

    • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve made my final judgement. That was one long message saying “We’re guilty and we know it, but we’re not going to tell anyone”