Leadership Series, Article # 4
[Readers: Presented below is the fourth article in our Leadership series. This article was submitted by Christine Esckilsen. Ms. Esckilsen is a Managing Director in the General Counsel Department at Piper Jaffray’s Minneapolis headquarters. She manages all of the firm’s litigation. In addition, Ms. Esckilsen advises the firm on employment law issues and consults on matters including hiring, performance management, executive compensation, policies and procedures. Prior to joining Piper in 2002, Ms. Esckilsen was in private practice for seven years at Littler Mendelson in California where she was an employment and labor law litigator for national corporations.
Ms. Esckilsen has had the benefit of observing leadership skills as both in-house and outside counsel. Moreover, she herself is a leader within the Piper organization. As such, she brings a unique perspective to this important topic. I hope you find Christine’s article instructive and interesting. Regards, Roy]
Reflections on Leadership
By: Christine Esckilsen
Every company has its own culture. I work for an investment bank. Perhaps you are now thinking bailout money (we didn’t take any), proxy statements, red-eye flights, sharp elbows and Brooks Brothers ties. Fair associations all. Yet working here has taught me that effective leadership is best accomplished by being present, open, and connected, concepts addressed below. Why is this important? Because the key to effective leadership is developing engaged employees. We cannot truly engage others unless we are present, open, and connected with them.
To accomplish this, we need to draw on our mind, physical body and emotions. As Americans, we prize and stress the intellect. So, the true work comes in understanding and managing the physical body and the emotions. Once we accomplish this, we can mobilize our teams and feel good doing it! For the skeptics, I submit to you that if this model of successful leadership can work at an investment bank, it can work anywhere. Read more
Sexual Harassment and Negligent Hiring, Can Same Conduct Justify Two Claims: Quirky Question # 152
One of our employees complained of sexual harassment. We investigated, though admittedly not as promptly as we should have. We discovered that the harasser had engaged in some seriously problematic conduct. Our investigation also revealed that the harasser had engaged in similar conduct at a prior employer and previously, at our company, with a different employee who had elected not to report.
The victim of the harassment is now threatening to sue us and demanding settlement compensation. Her lawyer suggests that if we do not settle, he will sue us for multiple claims, including both sexual harassment and negligent hiring. (Apparently, his investigation also revealed the past problems.) Is this legit? Can we be sued for multiple claims based on the same conduct?
Bawdy Behavior Outside of Work, Quirky Question # 151
We have several employees who periodically engage in somewhat bawdy behavior outside of work. (Surprise, surprise, sometimes alcohol is involved.) We don’t believe this behavior is consistent with the image our company would like to project. Can we discipline these employees for their conduct (which invariably is reported back to us)? Can we fire them?
Lawyer Whistleblower Ethics – A Difficult Duty
[Readers: Yesterday, I posted an article on the recent Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court. As I referenced in the final practical pointer in the analysis, the decision does implicate a number of interesting ethical issues. My colleague, Bill Wernz, who was the former Executive Director of the Office of Lawyers' Professional Responsibility, has just written an article for Minnesota Lawyer (July 12, 2010, Vol. 14, No. 28) that focuses on just these ethical issues. With approval from Minnesota Lawyer, Bill's article is reprinted below. If you have any questions regarding Bill's analysis, don't hesitate to contact him at wernz.william@dorsey.com or at 612.340.5679. Regards, Roy]
In-House Counsel as Whistleblower, Kidwell vs. Sybaritic, Inc.
The Minnesota Supreme Court finally has ruled on Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., Nos. A07-584 and 788 (June 24, 2010), the “in-house counsel as whistle-blower” case that was pending before it for more than 18 months. Unfortunately, the Court’s ruling has not brought clarity to this area of the law.
I previously discussed this case in a Blog entry in August 2008 (to see the earlier analysis, use the “View by Topic” bar to the left, scroll down to “Retaliation” and go to Quirky Question # 50). My analysis of the latest pronouncement from the Minnesota Supreme Court is set forth below. Please contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Roy




