Workplace Harassment Prevention: From Legal Risk To Cultural Change

Lessons from Tesla, Coca-Cola, and more

Harassment at work is not just a moral lapse, it’s a liability for employers and HR management. The toxic environment this creates is also a potential health risk for employees, where no one benefits. To understand how best to prevent harassment and toxicity in the workplace, one must first understand the impact these actions have had on the legal system. 

Current law defines unlawful harassment as unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic, such as gender, race, national origin, age, or religion, that is severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating, hostile, or abusive work environment. While workplace harassment is generally a pattern of acts over a period, a single offensive act can be sufficient to sustain a legal cause of action. ^[1]

The U.S. has witnessed regulatory and cultural changes in response to the issue of workplace harassment. For example, California ^[2] and New York ^[3] have expanded protection to require employers to meet specific training requirements. An example of global recognition is seen in the 2019 International Labour Organization’s C-190 Convention declaration of the right to a workplace free from violence and harassment, including gender-based abuse. ^[4]

It’s been more than five years since the #MeToo movement ^[5] exploded into public consciousness. Yet, ongoing court cases and media coverage show that workplace harassment remains a systemic issue. According to HR Acuity’s 2023 survey, 52% of workers have seen or experienced inappropriate workplace conduct. ^[6]

Despite decades of legal reforms and corporate training programs, workplace harassment persists across industries and borders. The consequences are twofold: first, significant legal liabilities that can result in costly lawsuits and regulatory penalties; and second, the often overlooked but equally damaging hidden costs of employee turnover, diminished morale, and long-term reputational harm that can erode organizational stability and stakeholder trust.

A notorious case in point is Diaz v. Tesla. In 2021, a jury awarded $136.9 million to Owen Diaz, a Black former elevator operator employed at Tesla’s Fremont, California factory, for enduring racial slurs, offensive graffiti, and an indifferent management culture ^[7]. Diaz claimed he repeatedly reported this conduct and was ignored. The verdict was later reduced and ultimately settled in 2024, but the case shocked observers—not just due to the amount, but because it was very much preventable.

Diaz v. Tesla isn’t an outlier. The news is replete with high-profile examples. In 2025, Smokey Robinson and his wife, Frances, were sued by four former employees, alleging damages of $50 million for claims of sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, and hostile work environment ^[8]. The claims targeted Frances Robinson for enabling the abuse by failing to intervene to prevent the harassment. 

Internationally, patterns of systemic workplace abuse are not encouraging. In Australia, the Tasmanian Fire Service’s 2023 scandal required state intervention after a report found workplace bullying and harassment to be prevalent, underreported, and minimized ^[9]. These cases show how harassment, when ignored, escalates.

Two compelling reasons make prevention essential: First, legal costs and potential damages are steep consequences for employers. Second, and often more detrimental, are the long-term impacts on employee welfare, engagement, productivity, and the company’s reputation.

Best Practices for Prevention

Corporate Policy Essentials

A strong harassment policy employing best practices should define unacceptable behavior, identify how to report harassment, identify who handles reports, explain a timely and fair process for investigation and resolution of claims, and ensure non-retaliation for reporting and assisting the investigation of harassment. The follow-up to the investigation – closure – is especially critical. The matter must be resolved in a positive conclusion with follow-up monitoring.

Coca-Cola sets the gold standard as an example for workplace harassment policies. This did not develop overnight. In 2000, the company was beset with costly harassment complaints that required serious remediation ^[10]. In the wake of these troubles, the company developed an extensive Human Rights policy that envelops standards for workplace harassment. ^[11] 

Policies only matter if they are understood and followed. If a company’s conduct contradicts its written rules, documentation alone won’t defend it against liability.

Commitment: Leadership Accountability

Leadership must back policies with action. This is where workplace culture is formed. Tesla’s failure to address Diaz’s complaints reflected a lack of accountability. By contrast, proactive commitment to policies, including linking executive bonuses to ethical climate metrics, turns values into performance goals. The U.K. has taken this concept a step further to a legislative mandate in its 2023 Worker Protection Act, which requires leadership to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment, including policies, training, anonymous reporting, and risk monitoring. ^[12]

Effective Training

Training clarifies what constitutes harassment and how to respond. It should be tailored to real-world scenarios, using methods like video examples and group workshops. Scenario-based learning improves retention and inclusivity. ^[13]

Trusted Reporting Mechanisms

Clear, multi-channel reporting is vital. Employees should be able to contact HR, submit anonymous complaints, or consult internal legal counsel. Coca-Cola offers all of these, along with non-retaliation assurances. Just as important as access is follow-up—when reports are ignored, trust erodes, and risk rises.

Responding to and Investigating Complaints

Reports must be investigated promptly and fairly. That means getting trained internal or third-party investigators involved, documenting findings, and delivering consistent outcomes. This process must include communication with both the complainant and accused and appropriate corrective action.

Respect: Moving Beyond Compliance

Harassment often begins with tolerated incivility ^[14]. A respectful workplace reduces risk and boosts morale. Preventing harassment isn’t just legal compliance. It’s an investment in culture and long-term success.

Harassment at work isn’t inevitable—it’s preventable. Companies that implement these best practice standards will have an easier time protecting their employees from untoward behavior and creating a welcoming environment for all. 

Footnotes

[1] Boyer-Liberto v. Fountainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264, 280 (4th Cir. 2015) (en banc).
[2] California Code GOV 12950.1. (2023).
[3] NYC Commission on Human Rights. (2025). Sexual harassment prevention training.
[4] ILO C190 – Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019.
[5] MeToo.
[6] HR Acuity. (2023). 2023 Workplace harassment and misconduct insights, p. 5.
[7] Diaz v. Tesla (Race harassment). (nd) California Civil Rights Group.
[8] Smokey Robinson and wife sued by 4 ex-housekeepers for sexual assault. (2025, May 6).
[9] Lohberger, L. (2025, May 6). Sexism, bullying, harassment of staff at Tasmania Fire Service, SES, workplace culture report finds. ABC.
[10] Mehr, C. (2025). The Coca-Cola racial discrimination. Mehri & Skalet.
[11] The Coca-Cola Company. (2025). Our commitment to human rights.  
[12] How the Worker Protection Act 2023 will change workplace safety. (2025). SpeakUp.
[13] Volpe, V. (2024). Scenario-based learning: An inclusive methodology. Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME)14(6), 1-5. DOI:10.9790/7388-1406060105
[14] Popera, A. (2025, December 18). The cost of incivility; Addressing workplace challenges in 2025. SHRM. 

Suggested Reads

1. Harassment Isn’t History: Why It Still Thrives In Modern Workplaces
2. The New Face Of Harassment In Remote Work
3. Looking Beyond Diversity: Understanding Systemic Discrimination Against Women In The Workplace

Legal consultant, educator, writer, and podcaster Linda Clark Ashar (JD) is an Associate Professor at the Dr. Wallace E. Boston School of Business at the American Public University System. Her special interests are constitutional and employment law, ethics, regulatory compliance, artificial intelligence, risk assessment, and leadership.