|Effective Date:||Expiration Date:||Chapters:|
|Dec. 31, 2019||When Superseded||16 18|
The District of Columbia government is committed to maintaining a safe work environment free from harassment, abuse, and intimidation for all its employees. This issuance defines sexual harassment and provides steps employees must take to report incidents of misconduct. This issuance also outlines how agencies should handle and investigate sexual harassment reports. This issuance provides updates to include additional information for Sexual Harassment Officers (SHO) including clarification on the investigation process and report.
The District government reaffirms its commitment to maintaining a harassment-free work environment.
The Mayor established a policy and related procedures mandating that workplaces be free from all forms of sexual harassment (Mayor’s Order 2017-313). This policy protects individuals from workplace sexual harassment whether they are employees, contractors, interns, applicants for District government employment, or any other persons engaged by the District of Columbia government to provide permanent or temporary employment services. The District’s laws and policies also prohibit retaliation against anyone who reports harassment or participates in an investigation.
Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature based on one’s sex, or perceived sex, that affects the terms or conditions of employment. When unwanted sexual conduct impacts a job-related decision, such as assignments, training opportunities, promotions or firing, or when the conduct creates a hostile work-environment because it is severe or pervasive, it is considered sexual harassment.
A supervisor engages in quid pro quo sexual harassment when they make unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or engage in other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, based on an employee’s sex or perceived sex, and uses that person’s submission or rejection of such conduct as the basis for job-related decisions. For example, sexual harassment may occur when there is an expectation that an employee will receive a job-related benefit if they submit to the sexual conduct.
An individual creates a hostile work environment based on a person’s sex or perceived sex if they subject the person to unwelcome sexual conduct, and this conduct is severe or pervasive enough to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment. For example, an individual may create a hostile work environment for their coworker by constantly using unwelcome, sexually degrading language to describe an individual or by describing their own sexual experiences. The District government strongly discourages sexual conduct in the workplace even if these activities are between two consenting parties, as this conduct has the potential to create a hostile work environment for third parties who find these behaviors uncomfortable or offensive.
To assist employees and agencies with accepting, receiving, reviewing, and investigating sexual harassment complaints, Mayor’s Order 2017-313 requires that all agencies designate a Sexual Harassment Officer (SHO). Agencies are also required to designate an office or alternate person for when the SHO is unavailable. Agencies must submit the names of their designees to OHR and DCHR via email at OHR@dc.gov and DCHR@dc.gov, or at any other email address designated by OHR or DCHR, with the subject line, “[Agency Name] – SHO Designations.” If an agency makes any changes to the SHO designation, they must notify both agencies within 10 business days.
Agencies can designate SHOs at their discretion so long as the designee is competent in Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws and has no inherent conflict of interest. Due to their role in advocating for, or defending the agency, DCHR recommends that agencies do not select the General Counsel, or attorneys in an agency’s Office of General Counsel, to serve as the SHO. OHR may have additional information and guidance on SHO designations.
Since the SHO will investigate allegations of a very sensitive nature, agencies must designate employees with specific criteria in mind. When designating employees to serve as a SHO, the agency should designate someone with:
Individuals who may be ideal designees include:
To ensure that employees know who to contact for sexual harassment concerns, agencies must post the names and contact information of their SHO and alternative contact in a high visibility or high traffic area (e.g., a break room). Employees may also obtain their Sexual Harassment Officer’s contact information from their agency’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Officer, Human Resources (HR) office, or the Office of Human Rights. DCHR also maintains a list of Sexual Harassment Officers on its website at https://dchr.dc.gov/sexual-harassment.
All District of Columbia employees are responsible for ensuring a workplace free of harassment. To that end, all employees who know of incidents of sexual harassment, or know of conduct of a sexual nature that could create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment should report the situation immediately as outlined below. Agencies should protect the confidentiality of all aspects of the harassment complaints and those reporting such complaints, to the greatest extent possible consistent with the investigation and resolution of the complaints.
Alleged victims of sexual harassment should report the harassing behavior to one of the following individuals within their agency as soon as possible:
If victims require assistance or are not able to report to one of the individuals above, they may contact the Sexual Harassment Officer Program Coordinator at the D.C. Department of Human Resources at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Employees have a responsibility to report incidents of sexual harassment or behavior that may create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Witnesses should report incidents to the following individuals within their agency:
In addition to reporting to an agency SHO, or other individual as identified above, under the D.C. Human Rights Act alleged victims may file a claim of sexual harassment with an EEO Counselor, directly with the Office of Human Rights (without going through EEO counseling) or in court.
Managers, supervisors, and HR officials who receive reports of alleged sexual harassment must immediately relay the report to the agency’s Sexual Harassment Officer and take any appropriate remedial actions, after consulting with the agency General Counsel.
The role of the SHO is to accept, review, and investigate sexual harassment claims by gathering information and preparing a written report outlining the investigation, the facts gleaned from the investigation, and any recommendations within 60 days after a claim is reported. Upon receiving a report of potential sexual harassment, the SHO must:
Any individuals involved in investigating reports of alleged sexual harassment must take reasonable steps to ensure that the details of the complaint and investigation remain confidential, especially when information pertaining to a sexual harassment complaint changes hands or is shared as part of an investigation. Failure to safeguard confidential information can result in corrective or adverse action, up to and including separation.
Notwithstanding the confidentiality requirement, the alleged harasser is entitled to notification of the allegations and must be given an opportunity to respond. Additionally, the confidentiality requirement should not prevent an agency from reporting a suspected illegal or improper act, such as sexual assault, to the appropriate enforcement authority, or from cooperating in any related investigation.
All information obtained in the investigation shall be used by the SHO only for purposes of the investigation.
Complaints against certain senior officials (specified below) must be referred to specific government officials for review. The following chart outlines these requirements.
|If the complaint is against...|
|Employees with the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel||Refer the report to the Mayor’s General Counsel.|
|An Agency Director||Refer the report to the SHO for the appropriate Deputy Mayor; the complaint should also be reported to the Mayor’s General Counsel if the complaint is against an agency Director appointed by the Mayor.|
|A Deputy Mayor||Refer the report to the SHO at the Office of the City Administrator.|
|The City Administrator||Refer the report to the Mayor’s General Counsel.|
|The Mayor’s General Counsel||The matter shall be handled by an independent consultant.|
|The Mayor||The matter shall be handled by an independent consultant.|
Once a SHO has received a complaint of sexual harassment, they are required to immediately begin the investigation process, which must be completed within 60 days of the complaint. The following are nine steps that should be part of any successful investigation:
The SHO is responsible for conducting the investigation and completing the investigation report, which the SHO will provide to the agency Head or their designee only. At various times during this process, the SHO may seek guidance or support from the agency General Counsel. For example, the SHO may seek the General Counsel’s assistance to gain access to relevant information in the possession of a sister agency (such as email records from OCTO), to act to ensure the cooperation of agency witnesses, or to prevent an employee’s interference with the investigation.
In general, SHOs should take all allegations of sexual harassment seriously and conduct thorough and complete investigations. However, situations may arise when the alleged conduct is of a nature that does not require an extensive investigation to disclose the facts. For example, all parties may agree as to the circumstances of the complaint, and thus the matter may be resolved quickly through informal discussions. Regardless of whether a full investigation is required, the SHO should speak with the relevant parties, document or record all information received, and document all efforts undertaken to address the matter.
Pending the conclusion of a sexual harassment investigation, the SHO may consult with the General Counsel to recommend immediate workplace changes necessary to prevent further harm and to ensure the investigation is free from disruption. The most common action that may be taken is to separate the alleged harasser from the complainant (or vis-versa). If immediate action is needed, such action will be initiated by the agency General Counsel and should be processed in accordance with the District Personnel Manual and any applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The agency must assess whether the alleged harasser should be separated from the complainant’s work environment. It may be appropriate to take such a step when there are allegations of:
As previously noted, moving the complainant may be perceived as retaliatory. The best way to avoid claims of retaliation is to temporarily reassign the alleged harasser in a reasonably comparable placement, even if in a different agency after consulting with DCHR, or place them on a temporary telework schedule or administrative leave with pay. If these steps are taken, the alleged harasser should be informed that the arrangement is temporary, that no conclusions have been reached as to the sexual harassment allegations, and that the action being taken is in no way punitive.
Sometimes, the complainant of alleged sexual harassment will ask to be reassigned or given time off pending the investigation. If this occurs, find out and document exactly why the employee wants to be taken out of the work environment.
If the alleged victim is experiencing trauma or other health-related issues because of the alleged sexual harassment, the agency should take appropriate actions as required or permitted by law to assist the employee. If the alleged harasser has threatened the complainant, or co-workers are shunning the complainant, this is information that should be immediately brought to the attention of the agency General Counsel. Whatever the explanation, it is important to reiterate that retaliation by the alleged harasser or co-workers is not tolerated. Additionally, make the best arrangements to address the complainant’s concerns. If the complainant is removed from the work environment, make sure that the employee can still be available to participate in the investigation.
Whenever a report of sexual harassment or subsequent evidence reveals potential criminal conduct, such as sexual assault, physical violence, or threats to do bodily harm, stop the investigation and consult agency General Counsel immediately. The agency’s General Counsel, in consultation with the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel, will determine whether law enforcement should be contacted and what other immediate steps must be taken. Do not conduct additional interviews or resume your investigation until you have consulted your agency General Counsel or the MOLC and received their approval to proceed. Failure to comply with this instruction may impact the criminal investigation and/or case of law enforcement officials.
Generally, the agency’s Sexual Harassment Officer (SHO) will investigate reports of sexual harassment. Smaller agencies are authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with other agencies if their staffing level does not allow for the appointment of a dedicated SHO. In these cases, the SHO investigating the report may be an employee from another agency. In the event of a conflict of interest, or of a claim of bias that could reasonably be raised against the impartiality of the assigned SHO, the assigned SHO should immediately notify the agency General Counsel to assist with identifying another SHO to conduct the investigation.
If another SHO is assigned to conduct the investigation, the original SHO should notify the complainant in writing of this change. The written notification should identify the new SHO as the formal contact for the investigation and as the individual who is conducting the investigation on behalf of the agency. The written notification is also useful for communicating to involved parties that an investigation is underway.
Before investigating, the SHO must plan how the investigation will be carried out. To do this, DCHR recommends completing the attached Investigation Plan (See Attachments 3 and 4). To complete the plan, the SHO will need to rely on the complaint of the complainant or third-party witness reports of the potential harassment.
The SHO must meet with the individual reporting the sexual harassment allegation. The individual may be an alleged victim, third-party witness or an individual to whom the allegation was reported. It is important to clarify the exact allegation from the individual making the report to the SHO. If they are not a witness to the allegation, the SHO should also make efforts to clarify the allegation from the original source of the complaint, which might be the alleged victim. These preliminary meetings are only for understanding the actual allegation. More thorough interviews of these individuals should occur as the investigation progresses.
Before drafting the investigation plan, the SHO must have some understanding of the complaint and allegations. Initially, the SHO should verify the allegations with the individual originally reporting the situation, and then brainstorm and try to answer the following types of questions:
Finding the answers to the above questions will help the SHO decide who to interview, what documents and other evidence might be available, and what type of questions to ask witnesses.
After establishing the general nature of the complaint, and before contacting additional witnesses or gathering any documentary evidence, complete a draft investigation plan as thoroughly as possible. The draft plan can be used to communicate the scope of the investigation to necessary people. Keep in mind that the initial draft will be an incomplete plan and the SHO will further develop the plan as the investigation proceeds.
Each investigation plan should have an Overview section. Give the investigation a title, a description with key objectives, and the investigation scope.
The Basic Information section provides the allegations. Describe what was alleged – who was harassed, by whom, when and how?
Supply a succinct chronology of alleged events leading to the investigation. This is not a chronology of the investigation; it is a chronology of the harassing behavior and how that behavior came to the attention of the SHO.
List any known direct and circumstantial evidence and potential witnesses. The list should be concise, but sufficiently descriptive to alert the reader as to the importance of the physical evidence or witnesses.
This section lists events that will take place during the investigation. This can include meetings, document reviews, and formal witness interviews. This section also includes a listing of notifications made to individuals during the investigation, such as notifications to the General Counsel and to witnesses for purposes of scheduling interviews.
Immediately upon receiving a report of an allegation of sexual harassment, the SHO shall notify the agency’s General Counsel of the allegation and share with the General Counsel all information related to the allegation, including but not limited to: name(s) of the alleged harasser, alleged victim and witnesses, nature and type of harassment, all relevant date(s) and location(s), and a description of the incident(s) to be investigated. The General Counsel is responsible for determining what information, if any, should be communicated with the agency’s leadership and external authorities. The General Counsel should notify the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel of the following within three days of receiving a report of sexual harassment: names of the alleged harasser(s), alleged victim(s) and witnesses; nature and type of harassment; all relevant date(s) and location(s); and a description of the incident(s) to be investigated.
The investigation plan will be fluid and must be updated as the investigation proceeds. When new evidence is discovered, or new witnesses come to light, that information should be added to the plan. Similarly, the plan should be updated with itinerary and notification changes.
Once an investigation plan is in place, the SHO will need to direct their focus to interviewing witnesses. Whenever possible, the SHO should have a second person, who is trained in investigations, with them during interviews. Additionally, the SHO should never interview more than one witness at a time – each witness should be interviewed separately.
The SHO should schedule and complete witness interviews as quickly as possible. Generally, the SHO should aim to complete all interviews within days of receipt of the initial complaint, or as soon as possible thereafter. This allows for the investigation to preceed efficiently and minimizes investigation-related discussion among witnesses in the workplace. DCHR recommends scheduling formal interviews in writing by sending separate email notifications to the complainant, alleged harasser, and potential witnesses, which outline their rights and what to expect. (See Attachment 6).
If interviewing a union employee, the SHO should refer to the agency’s collective bargaining agreement and notify employees in writing that they have a right to union representation at the interview, if applicable. Some agencies require investigators to obtain written statements or affidavits after an interview. If it is feasible, DCHR highly encourages agencies to tape-record interviews with witnesses to ensure record accuracy.
The SHO will want to open every interview with similar remarks. Here is a roadmap that may be used for opening an interview with a witness:
Generally, the individual who is the alleged victim of sexual harassment should be the first person interviewed. The alleged victim should be interviewed within five days of acknowledging the initial complaint. The SHO should ask the individual to provide any and all potential evidence of offensive conduct such as emails, pictures, or other physical evidence. The alleged victim should be able to provide the clearest picture of the alleged misconduct and provide insight into other potential witnesses and evidence. In addition to being the first witness interviewed, this individual may need to be re-interviewed after documents are collected and statements are received from all other witnesses to clarify any inconsistencies in the evidence.
Harassment claims usually involve a pattern of multiple incidents that occur over a period of time. When interviewing the alleged victim, the SHO must ask precise questions and take clear notes. The best practice is to have the alleged victim list all incidents, then go through each incident in detail.
Victims who have trouble remembering important facts about the alleged sexual harassment may be experiencing trauma. In this case, usual interview questions may not be as helpful initially. Some experts suggest that such victims may benefit from the use of sensory-based interview questions (such as “do you remember what was playing on the radio in the car”; “what color was the room”; etc.) as these types of questions help place the victim back at the scene of the incident and may help jog their memory.
After conducting an initial interview of the complainant, it is usually most effective to interview any third-party witnesses to the alleged harassment. Third-party witnesses are all other witnesses, excluding the alleged harasser. Interviewing third-party witnesses after the complainant allows the investigator to confirm or discount allegations made by the complainant and assists in obtaining a complete account of the potential misconduct before asking the accused employee to respond. A third-party witness should be interviewed within five days after the interview with the complainant. If there are multiple third-party witnesses that must be interviewed, each subsequent witness should be interviewed as close in time to the first third-party witness as possible, to complete the investigation in a timely fashion.
When questioning third-party witnesses, the goal is to gather as much information as possible without giving too much information away. The interview should begin by stating, in general terms, why the SHO is interviewing the witness. The SHO should inform the witness that they are investigating a workplace incident, and that the witness might have information that will help determine what occurred. Then, the SHO will need to move into questions that will help determine whether the witness saw or has information regarding the alleged incident(s).
As noted, the employee who allegedly engaged in the harassing behavior should usually be interviewed last. This interview will be uncomfortable for the employee and the SHO regardless of whether the accused employee engaged in the alleged conduct. To avoid the need for a follow-up interview, it is important to have as much information as possible before this interview.
When interviewing an employee suspected of misconduct, they might be defensive. When opening the interview, the SHO should make clear that the agency has a legal obligation to investigate the matter and has not yet made any determination or judgments regarding the allegations. The SHO should also make clear that the SHO’s role is to be neutral and unbiased and to find out what happened. The accused employee’s perspective is part of information gathering and is needed before any conclusions can be reached.
As stated previously, the accused employee may be allowed to have a union or other representative present during the interview, although this should not unduly delay the interview process and SHOs are not required to permit such representative to disrupt the interview or answer questions during the interview on the employee’s behalf.
The SHO also needs to plan the sequence of questions for the accused employee. The first series of questions should be simple, non-controversial questions that the employee can easily and willingly answer. This will establish ease and rapport, which may help to minimize any defensive tension that might otherwise occur.
The SHO must advise the employee of the accusations made against him or her. After preliminary introductions and questioning, the SHO must advise the accused employee(s) of the accusations made against them. Although the SHO does not need to identify the person who made the sexual harassment complaint, the SHO must allow the accused a fair opportunity to respond and thus may have to disclose the identity of the alleged victim or complainant.
When interviewing the accused, the SHO should outline the totality of the accusation and ask the accused for their response. Then, the SHO should walk through each event that comprises the harassment complaint and obtain specific responses for each event. The SHO must provide the accused employee an opportunity to offer explanations, denials, defenses and potential witnesses and documentation for each event discussed.
After the SHO completes their interview questions, the SHO should review their notes of the interview and make sure all aspects of the allegation have been covered and responded to. The SHO should remind the interviewee about the District’s anti-retaliation policies. Witnesses should also be asked to report any new information to the SHO immediately.
Alleged victims and alleged harassers must be advised of what to expect next. This includes informing them that they may be interviewed again if necessary.
The investigator must document the interview after its conclusion. The investigator can complete documentation in one of two ways. If the interview is recorded (which is the best practice), the investigator can document the interview by creating a transcription of the audio. If the interview is not recorded, or transcription services are unavailable, the investigator can draft a “memo to file” summarizing what was asked, and what the witnesses said in the interview. (See Attachment 4: Sample Interview Summary).
Summaries are only useful if they are reliable. Therefore, it is vital that summaries be drafted immediately following the interview. If drafting the summary immediately is impractical, it must be drafted no more than 24 hours after the interview.
Interview documentation must include notes as to time and the length of any breaks or interruptions, who was present in the room, and copies of any handwritten notes. Handwritten notes must be signed and dated by the author.
If credible and relevant information surfaces that implicates a previously interviewed witness, and that witness did not have an opportunity to provide comments or respond to that information, the SHO must conduct a follow-up interview.
If new accusations or defenses arise, the alleged victim and the alleged harasser(s) must have a fair opportunity to respond. Except when they are trivial, new developments of this nature require follow-up interviews of the necessary witnesses.
Throughout the interview process, the SHO may discover potential evidence. Evidence may include: emails, text messages, voice mail messages, letters, notes, journals, photographs, time and attendance records, building access records, video recordings, gifts, offensive objects, personnel records, policies, and other relevant items. The SHO must obtain evidence before, during and immediately following the interview process.
If a SHO requires assistance in obtaining evidence, he or she should consult agency General Counsel. If necessary, agency General Counsel may request e-mail, telephonic, and building access records from the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) or Department of General Services (DGS). Moreover, agency General Counsel may be able to assist with securing other types of evidence, if needed.
Once the SHO has completed all interviews and obtained as much physical evidence as is available, the SHO must weigh the evidence and determine what happened based on the evidence. The SHO will need to evaluate the evidence by, for example, comparing and assessing statements made by witnesses (including assessing any information about witness credibility and reviewing witness statements for similarities and inconsistencies), reviewing the evidence for patterns and trends, and assessing the accuracy, completeness and reliability of documents and other physical evidence.
Before beginning the evaluation of evidence, the SHO should assemble the evidence into a logical order and label each item for easy reference in an appropriately indexed investigative file. At this stage, almost every piece of evidence should have been documented. Therefore, the easiest assembly is to arrange each document in chronological order, labeling each piece of evidence in sequence as Exhibit 1, 2, 3 and so forth. Since the investigation plan is updated to include all evidence as the investigation progresses, it should be an easy matter to simply number the evidence listed in the plan.
Be sure to use a common identification method for all documents. A good practice is to use the format of “Document Title, document type/author (Date).” A sample list of evidence might look like the following:
Sexual harassment investigations will invariably involve conflicting accounts of the same events. The SHO must consider each version of the facts and evaluate the credibility of competing evidence. When deciding the credibility of one version of events over another, the SHO should consider the factors below.
Issues of authenticity pertain to when a particular piece of evidence is not what it appears to be. Information that a piece of evidence was forged or altered would raise an issue as to its authenticity. Evidence collected from records, databases or other reliable sources such as official agency files can be presumed authentic unless there is a specific reason to believe otherwise. Key pieces of evidence should be authenticated by witness testimony if possible. For example, if an employee sends a note, ask that employee if they did indeed send the note and have them identify the note on the record. If issues of authenticity arise, they must be resolved.
After assembling and assessing all the evidence, the SHO is ready to determine and list each relevant fact in the case. For this purpose, a statement is “factual” if it describes an event or a thing in a manner that does not require substantial interpretation or characterization. Best practice is to list each individual fact that is needed to explain to someone who has no knowledge of the case, who the parties are, what happened, and why it matters. List the facts in a sequence that makes sense (e.g., chronologically) and in a manner that tells a compelling story of events. For each fact listed, the SHO must cite all evidentiary support for that fact.
At this phase, the SHO is not stating conclusions or opinions. However, if a witness disputes a fact, the SHO must weigh the competing evidence and decide which version is most credible and more likely than not to be true. For disputed facts, the SHO will list the disputed fact, citing all the evidentiary support. The SHO must also note that the fact was in dispute, how it was in dispute, and how the SHO resolved the factual dispute, if possible. For each statement explaining the resolution of a disputed fact, the SHO must cite evidentiary support.
As noted, for each fact listed, the SHO must cite to the pieces of evidence that establish that fact. Factual listings should be as concise as possible. Undisputed facts should be no more than one sentence. Disputed facts should be no more than three sentences.
Sample Factual Listing
Having fully investigated the matter, evaluated the evidence and listed the facts pertaining to the allegation(s), the SHO must reduce the totality of the investigation into a written investigation report. The SHO is expected to issue an investigation report to the agency Head, or his or her designee, within 60 days after a claim is reported to the agency. It is recommended that each investigation report contain the elements listed below. A sample investigation report is attached for guidance.
The SHO must share the investigation report with the agency head, or his or her designee, in order for the agency to issue its Notice of Findings and Conclusions. The SHO shall not provide the investigation report to the parties or witnesses involved in the investigation (nor to any other unauthorized party), as the investigation report is deliberative, may require additional work (as determined by the agency Head or designee), and does not constitute the agency’s official findings regarding the matter investigated. If the SHO is unable to complete the investigation report within the 60-day period, the SHO must immediately notify the agency General Counsel.
Following review of the investigation report and determination of next steps, the agency head, or designee, shall authorize additional investigation if necessary or issue the Agency’s Notice of Findings and Conclusions. The Agency’s Notice of Findings and Conclusions shall be provided to the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel (MOLC), the complainant, and the alleged harasser.
Based on the agency’s findings and conclusions, the agency head or designee may need to take additional steps with the assistance of the agency General Counsel and the internal HR department. At minimum, an agency should ensure that its employees are trained, and if needed re-trained, on the agency’s and District's sexual harassment or other policies. If an agency’s policy is vague or contains gaps that may lead to confusion around appropriate employee conduct or work-related expectations, the agency should update its policies accordingly.
When the agency concludes that misconduct has occurred, agency General Counsel should ensure that prompt administrative action is taken by the agency. Please note that an employee who is found to have engaged in inappropriate conduct who is not terminated must attend mandatory sexual harassment training within sixty (60) days of his or her receiving notice of the finding. This training must be in addition to any disciplinary actions and must occur even if the employee has already received sexual harassment training.
In addition to imposing discipline on the employee found to have engaged in misconduct, the agency may also have an obligation to report credible violations of the District’s Code of Conduct to the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability (BEGA). Such violations of the Code of Conduct may arise where the employee has engaged in ethical violations such as giving gifts to employees for sexual favors, bribing witnesses or potential reporters of sexual harassment, or using government resources to carry out the harassing behavior.
The provisions of this issuance apply to all District agencies under the Mayor’s personnel authority.
For additional information concerning this issuance, please contact the Department of Human Resources, Sexual Harassment Officer Program Coordinator, by sending an e-mail to email@example.com.
Issued by Director Ventris C. Gibson, D.C. Department of Human Resources on Dec. 31, 2019, 1 p.m.