Investigating When A Complaining Employee Won’t Cooperate

Investigating When A Complaining Employee Won’t Cooperate

By: Ann Fromholz
Originally published in Law360 on October 22, 2017

Earlier this year, an executive with a real estate developer alerted the company’s general counsel that comments and rumors about her sex life that were circulating throughout the company, from hourly employees and assistants to the C­suite, were so personally and professionally damaging that she was too upset to work.

The general counsel took immediate action. He called the company’s outside employment counsel, who advised that the company needed to conduct an immediate investigation into the executive’s complaints. Because no one at the company was trained or equipped in workplace investigations, the lawyer advised that the company engage an outside expert, a lawyer whose practice focuses on workplace investigations.

As the investigator, I reviewed the complainant’s demand letter and developed an
investigation plan. My first order of business was to interview the complaining employee (which is usually the case). But when I emailed and called the executive to schedule an interview, the executive did not respond. Finally, after three attempts without a response, the executive’s lawyer responded that the executive would not agree to be interviewed.

This situation happens more frequently than one might imagine. A complaining employee, who may be the only person who can provide the details of her complaints, refuses to be interviewed. The employee may refuse because her lawyer recommends that she not be interviewed, she is too nervous to be interviewed, or some other reason. Whatever the reason, the investigator then needs to determine whether and how to investigate without the complainant’s testimony.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s existing enforcement guidance on harassment investigations requires a “prompt, thorough and impartial investigation” into complaints of workplace misconduct.[1] The guidance further provides that, “when detailed fact­finding is necessary, the investigator should interview the complainant, the alleged harasser, and third parties who could reasonably be expected to have relevant information.”

Even without an interview of the complainant, the investigator likely has enough information to determine which witnesses to interview and which questions to ask. The investigator may not know everything about the complaining party’s complaints, but likely has enough information from the initial complaint to start asking questions. The answers to those questions, from witnesses other than the complainant, will often lead to other witnesses and other questions, and eventually can provide a fairly complete picture of the situation.

The EEOC proposed “Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment” in January 2017, but that guidance is not yet final.[2] The proposed guidance provides that an investigation is effective if it is sufficiently thorough to “arrive at a reasonably fair estimate of truth.”

If, however, the investigator chooses to stop the investigation when the complaining party declines to be interviewed, the investigator risks failing in her duty to conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation.

In May 2017, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing issued new guidance for preventing and addressing workplace harassment.[3] That guidance specifically addresses the basic steps to ensure a fair workplace investigation and says that due process is the goal. The guidance provides that the investigator should interview the complaining party, “give the accused party a chance to tell his/her side of the story,” interview relevant witnesses, and review relevant documents.

The guidance also provides that the investigator “do other work that might be necessary for [her] to get all the facts,” and “reach a reasonable and fair conclusion based on the information [she] collected, reviewed and analyzed during the investigation.”

The DFEH guidance therefore makes clear that there are elements of an investigation that are as essential as the interview of the complaining party.

Once the employer is on notice of a complaint of workplace misconduct, the investigator should conduct those elements of the investigation regardless of whether the complaining party chooses to participate.
The investigator’s report will detail the efforts to interview the complaining party and will detail the other steps the investigator took to conduct a thorough and fair investigation, even without the participation of the complaining party. The report will say that the complaining party refused to be interviewed and will say that the investigator is making factual findings and drawing a conclusion without the benefit of the complaining party’s input. The investigator or the employer likely will report to the complaining party that the investigation has concluded without her involvement.

On occasion, the specter of the investigation concluding without the complaining party’s input is enough to convince an otherwise recalcitrant complainant to participate, in some fashion, in an interview.

I know of investigations where the complainant insisted on being interviewed with her lawyer present and others where the complainant agreed to respond to written questions but still refused to be interviewed. Whether to agree to those terms is a judgment call that the investigator must make, weighing the benefit of gathering facts directly from the complainant against the diminished credibility of that testimony because it was influenced or perhaps even written by the complainant’s lawyer. Of course, the report in such an investigation will reflect the relative weight that the investigator gives to the complainant’s testimony as compared to testimony from witnesses who were more forthcoming.

The reluctant or refusing complainant creates a hurdle for a workplace investigator in her path to a complete investigation that arrives at a reasonably fair estimate of the truth. But the hurdle is one that a thorough and persistent investigator can overcome, either by thorough interviews of co­workers and other witnesses and a careful review of evidence, or by allowing the complainant to participate in the interview even with restrictions mandated by the complainant’s lawyer.

The investigator’s ultimate goal is to find the facts and reach a reasoned conclusion, not to stand on ceremony regarding exactly how the complainant ought to participate.

Weinstein Scandal Widens in Hollywood

Weinstein Scandal Widens in Hollywood

By: Jake Coyle
Associated Press
October 11, 2017

As the grim scope of the allegations surrounding Harvey Weinstein continued to expand Wednesday, the organization that bestows the Academy Awards moved to distance itself from the film mogul, Ben Affleck was forced to defend his own previous actions, and scrutiny fell on who knew what about the Weinstein’s behavior over the decades it allegedly took place.

A key and potentially volatile component of Tuesday’s New Yorker expose was the claim that “a culture of complicity” has existed at both The Weinstein Co. and his previous film company, the Walt Disney-owned Miramax. “Numerous people throughout the companies (were) fully aware of his behavior but either abetting it or looking the other way,” the magazine reported.

Further scrutiny has followed the contention that Weinstein’s conduct was “an open secret” in Hollywood. Focus has turned, in part, to not just the workplace environments Weinstein operated in, but the stars who may have had some knowledge of Weinstein’s alleged behavior but who failed to raise any alarms.

Ben Affleck was called out Tuesday by actress Rose McGowan. In a tweet, McGowan accused Affleck of lying after issuing a statement that he was “saddened and angry” about the Weinstein revelations. McGowan, who The New York Times reported reached a $100,000 settlement with Weinstein in 1997, suggested Affleck knew decades ago about Weinstein’s behavior.

Actress Hilarie Burton also renewed an earlier allegation that Affleck groped her during a visit to MTV’s TRL, which she was hosting in 2003. Affleck on Wednesday tweeted an apology: “I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize.”

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences also announced Wednesday that its Board of Governors will hold a special meeting Saturday to discuss the allegations “and any actions warranted by the academy.”

Weinstein has long been a major figure at the Academy Awards, where his films have regularly won Oscars, including five best picture-winners. Weinstein personally shared in the best-picture Oscar for “Shakespeare in Love.” The film academy called Weinstein’s alleged conduct “repugnant” and “antithetical to the high standards of the Academy and the creative community it represents.”

The ongoing fallout poses potentially severe legal issues for the companies involved. The Weinstein Co., which fired its co-chairman on Sunday, has moved to continue forward with plans to change its name. In a statement Tuesday night, the Weinstein Co. board of directors strongly denied that it knew about Weinstein’s behavior.

“These alleged actions are antithetical to human decency. These allegations come as an utter surprise to the board. Any suggestion that the board had knowledge of this conduct is false,” the four-member board said in a statement. “We are committed to assisting with our full energies in all criminal or other investigations of these alleged acts, while pursuing justice for the victims and a full and independent investigation of our own.”

The board, however, includes Weinstein’s brother, Bob, the company’s other co-chairman. And several board members earlier resigned in the wake of the initial allegations of sexual harassment. That report, published Thursday by the New York Times, also detailed hundreds of thousands of dollars in alleged settlements. It’s not known if Weinstein made the payments personally or if either The Weinstein Co. or Miramax did.

Legal experts are skeptical The Weinstein Co. could have been unaware given the volume of allegations.

“Given all the information that’s coming out now, I would find it highly implausible that the board was not aware,” said Angela Reddock-Wright, an attorney specializing in employment and labor law who has represented businesses in harassment suits. “There are just too many allegations here. Unless there were settlements paid out by Weinstein from his own personal money, settlements over a certain dollar value would have presumably been approved by the board of directors.”

Veteran employment attorney Ann Fromholz said that given Weinstein’s position at the company, The Weinstein Co. would be liable over sexual harassment claims even if they weren’t aware. Between the potential lawsuits and the likely loss of business, Fromholz considers it unlikely The Weinstein Co. will survive under any name.

Representatives for both companies didn’t respond to questions.

On Tuesday, Michael Eisner, who was Disney’s chief executive during Harvey Weinstein’s tenure at Miramax, said he “had no idea he was capable of these horrible actions.” Disney purchased Miramax in 1993; the Weinstein brothers departed in 2005 to create the Weinstein Co.

“Fired (the) Weinsteins because they were irresponsible, and Harvey was an incorrigible bully,” said Eisner on Twitter.

When Does a Sexual Advance Amount to Sexual Harassment? An Attorney Explains

When Does a Sexual Advance Amount to Sexual Harassment? An Attorney Explains

By: Ann Fromholz
This article was originally published on October 16, 2017 in The Hollywood Reporter

In the Harvey Weinstein situation, an actor or crew member working on a film that he produced, or any person working at The Weinstein Co., would be an employee under the law.

The old trope of the casting couch has never really died. In recent days, it has been renewed and recast by the news about Harvey Weinstein’s alleged sexual harassment and sexual assault of a growing list of women in hotel rooms and offices across the country. It has become apparent there is no clear understanding of where the line is between harassment and a consensual relationship when something happens between a boss and employee.

The laws against sexual harassment — Title VII in federal law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act in California and the New York Human Rights Law, among others — apply to the employment context. In the Weinstein situation, an actor or crewmember working on a film that he produced, or any person working at The Weinstein Co., would be an employee under the law. But the law also applies to applicants, and women who agreed to meet with him because they hoped that he would cast them for a film likely would be covered by the laws against harassment.

The laws against sexual harassment do not prohibit all sexual conduct in the workplace. If an affair or sexual relationship truly is consensual, it can be legal. But the fact that sexual conduct was voluntary, in that the victim was not forced against her will to participate in the sexual activity, does not make the conduct consensual and legal. The central question of any sexual harassment claim is whether the sexual advances were unwelcome.

When a supervisor dates a subordinate, it is difficult to show that the advances were welcome and the relationship was consensual because of the differential in power. When people have differing levels of power, a sexual advance may feel compulsory. When a supervisor, for example, asks a subordinate employee for sexual favors, that employee could very well believe that their continued employment depends on whether they agree to the sex. The coercive nature of supervisor/employee relationships brings up a serious question of whether sexual relationships between the two parties are truly consensual.

Courts have recognized two kinds of sexual harassment. The first is “quid quo pro” — or “this for that” — harassment, where the person in the position of power promises a job benefit — a role, a job promotion, a compensation increase — if the victim submits to his sexual advances. Quid pro quo harassment also exists where the person in the position of power makes a threat of termination, blacklisting or job loss if the victim refuses the sexual advances. This is the behavior that some women allege that Weinstein engaged in. It often is easy to identify as inappropriate and unlawful.

The second kind of harassment is “hostile work environment” harassment, in which sexual conduct is so severe or pervasive that it creates an abusive working environment. This behavior sometimes is more difficult to identify as unlawful. The Supreme Court recognized this kind of harassment for the first time in 1986, in a case called Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. In that case, Mechelle Vinson claimed that Sidney Taylor, the vice president of the bank, coerced her to have sexual relations with him and made demands for sexual favors while at work. Vinson said that she had sexual intercourse with Taylor 40 or 50 times.

The court in Vinson decided that Taylor’s conduct amounted to hostile environment harassment. Even though Vinson and Taylor had sex multiple times and the sex was voluntary, in the sense that Taylor did not force Vinson to have sex with him, the advances and thus the sex were not welcome. The important lesson for people evaluating a situation they are in or know about is that, even if a subordinate employee has sex with her boss one time or many times, the relationship may nonetheless amount to unlawful harassment. The question is whether the advances were welcome and whether the victim by her conduct indicated that the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome, not whether her actual participation in sexual intercourse was voluntary.

Sexual harassment that creates a hostile or offensive environment is a barrier to gender equality in the workplace. The requirement that a person run a gauntlet of sexual abuse in return for the privilege of being allowed to work is demeaning and troubling. If the unwelcome conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment, it is unlawful.

If the Harvey Weinstein situation teaches us anything, perhaps it will teach us that sexual conduct and sexual advances, if they are not clearly welcome, are inappropriate and probably illegal. It is up to all of us to make sure that this conduct stops and to change the culture that allowed it to fester.

Rose McGowan implores Jeff Bezos to ‘stop funding rapists.’ Meanwhile, Amazon suspends studio head amid harassment claim

Rose McGowan implores Jeff Bezos to ‘stop funding rapists.’ Meanwhile, Amazon suspends studio head amid harassment claim

By: Meg James & Gus Garcia-Roberts
Los Angeles Times
October 12, 2017

The scandal enveloping Hollywood grew wider Thursday when actress Rose McGowan accused movie producer Harvey Weinstein of raping her, and then pleaded with one of America’s most powerful business titans — Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos — to end his company’s alleged involvement in a culture of exploitation and abuse.

“@jeffbezos I am calling on you to stop funding rapists, alleged pedo[philes] and sexual harassers,” McGowan said in a Twitter message directed to the Amazon billionaire.

“I love @amazon but there is rot in Hollywood,” McGowan wrote, just hours after Twitter lifted a 12-hour suspension that temporarily blocked the actress from posting.

In a separate development on Thursday, Amazon suspended Roy Price, the head of its studios, after “The Man in the High Castle” producer Isa Hackett told the Hollywood Reporter that he had repeatedly propositioned her and made lewd comments.

“Roy Price is on leave of absence effective immediately,” an Amazon spokesperson said. “We are reviewing our options for the projects we have with The Weinstein Co.”

McGowan is one of a number of Hollywood stars, including Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Ashley Judd, who have said they were victimized by Weinstein. Last week, the New York Times reported that McGowan reached a $100,000 settlement with Weinstein in 1997 after an incident at the Sundance Film Festival. As part of the settlement, McGowan was not supposed to discuss the incident but she has become increasingly vocal as more women have announced that they also were victims of the co-founder of Miramax and Weinstein Co.

“We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg,” said Caroline Heldman, a college professor who has worked with sexual assault victims. “This is going to touch every major studio in Hollywood.”

McGowan, 44, previously has suggested on Twitter that she had been victimized and has used the social media platform to call out men, including Weinstein’s brother, Bob Weinstein, and actors Ben Affleck, his brother Casey Affleck, and Matt Damon for enabling the misconduct.

Harvey Weinstein gave Ben Affleck and Damon their big break, acquiring their breakout movie “Good Will Hunting,” which won the Oscar in 1998 for best original screenplay.

McGowan is best known for starring in the now-defunct WB network hit “Charmed,” but also appeared in Wes Craven’s 1996 slasher “Scream” — distributed by Dimension Films, the film label owned by the Weinstein Co.

In 1998 she starred opposite Ben Affleck in the horror film “Phantoms,” produced by Dimension and distributed by Miramax. She played dual roles in 2007’s “Grindhouse,” starring in both of the film’s two segments for Quentin Tarantino (“Death Proof”) and Robert Rodriguez (“Planet Terror”). The film was also distributed by Dimension.

Last year, using the hashtag #WhyWomenDontReport, she vented on Twitter, saying: “My ex sold our movie to my rapist for distribution.” She did not spell out who she meant as her “rapist,” but some Hollywood insiders speculated that it was Weinstein.

Weinstein’s spokesperson, Sallie Hofmeister, said in a statement: “Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein.”

Then, last September at an IFP Film Week event in New York, McGowan announced that she had sold a show she had written to Amazon Studios. Some speculated that the project may have been inspired by McGowan’s own childhood spent in the Children of God cult, which she fled with her family at the age of 9 after her father feared she might be subjected to child sexual abuse by cult members.

But a formal announcement from Amazon never materialized. On Thursday, McGowan shed more light on the project, tweeting: “I called my attorney & said I want to get my script back, but before I could #2 @amazonstudios called to say my show was dead.”

Her Twitter barrage included her — now very public claim — that Weinstein had raped her.

“@jeffbezos I told the head of your studio that HW raped me. Over & Over I said it. He said it hadn’t been proven. I said I was the proof,” she wrote.

“@jeffbezos I forcefully begged studio head to do the right thing. I was ignored. Deal was done. Amazon won a dirty Oscar,” she wrote, an apparent reference to Amazon’s movie, “Manchester by the Sea,” and its star Casey Affleck, who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman. Casey Affleck has denied the allegation.

Heldman, the women’s advocate, praised McGowan’s courage.

“Once again, Rose has been taking a lead in taking this to the next level — and holding to account other powerful men who have been complicit in covering up sexual violence,” Heldman said.

McGowan’s new accusations add another dimension to the controversy because it suggests that she took her allegations to other powerful players in Hollywood.

Ann Fromholz, a Pasadena attorney who has handled sexual harassment cases, said she believes McGowan’s latest salvo is part of a growing storm that will make it easier for sexual harassment victims in Hollywood and other industries to speak out.

“I expect that because of the publicity this is getting, because of the support the victims are getting, people likely will be more willing to complain when something like this happens in the future, with Weinstein or anybody else,” Fromholz said.

In addition to McGowan’s challenge to Bezos, Amazon is also facing other allegations.

Hackett, a producer for “The Man in the High Castle,” told the Hollywood Reporter that Price repeatedly propositioned her. She reported the incident to Amazon executives, who hired an outside investigator to look into her allegations.

Hackett’s legal representative, Christopher Tricarico, on Thursday confirmed that the statements attributed to Hackett in the Hollywood Reporter were accurate.

However, Hackett, he said, did not wish to comment further.

Tricarico said Hackett participated in the internal investigation at Amazon Studios but was never told if it was concluded or how it was resolved. She followed up with Amazon’s Human Resources department, but was told the findings were confidential, the attorney said.

“It was basically the company line, that they were doing what they needed to do internally but were not at liberty to give any details,” Tricarico said.

Amazon said in a statement to the Hollywood Reporter that they “looked closely at this specific concern and addressed it directly with those involved.”

Harvey Weinstein Scandal Spurs Lawmakers To Go After Nondisclosure Agreements

Harvey Weinstein Scandal Spurs Lawmakers To Go After Nondisclosure Agreements

By: Claudia Koerner
BuzzFeed News Reporter
October 12, 2017

A pair of New York lawmakers are aiming to end the sort of confidentiality agreements that shield workplace sexual harassment and that have been cited in the ongoing Harvey Weinstein scandal.

The new language to an existing bill, to be introduced on Friday, would void any contract provision where an employer can force an employee to keep quiet about sexual harassment and discrimination claims. It would include claims that are settled in arbitration, where nondisclosure agreements routinely keep the details of allegations secret.

State Sen. Brad Hoylman, who is cosponsoring the bill with Assemblywoman Nily Rozic, said the legislation was rewritten after sexual assault and harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein were published by the New York Times and the New Yorker. Several people contacted in those stories said they were prevented from speaking out because of nondisclosure agreements.

“As we’ve seen in the Weinstein matter, these types of settlement agreements perpetuate harassment of other people for decades,” said Hoylman, a Manhattan Democrat who counts Weinstein among his constituents.

Hoylman added that because of the secrecy surrounding confidentiality agreements, no one knows how extensive they are.

“Employees who are in a position of very little agency, power, are being forced, it would appear, to sign away their rights,” he said.

The bill amends the state’s labor law and only applies to formal employment contracts or agreements. The allegations against Weinstein run that gamut, with misconduct or retaliation reportedly experienced by assistants and other employees. Other claims have come from young actors who Weinstein allegedly asked to private meetings to discuss potential roles — outside any employment that could be regulated by state law.

But Rozic, a Democrat, said the recent attention to sexual misconduct allegations against famous figures like Weinstein has made people more open to talking about sexual misconduct.

“There are men in every industry in positions of power who use that against ambitious women who are starting out in their careers,” she said.

And though the issue is a longstanding and multifaceted one, she said the new legislation aims to chip away at the workplace norms that leave employees at a disadvantage.

“It focuses on not just the physical power, but the economic power someone can hold over you,” she said.

The legislation is the first in the country to go so far and would completely change the landscape of sexual harassment settlements, said Ann Fromholz, who practices employment law and does workplace investigations for the Fromholz Firm. California last year similarly banned confidentiality agreements in cases of workplace harassment, but only where a potential felony was involved.

Currently, settlements allow employers to take back payouts in part or in full from employees who break confidentiality agreements.

The new bill “is ensuring the light can still be shone on bad behavior, even if the company pays money to avoid the risk of litigation,” she said.

The dollar amount of settlements may still remain secret under the bill, but employees would be allowed to talk about their experiences.

“In the end that benefits companies, because if people talking and complaining stops sexual harassment — and makes the workplace safer — that’s better for everyone,” Fromholz said.

The legal fallout from the mushrooming Weinstein sex scandal could be big

The legal fallout from the mushrooming Weinstein sex scandal could be big

By: Daniel Miller, Ryan Faughnder & David Ng
Los Angeles Times
October 10, 2017

The mounting sexual assault and harassment claims against disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein could have severe legal consequences for the executive and his already struggling namesake company.

Although it may be difficult to build a criminal case against Weinstein, his alleged mistreatment of women could expose him and his film and TV company to costly civil lawsuits, according to attorneys and professors specializing in sexual misconduct.

“The potential liability is significant,” said Ann Fromholz, a Pasadena attorney who has handled sexual harassment cases.

Under California law, Weinstein Co. could be liable for Weinstein’s alleged actions, according to Doug Silverstein, an attorney specializing in employment and discrimination. “They are on the hook just like him,” he said.

Whether an alleged victim could bring a lawsuit against Weinstein, 65, would hinge, in part, on the applicable statute of limitations. In California, the statute of limitations for civil sexual assault is two years and in New York it is three years; Weinstein has been accused of misconduct in both states.

“I expect a flood of lawsuits to be headed his way if they are timely and he hasn’t already bought off the victims,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School.

Weinstein Co., based in New York, fired the executive over the weekend after an investigation by the New York Times said he’d reached at least eight legal settlements, dating to 1990, with women over alleged harassment. On Tuesday, the New Yorker published a story that included, among other allegations, claims that Weinstein had raped three women in the last 20 years. Among them was actress Asia Argento, who appeared in “B. Monkey,” a 1999 drama distributed by Miramax, then headed by Weinstein.

Weinstein, who previously apologized for some of his behavior, denied the rape claims. “Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein,” a representative said in a statement, adding that “Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual.”

In a statement Tuesday night, Weinstein Co.’s board of directors said they were “shocked and dismayed” by the latest allegations and that they are “committed to assisting with our full energies in all criminal or other investigations of these alleged acts.”

Legal experts said that Weinstein could face criminal liability over his alleged behavior. In New York, there is no statute of limitations for criminal sexual assault — the result of a 2005 law that did away with a prior timing restriction. Any alleged act that occurred after that year can be prosecuted in the state.

In California, a previous 10-year criminal statute of limitations for rape and other sexual misconduct was removed last year after Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation amending the penal code. The new law went into effect Jan. 1 and affects certain sex crimes that have occurred in 2017 or will transpire in the future. It also applies to alleged offenses for which the prior statute of limitations had not expired by Jan. 1.

But bringing a criminal case against Weinstein, known for producing Oscar-winning films such as “Shakespeare in Love,” would be more difficult than a civil action, experts said, in part because alleged victims may have signed affidavits repudiating their allegations. In one 2015 matter, fashion model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez told police in New York that Weinstein had groped her, but the Manhattan district attorney decided against charging the executive. Gutierrez reached a settlement with Weinstein, according to reports.

“If we could have prosecuted Harvey Weinstein … we would have,” a spokesperson for Manhattan Dist. Atty. Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said in a statement. “Mr. Weinstein’s pattern of mistreating women, as recounted in recent reports, is disgraceful and shocks the conscience.”

Levenson cited Bill Cosby — one of several entertainment and media personalities recently accused of sexual assault — to illustrate the difficulty in prosecuting high-profile figures for alleged acts committed years ago. Dozens of women have accused Cosby of rape, sexual battery and other misconduct, and many of the entertainer’s alleged victims have sued him. However, only one criminal case over alleged sexual assault has been brought against Cosby, and the Pennsylvania trial, which focused on an alleged 2004 incident, ended in a hung jury in June. Cosby has denied wrongdoing.

Levenson, a former assistant U.S. attorney, said a criminal case being brought against Weinstein would be “possible, but still not likely.”

In recent days, Weinstein Co., which was started in 2005 and produced hits including “The King’s Speech” and “Django Unchained,” has been working to distance itself from its co-founder. Still, questions remain over how much others at the company knew about Weinstein’s alleged behavior.

The New Yorker article described a “culture of complicity” at the Weinstein Co. Some current and former employees told the magazine that they were enlisted to help trick women into being alone with Weinstein in supposedly professional meetings that were pretexts for his sexual advances.

In California and New York, companies can be found liable if a manager has engaged in harassment, even if others at the firm weren’t aware of the inappropriate behavior, Fromholz said. Weinstein was co-chairman of his company and, with his brother Bob, owns 42%.

“If a manager of a company engages in harassment conduct, the company is liable even if they didn’t know about it,” Fromholz said.

Potential damages in such cases could include loss of wages, for example, if the victim is unable to work or find work because of the harassment. Companies can also be hit with demands for damages for emotional distress, among other claims.

Weinstein could also face lawsuits from the company he led until Sunday. Other shareholders of Weinstein Co. could sue him for breach of contract if he broke the company’s covenants or policies, according to one legal expert. However, if those shareholders knew about his alleged behavior and failed to act or were complicit, they would be unable to reap the prospective gains of a lawsuit.

Can the Weinstein Co. survive without Harvey Weinstein?
A flood of high-profile Hollywood and political players spoke out against Weinstein on Tuesday, among them Hillary Clinton, whose political career was long supported by the executive. Also on Tuesday, more women came forward to allege that they too had been harassed by Weinstein, including A-list actresses Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie.

And at a news conference Tuesday, former actress and screenwriter Louisette Geiss accused Weinstein of harassing her in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah, in 2008. The statute of limitations related to the alleged incident has expired, but Geiss’ attorney, Gloria Allred, urged Weinstein to waive the civil statute of limitations.

“Why would he do it? Because I think he wants to work in this town again,” Allred said.

But efforts are rapidly underway to erase Weinstein’s connections to projects, people and institutions with which he was affiliated. Weinstein Co. has given television networks permission to remove his name from their shows’ credits. Also, several U.S. senators are giving away political donations that the executive made to them.

On Tuesday afternoon, USC said it would decline Weinstein’s pledge to fund a $5-million endowment for female filmmakers. An hour or so later, Weinstein’s wife of a decade, Marchesa designer Georgina Chapman, announced that she is leaving him.