For many companies, the effects of an ill-fated holiday party can linger for years, sometimes in the form of litigation

For many companies, the effects of an ill-fated holiday party can linger for years, sometimes in the form of litigation.

The problem with holiday parties is that they often involve the toxic combination of employee socialization and alcohol.

There was a time when a large percentage of married couples met in the workplace. The ignominy of a sexual harassment charge and company policies against relationships with coworkers has not entirely suppressed those inherent social urges. Most employees, fearing the consequences, avoid using their workplace as dating pools.

But holiday parties with alcohol, even in the absence of mistletoe, loosen inhibitions, and can lead to comments or solicitations that are unwelcome. On the flip side, alcohol can also sometimes cause employees to misconceive an innocently tendered remark as an unwelcome sexual overture. In both cases, the ultimate result can be a harassment complaint.

Employers have a legal duty to maintain a harassment-free workplace and invariably will be sued along with the miscreant employee when such a claim is laid.

What should be done?

Employers should remind employees about acceptable behaviour before the holiday party. Make it clear that the holiday party is an extension of the workplace and any kind of misconduct will not be tolerated — whether it’s in the office or at the bar. If things do go awry, deal with them quickly and decisively, before they become a legal issue.

Alcohol must be limited by drink tickets with the warning that anyone providing their drink tickets to someone else could lead to dismissal for cause.

Employers need to stress that even light-hearted jokes can have serious consequences. A “joke” that targets someone based on their race, gender, or religion is no laughing matter. A quick quip or prank could become a lawsuit no one wants for the new year.

It is not merely the heightened risk of sexual harassment allegations which alcohol creates but, more serious yet, the risk of an employee getting into their vehicle and causing a fatality or serious injury to themselves and others, with the employer being liable.

In the case of Jacobsen v. Nike Canada Ltd., the employer provided beer to its employees. One employee then left the warehouse, drove home and off the highway into a ditch, suffering injuries that rendered him quadriplegic. The court found that Nike failed to meet the standard of care required of an employer by providing alcohol in the workplace and determined that there was a positive obligation to monitor employees’ consumption and determine whether any intervention, such as ensuring the plaintiff did not drive while impaired, was necessary to protect the health and safety of its staff (and even of third parties). The court also held that the employer’s liability extended beyond merely watching for signs of impairment and preventing the employee from driving, but also required that the employer not introduce into the workplace conditions that created such risk. Jacobsen was awarded $2,719,213.48 in 1996 (the equivalent of $4,943,469 today).

Another ghost of Christmas past, in addition to lawsuits or sexual harassment claims, is reputational damage. With social media, what happens at the holiday party may not stay there. Posted videos and photos of unprofessional behaviour can circulate instantly to competitors, potential recruits and within the company itself.

You should have policies surrounding what photos can be taken at the party and remind everyone that the party is an extension of the workplace and the same values are expected.

Finally, keep it a holiday not Christmas party. No one should feel excluded or disadvantaged by reason of their race or religion. it is not merely a good human resource practice but the law.