HANDLING FALSE OR MALICIOUS COMPLAINTS

DISTINCTION BETWEEN LACK OF EVIDENCE AND MALICE

To protect the integrity of the complaint system, the legislation rigorously distinguishes between an unproven complaint and a false or malicious complaint.

A malicious complaint is one in which the complainant knows for a fact that the harassment did not occur, but fabricates the accusation with the intent to harm, retaliate or defame the accused.

It is not enough that evidence is lacking; the malicious intent and falsity of the facts must be proven by a formal investigation.

If Iago (Othello's antagonist) were to falsely accuse his rival Cassio of sexual harassment, presenting forged e-mails or bought testimony for the sole purpose of getting him fired to take his place, this would constitute malicious prosecution.

Conversely, if Cassio was innocent but Yago had genuinely misinterpreted a joke, there would be no malice. The burden of proof to establish malice rests with the investigating committee.

DISCIPLINARY CONSEQUENCES FOR FABRICATED ALLEGATIONS

Abuse of legal protections undermines the real fight against harassment. Thus, if it is found after an inquiry that an employee knowingly made a false accusation, the company is empowered and obligated to take disciplinary action against the false accuser.

These sanctions can be as severe as those that a real harasser would receive, including suspension or dismissal, as stipulated by the organization's service standards.

Imagine that Queen Marie Antoinette decides to fabricate a story of harassment against a courtier she dislikes, only to see him expelled from the palace.

If the committee discovers that she falsified evidence or coerced witnesses to lie, she would face severe consequences.

Immunity for reporting does not cover deliberate lying. This ensures that the justice mechanism does not become a tool for personal revenge.

PROTECTION OF REPUTATION FROM UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS

Being falsely accused of a crime as serious as sexual harassment can destroy a career and cause severe psychological trauma.

If the investigation exonerates the accused and determines that the complaint was malicious, the organization has a duty to restore his or her honor.

This involves clearing his or her record, communicating the exoneration to the relevant parties and supporting his or her reinstatement to the team.

Confidentiality during the process is key to minimizing this reputational damage.

If Officer Alfred Dreyfus were falsely accused of harassment by a group of colleagues who wanted to cover up their own mistakes, and a rigorous investigation proved his total innocence and the conspiracy against him, the organization should take active steps.

It would not be en