Category: Uncategorized

“Good photography is critical to business. If you want to portray yourself as a professional, you need a professional photo.” That’s where Bob Giglione comes in, having spent the last two decades photographing nearly every major corporate event and business leader on Long Island. Making his way from film to digital technology, from joining the then-fledgling Long Island Business News as its primary photographer in 1997 to operating his own successful photography business today, Giglione’s vision has remained the same: showcase Long Island success stories, and make the people behind those stories look good, portraying them as happy, successful, and seen. By spotlighting the best of Long Island business for so many years, the man behind the camera became the most important person in the room. And as he went from boardroom to ballroom and back over the decades, he observed: “There are a lot of great leaders on Long Island – more than people realize.”

An insurance executive for 20 years in his “first life,” Giglione always enjoyed photography, but it wasn’t until his wife gave him a book about becoming a professional photographer that he considered making a career change. He stopped by local photography studios and started getting work shooting weddings on weekends in the early ‘80s. By 1987, he had left the insurance industry and was photographing 100 to 150 weddings a year, but still felt that he wasn’t getting in on the goings-on on Long Island.

Looking to meet people and build his client base, Giglione got his feet wet covering ACIT (Advancement for Commerce, Industry, and Technology) events at the invitation of board member John Kominicki, who had taken the helm at Long Island Business News. Giglione’s artistic focus officially shifted to the business world when he joined LIBN as its primary photographer in 1997. For the next 20 years, Giglione used his art to bring a face to Kominicki’s vision for the paper: celebrate the innovation and accomplishments happening in Long Island’s office towers, research labs, farms, factories, wineries, and town halls. His mission is the same now that he’s out on his own: through his photography, Giglione seeks to expose Long Island as the untapped resource and hidden jewel it is.

While Giglione’s tenure at LIBN included photo shoots with major political figures (he covered presidential debates at Hofstra) and celebrities, the subjects he’s most enjoyed photographing are the businesses and leaders driving the Long Island economy. Tired of the constant cycle of negative news and focus on problems, Giglione used his camera to highlight the positive, business-oriented Long Island headlines that don’t get enough press. His photography focuses on high-profile networking events and business news, corporate movers and shakers, and what politicians are doing for you – not the scandals. Even his Hurricane Sandy work took a business angle, focusing on how businesses would recover from the devastating storm. His job at LIBN was to create images that would draw readers into these optimistic stories, catching key people in action and sharing their accomplishments. Now doing private business photography, Giglione’s goals have remained constant.

As a photographer, Giglione has adapted to rapidly changing technology: he started shooting film and switched to digital in 2006. He embraces new technology (“With digital, you can see your mistakes quicker, so you can make real-time modifications”; Instagram also serves as his current portfolio) but still respects the classic tools of the trade (“Pictures taken with a phone have their place, but professional photography requires the best equipment and lighting”). He also got an early taste of social media by posting event photos on the LIBN website the same night, upping the anticipation among attendees all vying for a shot. Through the years, he also learned to trust himself as the creative decision-maker (“A photo of a lawyer in front of the firm logo or a factory owner holding a widget don’t always make for the most exciting shots”).

Giglione, who recently chatted with CMM Managing Partner Joe Campolo about the parallels of their career paths (using different media in their own way, both seek to promote all that’s positive on Long Island), says he still enjoys the solitude of “imagining photos and seeing places.” When he’s not on assignment, he takes pictures walking around NYC. He’s passed down his love of the camera to his children, with two daughters who became photographers and a son who became a cameraman for CBS News (and another daughter who became an accountant!). The insurance executive-turned-photographer has no regrets about starting over in his career: “Photography isn’t what I do, it’s who I am.”

Learn more at https://www.bobgiglionephotography.com/.

Bob Giglione and Joe Campolo; Randi Shubin Dresner of Island Harvest.

Former Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy; Rep. Tom Suozzi.

John Kominicki; Rep. Peter King.

Left: news anchor Ernie Anastos.

Former Senator Al D’Amato; former Rep. Steve Israel.

Esther Fortunoff; Judge Leonard Wexler.

By Christine Malafi

Laws constantly evolve to adapt to modern society. Situations that were once impossible to imagine (such as buying hand soap from a distant warehouse at the click of a button and having it appear on your doorstep the next day) are now routine. As such, it is impossible to craft legal rules to anticipate the future. The power of the internet has amplified this discrepancy, and its ever-growing presence has sent shockwaves through the legal system. In this altered landscape, many existing legal rules no longer achieve their intended purpose and must be adapted to address the rapid advancement of technology and the growing e-commerce world. Sometimes, this may require long-standing precedent to be discarded, as we saw in the recent United States Supreme Court decision South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.[1]

What Happened?

Prior to this Supreme Court decision, states were prohibited from collecting a sales tax unless the seller had a physical presence (e.g., an employee or a building) in the state where the item was sold.[2] In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed its prior decision and overturned 26 years of precedent, holding that a state can require internet retailers to collect sales and use tax even without a “physical presence” in that state.  Through this decision, the Court leveled the playing field and decided the “physical presence” rule was no longer tenable in our technology-driven society. The result for in-state merchants (who had to compete with online retailers who didn’t have to charge sales tax) was a win.

How Did This Happen?

The case began in 2016 when South Dakota enacted a law that required out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax “as if the seller had a physical presence in the state” if they sold more than $100,000 of goods or services in the state annually, or engaged in 200 or more separate transactions with in-state residents. Given that South Dakota does not have an income tax, it relies heavily on sales tax for revenue, which was eroding each day.

For decades, the “physical presence” rule has enabled online retailers to avoid charging sales tax, thereby depriving states of an estimated $8 to $33 billion each year in revenue. Not surprisingly, this rule has been adamantly criticized for providing out-of-state businesses an opportunity to exploit a tax loophole – colloquially called the 8% advantage as per the average sales tax rate across the country – and gain a competitive advantage over in-state merchants. Indeed, 41 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have sought to overturn Quill. Ultimately, South Dakota initiated an action in state court to seek validation. Opposing South Dakota were online retailers with no physical presence in the state who, unsurprisingly, contended that South Dakota’s new law was unconstitutional.

These online retailers sought to uphold the “physical presence” rule articulated by the United States Supreme Court in 1992 to avoid having to charge the tax (and thus appeal to customers). The Supreme Court pointed out that internet sales giant Wayfair (the defendant in the case) actually flaunted its ability not to charge state sales tax in its advertising by stating, “One of the best things about buying through Wayfair is that we do not have to charge sales tax.” Wayfair’s principal argument was that small businesses, by not paying a sales tax, can leverage the internet to expand their small businesses nationwide. While the Court acknowledged that some small businesses may be adversely affected, its 2018 decision applies only to businesses that conduct a significant amount of business in the state—a larger business. The Supreme Court focused its analysis on the “physical presence” rule and highlighted the change of circumstances over time which led it to its new decision.

In 1992, when the Court’s decision was to not permit states to require collection of sales tax without a physical presence, less than two percent of Americans had internet access and Amazon and eBay did not exist. Fast-forward 25 years, and now 89 percent of Americans have internet access. The Court pointed out that in 1992 it did not “envision[] a world in which the world’s largest retailer would be a remote seller.” These days, consumers have little reason to leave the comfort of their home to go shopping, as they are “closer to major retailers” than ever before. Accordingly, the Court found no reason to continue to support the artificial distinction between being physically present in a state and conducting a significant amount of virtual business in a state.

How Does This Affect My Business?

With the “physical presence” rule now buried among other Supreme Court holdings that no longer fit in modern society, the shackles have been released for states to pass legislation mirroring that of South Dakota. States will now be able to require online retailers to collect sales tax from their customers and in turn, collect the millions of dollars in revenue that has eluded them for so long. Small businesses with limited multi-state sales could be burdened by state tax systems, but it remains to be seen how states will set the minimum requirements for sales tax collection. Only time will tell just how onerous such burdens will become. If you have questions regarding sales tax collection requirements for your business, please contact us.

[1] South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 WL 3058015, at *12 (U.S. June 21, 2018) (“What may have seemed like a ‘clear,’ ‘bright-line tes[t]’ when Quill was written now threatens to compound the arbitrary consequences that should have been apparent from the outset.”).

[2] Quill Corp. v. N. Dakota By & Through Heitkamp, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).

There has been an aggressive push over the past couple of years by state legislators around the country and the federal government to enact legislation prohibiting or limiting the use of non-compete agreements by employers.  One such bill, entitled the Workplace Mobility Act, was introduced in the U.S. Senate in late April 2018 and seeks to, among other things, prevent employers from “enter[ing] into, enforc[ing], or threaten[ing] to enforce a covenant not to compete with any employee of such employer, who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.”  Locally, the New York City legislature introduced a bill in 2017 that seeks to prohibit the use of non-compete agreements for “low-wage employees,” and would require employers to notify potential employees of any requirement to enter into a covenant not to compete prior to hiring the employee.

With potentially impactful legislation looming, courts continue to be highly critical of non-compete agreements.  A recent decision from the Supreme Court in Westchester County illustrates the courts’ focus on ensuring that non-compete provisions are narrowly tailored to serve only the company’s legitimate business interests.

In Cindy Hoffman, D.O., P.C. v. Raftopol (J. Ruderman), the court dealt with a familiar scenario of the enforcement of a non-compete agreement in the medical field.  The “curveball” in this case, however, is that the court was not dealing with a physician leaving a practice to compete elsewhere, but rather a physician’s assistant who left to work for a competitor.  Defendant, Caroline Raftopol (“Raftopol”), a physician’s assistant, was hired in 2012 by Plaintiff Cindy Hoffman, D.O., P.C. (“Hoffman P.C.”), a dermatology practice with three locations in Westchester, Dutchess, and Putnam counties.  Upon hiring, Raftopol was required to sign a non-compete agreement that prohibited her from being employed by a competitor within fifteen miles of any Hoffman P.C. location for two years following the end of her employment.  Raftopol ultimately resigned from her position in May 2017 and, in September 2017, Hoffman P.C. learned that Raftopol was working for a competitor within the geographic restriction set forth in the non-compete agreement.  Litigation ensued with Hoffman P.C. seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent Raftopol’s further employment with the competitor.

On its face, the court found the duration and geographic scopes of the non-compete restrictions to be reasonable and noted that other courts had upheld similar restrictive covenants.  However, the court also noted that such cases typically dealt with physicians working for competitors and, under such circumstances, courts have given wider latitude to restrictive covenants because they involve a professional of a learned profession whose services were considered to be “unique and extraordinary.”  Thus, the question in Hoffman became whether a restrictive covenant that would otherwise be reasonable against a physician was reasonable to protect Hoffman P.C.’s legitimate business interests against a physician’s assistant.

Hoffman P.C. argued the restrictions were reasonable against Raftopol because she built a relationship with patients and obtained trade secrets from Hoffman P.C.  Under those circumstances, the court noted that the restrictive covenant must be tailored “only to the extent necessary to protect the employer from unfair competition which stems from the employee’s use or disclosure of trade secrets or confidential customer lists.”  Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. v. A-1-A Corp., 42 N.Y.2d 496 (1977).  In this regard, the court found that there was little support in the record that Hoffman P.C. had any legitimate interest in preventing Raftopol from working with a competitor within 15 miles of Hoffman P.C.’s offices.  Specifically, the court held that Hoffman P.C. had not established that Raftopol had either the knowledge or power to impact the company’s profitability. There was also no support in the record for Hoffman P.C.’s contention that Raftopol could find similar employment outside of the restrictive area.

With respect to Hoffman P.C.’s concern that Raftopol could solicit patients whose information was otherwise unascertainable, Raftopol conceded that she would not solicit Hoffman P.C. patients but that the restrictions regarding employment with a competitor were causing her severe financial strain.  Given Raftopol’s concession regarding solicitation, the court ordered that Hoffman P.C.’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied with the exception that Raftopol could not solicit Hoffman P.C.’s patients for the duration of the two-year period.

In this case, the court was able to narrow down the overly broad restrictive covenant to what was the actual, legitimate business interest of the employer which, in this case, was the solicitation of patients.  The court tailored a restriction that suited the employer’s needs while not preventing the former employee from employment.  While this court was amenable to crafting a tailored restriction, many courts will simply deny the motion for a preliminary injunction in its entirety if the restrictive covenants are too overreaching.  With that in mind, when these agreements are being drafted, it is critical for businesses to focus on what the business is really concerned about if this employee leaves the company – and it cannot be anything and everything involving the business.  With the continuing push to prohibit or limit these agreements, employers need to adapt and tailor their restrictive covenants to what is truly important to the business.

If the word “accountant” still brings to mind images of pocket protectors, thick glasses, and – well – nerds typing away on calculators, you haven’t met the team at Citrin Cooperman. If you’ve never heard the terms “accounting firm” and “entrepreneurial drive” in the same sentence, you also haven’t met the team at Citrin Cooperman. And if you’ve never heard of an accounting firm started in NYC with seed money from a legendary rock band, then you’ve definitely never met the team at Citrin Cooperman.

But if you haven’t, you should. Now the 23^rd largest CPA firm in the country, Citrin Cooperman has built a major presence as accountants and advisors over the past 38 years, operating 10 offices from Metro DC to Boston (plus an affiliate office in India), with 940 employees, including 40+ of them right here on Long Island. Michael Sabatini, Managing Partner of the Long Island office, recently invited CMM Managing Partner and HIA-LI Board Chairman Joe Campolo to tour the firm’s sleek new space in Melville, where they discussed everything from philanthropy to attracting millennial talent.

Citrin Cooperman has thrived by taking an entrepreneurial approach in helping their clients build their businesses. As Partner Corey Bell explains, “we become part of the client’s team.” Sabatini describes his team as down-to-earth people who care and who make it their mission to deliver value, whether through traditional tax and audit offerings or cybersecurity, valuation, and consulting services, among many others. With nearly a thousand professionals at their fingertips at Citrin Cooperman, clients also enjoy access to someone with the right expertise for their unique issues.

Citrin Cooperman’s sweet spot is servicing privately held family businesses in industries ranging from real estate to healthcare and everything in between – many of whom have outgrown their longtime accountants. Indeed, there’s no shortage of accounting advisors on Long Island, but Citrin Cooperman’s holistic approach – their tagline is “Focus on What Counts” – reflects their emphasis on serving as true business partners.

How does the firm foster this culture in new hires? “The tone is set from the top,” Sabatini says. And while many traditional accounting firms have found it difficult to adapt to changing times, Citrin Cooperman has demonstrated forward-thinking leadership by aggressively courting the millennial workers who represent the future of the firm – and investing in them once they’re on board. The new Melville office is a “millennial-focused space” designed with young people in mind: an open concept office with glass walls and an abundance of natural light. Amenities include an eat-in kitchen with lounge seating, tables and chairs, and large TVs – not to mention a nearby walking trail and a gym complete with a golf simulator in the building.

But more important than these modern features is the firm’s focus on keeping their younger talent engaged and excited. Case in point: rather than spend their days reviewing workpapers in a windowless office, young staff members work with partners on all aspects of the business, meeting face-to-face with clients and learning the ins and outs of their work. “Citrin Cooperman University” offers staff both technical training and culture-building; the office closes on Citrin Cooperman Cares Day for staff to volunteer together, giving time and dollars to the local community. The firm supports employees through wellness programs, flexible scheduling, professional development, women’s leadership training, and even an international exchange program – all of which have grown out of staff feedback, reflecting just how much the employee’s voice matters at Citrin Cooperman.  The firm has also put their relatively new HIA-LI membership to good use, building their Long Island presence and making important new connections that have already joined them as clients or staff.

With the firm’s rapid expansion, their approach to client service and staff investment is clearly paying off. As you walk down the green-accented hallways at Citrin Cooperman, you get the sense that there’s something unique about this accounting firm. As they promise, “Business isn’t boring; your advisor shouldn’t be either.”

Learn more at https://www.citrincooperman.com/.

Citrin Cooperman partners Corey Bell, Michael Sabatini (Long Island office Managing Partner), and Michael Myers welcome CMM Managing Partner Joe Campolo to their sleek new space in Melville. Next photo: No Conference Room 1 here. The conference room names in Citrin Cooperman’s new office pay homage to beloved Long Island destinations.

The millennial-friendly, open concept space features many amenities including a kitchen area with lounge seating, tables and chairs, and two big screen TVs. Next photo: The office incorporates the colors of Citrin Cooperman’s logo in unexpected places.

Michael Myers, Michael Sabatini, Joe Campolo, Corey Bell, and Michael Feller pose in the lounge area. Next photo: Citrin Cooperman: Focus on what counts.

By Patrick McCormick and Richard DeMaio

Nine unelected Supreme Court Justices are tasked with deciding the most important issues confronting our country. For better or for worse, we the people are beholden to the jurisprudence of nine politically unaccountable legal minds.  However, the minds of Supreme Court Justices are neither infallible nor uniformly programmed. Justices come to the bench with different backgrounds, biases, methods of analysis, and interpretations of the Constitution. These idiosyncrasies yield the legal decisions that regulate our democratic way of life and reflect the norms, values, and attitudes of society.

Supreme Court decisions are a yardstick to measure society’s progression. Not all that long ago, in many infamous cases, the Supreme Court reached legal conclusions deemed unfathomable today. The Dred Scott decision, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), held that former slaves even in the “free states” of the North were not free and denied them access to federal courts. In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), the Court declared the doctrine of “separate but equal,” holding that a man that was one-eighth black and seven-eighths white was not permitted to sit in a white-only carriage because he was required to sit in a black-only carriage, which was considered legal “equality.” In Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), the Court upheld a statute permitting the compulsory sterilization of intellectually disabled individuals, noting “[t]hree generations of imbeciles are enough.” This opinion was cited by the Nazis a decade later. In Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944), the Court upheld the internment of thousands of Japanese-Americans while Americans of all races were overseas fighting fascism.

It is critical to note that these decisions were the result of deliberations, and not a single one was unanimously decided. Even cases that have been deemed stains on constitutional jurisprudence included prophetic dissents that vigorously fought to uphold the core values of our Constitution: Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. at 242 (Murphy, J., dissenting) (“Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting, but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States.”); Plessy, 163 U.S. at 559 (Harlan, J., dissenting) (“Our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”); Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 582 (Curtis, J., dissenting) (“[I]t is not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race. And that it was made exclusively for the white race is . . . contradicted by its opening declaration, that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States.”).

As is often said with regard to the Supreme Court, yesterday’s dissent is tomorrow’s majority opinion. Canonical dissents shape future deliberations as well as public discourse, and are the fuel that keep democracy moving forward. As Justice William O. Douglas stated, that “judges do not agree . . . is a sign that they are dealing with problems on which society itself is divided. It is the democratic way to express dissident views.” Melvin I. Urofsky, Dissent and the Supreme Court: Its Role in the Court’s History and the Nation’s Constitutional Dialogue 220 (2015).

Progress is measuring what was to what is. Thirteen years after Justice Curtis stated the Constitution was not “made exclusively for the white race,” the Civil War amendments were ratified abolishing slavery, guaranteeing equal protection under the law, and ensuring the right to vote. Fifty-eight years after the lone dissenter Justice Harlan pronounced “[o]ur Constitution is color-blind,” the spirit of his dissent was vindicated by the Court’s unanimous decision in Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, Shawnee Cty., Kan., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the death knell to the “separate but equal” doctrine established by Plessy. Some forty years after Justice Murphy’s scathing dissent asserting that the internment of thousands of Japanese-Americans “falls into the ugly abyss of racism,” Congress issued a formal apology and paid reparations.

These progressions reflect the flaws and resiliency of our legal system. The Supreme Court is comprised of nine imperfect citizens encumbered with biases and predispositions that inevitably seep into decisions affecting all aspects of society. Their opinions—whether majorities, concurrences, or dissents—are important and must be analyzed. They encapsulate viewpoints, both the eloquent and the ugly, vital to keep society moving forward. Even one articulate dissent is enough to lay the foundation to change history and the law in the highest court of the land.

The Court is insulated from the political whims of the electorate in that Justices cannot be voted off the bench. However, the Court can and must be held accountable for its decisions through we the people engaging in candid discussion and thoughtful analysis of those decisions. Therefore, in this blog, we’ll be doing our part to explore the decisions (and dissents) that so profoundly impact our society.

Food allergies are a growing public health concern with approximately 15 million Americans battling each day to avoid an allergic reaction. A food allergy is nothing to sneeze at; it is a life-altering medical condition in which exposure to a certain food triggers an adverse immune response. Allergy sufferers worry about more than a mere stuffy nose, watery eyes, or an itchy rash; allergic reactions can be life-threatening. Each year, 200,000 people in the United States require emergency medical attention for a severe reaction due to food allergies. In an effort to make the dining experience safer for those suffering from food allergies, the Suffolk County Legislature has imposed a new requirement on local food service establishments – and it just may help drive business, too.

Beginning on July 17, 2018, restaurants and food service establishments must include on all menus (including website menus), and menu boards located inside or outside of the establishment, a notice that declares:

“Before placing your order, please inform your server if a person in your party has a food allergy.”

The law applies to restaurants, cafeterias, delis, bakeries, ice cream stores, bars/taverns, and food trucks (exempt from the requirement are food service operations at schools, camps, child care facilities/programs, institutional settings, and temporary establishments operated by non-profits).

Restaurants should not view this requirement as a burden, but as a potential boon to business. Many people with food allergies avoid dining out because the majority of food allergy-related deaths are caused by foods consumed outside the home. (By not preparing the food themselves, allergy sufferers may unknowingly consume food that either contained or came in contact with the problem food. Dining out significantly increases the risk, as many people order without inquiring about ingredients or don’t have the medicine available to be treated immediately.) The new law aims to not only increase food safety, but also to increase business by encouraging allergy sufferers to consider dining out and assuaging the concern that food service establishments are unsafe for them.

By demonstrating an understanding of food allergies and a willingness to accommodate the customer’s needs, restaurants and other establishments can help eliminate the fear factor and bring in new customers. Indeed, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is working on a program where food service establishments are afforded the opportunity to earn the designation “Food Allergy Friendly.” (More details to come.) While poor communication has long stood between the food service industry and those with food allergies, the wheels of change are now in motion.

Please contact us with any compliance questions you may have.

Thank you to John Eyerman for his research and writing contributions to this article.

By Jamie Herzlich

With more employees coming forward, there’s been an uptick in companies requesting guidance on how to handle potential claims, experts say.

The #MeToo movement has put sexual harassment in the forefront and made it easier for victims to speak out.

That makes it all the more important for employers to be prepared to handle harassment complaints from employees, say experts.

“You don’t want to wait until someone comes forward and then scramble,” says Deb Muller, CEO of Florham Park, New Jersey-based  HR Acuity. “You should be sitting down with your leadership team and saying ‘How do we manage this?’ ”

Anecdotally, she says, she’s been hearing from employers about more sexual harassment incidents being reported internally in the workplace.

“This doesn’t necessarily mean more incidents are occurring, it just means more individuals are comfortable stepping forward,” says Muller.

Christine Malafi, a partner at Campolo, Middleton & McCormick in Ronkonkoma, has seen an uptick in the number of employers requesting guidance on handling potential claims of sexual harassment in the workplace and also looking to update their policies or do refresher training.

“The best defense is a good offense,” says Malafi.

While not all reports turn out to require disciplinary action or result in formal charges being filed, each one must be taken seriously.

“A lot of times it’s a misunderstanding of a situation that can be solved by having a conversation with a member of the company’s management team or human resources team,” says Jeff Agranoff, a principal at Jericho-based Grassi & Co., a CPA and business advisory firm.

“The most important thing you can do is listen and take notes,” says Muller, adding that you can even have an intake questionnaire or template ready.

Have a process and point person  to whom employees can go to report complaints.

If someone reports an incident, ask the employee key questions: What happened? Who was involved? What was the impact of the incident (i.e., did you lose your job?).

You want the employee to feel comfortable coming forward; otherwise the person could end up taking the complaint elsewhere (i.e., to an attorney), Muller says.

“It’s a dangerous situation for a company to not follow a process and investigate it properly,” says Agranoff, noting this typically includes interviewing all people involved.

While conducting the investigation, it’s best to leave the employee in  his or her current position unless a specific change is requested, he says.

“You have to make a reasonable accommodation to put the person in a more comfortable environment,” he says, noting if the the person is comfortable with the current situation “don’t change things just to change them.”

You don’t want someone negatively impacted because they made the complaint. In fact, your harassment/discrimination prevention policy should include a statement prohibiting retaliation.

In the same respect, employers should not be accusatory toward the person the complaint is lodged against while the investigation is ongoing, says Malafi.

Be as discreet as possible when investigating, she says. Perhaps even avoid using names when initially interviewing witnesses. For example, in a case where someone showed inappropriate pictures in the lunchroom, when interviewing employees you may just say there was a complaint that involved someone showing inappropriate pictures and see how they respond, says Malafi.

If an investigation results in valid claims on the part of the accuser, it’s the obligation of the employer to take remedial action to do its best to ensure the  behavior doesn’t continue, says Pfadenhauer, author of “Workplace Investigations: Discrimination and Harassment” (Datamotion Publishing, $29).

Depending on the circumstances, this doesn’t always mean termination; it could mean restating your policy and making sure everyone’s clear on what’s appropriate and inappropriate conduct in the workplace, she says.

And then, says Pfadenhauer, “Management should periodically follow up to make sure the inappropriate behavior does not continue.”

Read it on Newsday.