Tim Ballard and Operation Underground Railroad - 5 Lessons for HR Departments

 

We at 888 have been enamored of these stories, which apparently have no bottom. We wrote an article on October 10 and another one on October 14. Go back and check them out for most of the allegations and some discussion. Today's article is about lessons from this fiasco that can be learned by HR departments. To do that, we need to start with the allegations against Operation Underground Railroad (OUR) and other corporate defendants. For the purposes of this article, we'll simply refer to all non-Tim Ballard (Ballard) defendants as OUR.

Lawsuit Allegations against OUR and other Corporate Defendants

Some of the following allegations (not proven facts) are from the first lawsuit, and some others are from the second:

• The allegations against Ballard while on "missions" or during OUR training, events, on its premises, etc. are repeated. These claims involve sexual assault and battery, conspiracy to commit sexual assault and battery, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. Read our previous articles for the specifics.
• Negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging that OUR's conduct violated the standards of care required.
• Negligent supervention and retention of Ballard.
• General negligence.
• Premises liability.
• Breach of fiduciary duty by the OUR Board of Directors.
• That donated money was acquired by fraud, and/or was used for "personal fantasies."

Other Pertinent Facts

• OUR had anti-sexual harassment and other related policies. These policies made clear that behavior of that nature would not be tolerated.
• Ballard claims that he "led by example" in avoiding the appearance of impropriety in setting forth the policies and by conforming his behavior to the stated code of conduct. Ballard stated: "Sexual contact was prohibited, and I led by example. Given our meticulous attention to this issue, any suggestion of inappropriate sexual contact is categorically false.”
• The accusers allege that a number of OUR employees and board members clearly saw signs of Ballard’s abusive behavior and did nothing. They did not help set the boundaries of the “couples ruse”; instead, they also warned the women that if they did not listen to Ballard, they would risk the mission and lives.
• Several allegations that later appeared in the lawsuit were reported to have been first filed with OUR's HR department. It is unclear whether the allegations are exactly the same, or if any differed in any meaningful ways.
• Some time after receiving the reports, OUR engaged its law firm to perform an external investigation.
• The external investigation largely validated the women's complaints.
• Ballard left OUR in June, though there is some dispute whether he was fired or if he voluntarily stepped down. One source stated "Tim was telling people he resigned from OUR because there would be a conflict with 'Sound of Freedom,' and he wanted to start the SPEAR Fund. I always felt weird about that because I was with him on June 9 when he got his termination letter from OUR's Board members and OUR. He never gave me clear information."
• Update: Just yesterday (October 16) an article from Slate detailed the following: "Eventually, when the full details of the abuse emerged, OUR fired Ballard. But OUR’s board, which was composed of Ballard’s friends and family, fought back. The two parties met and developed a plan in which Ballard resigned but was able to blame it on the appearance of a conflict of interest with the Sound of Freedom release, and not because of any shameful behavior. He was allowed to remain the face of OUR. And he was able to launch new anti-trafficking initiatives, including the nonprofit SPEAR Fund, that relied on his reputation."

Discussion

OUR is very likely to be assigned tremendous liability for its actions. First, it created an environment in which sexual assault was permitted. Its operatives set up too much trust in one person, with operatives telling women not to question Ballard. And ultimately OUR, through Ballard, may well be found to have engaged in many of the alleged behaviors.

Nevertheless, OUR did the right thing in having an external investigation. We've written about the efficacy of bringing in outside folks to perform investigations. Much will depend on how quickly OUR acted to engage the investigators, and how long it took for OUR to act on the findings.

This was a tough situation for OUR. It's founder and lead fundraiser was accused of sexual impropriety. It's Board was filled with Ballard loyalists and his family. OUR could have buried its head in the sand or doubted the veracity of the victims. It did neither. Regardless of the liability OUR incurred prior to the internal allegations, OUR took the right step of bringing in outside help. Then it took critical action in separating itself from Ballard. OUR took some prudent steps to mitigate any further damage.

However, by might have prevented future people from being victimized if it has publicly exposed the allegations and the finding of the investigation. At the very least, it could have taken steps to distance itself from Ballard rather than letting him continue to be the "face" of the organization, even after his separation.

Lessons for HR Departments

• If you receive a report or complaint, take action. It's true that false allegations exist. But HR has a duty to the company to minimize its exposure via human relations. Exonerating someone, after a genuine investigation, is a great result! Not doing anything or ignoring the complaints is a recipe for disaster.
• Time = Money. Letting inappropriate or illegal behavior continue unabated may cost the company money. And if anyone else is harmed by your inaction, the liability doing nothing skyrockets.
• Senior company leadership is not immune to awful behavior. Have a plan in place before you get a complaint about senior personnel. Don't fly by the seat of your pants in that situation!
• Protect yourself. There will be a great deal of pressure on whoever does the investigation. You might find it difficult to be objective when your job is on the line. For that reason, outside investigations are thought to be better and more objective than internal investigations. Management may not like the cost, but they will appreciate the savings if liability can be avoided!
• Get the results of the investigation to the right people. Whether that's your manager, the head of administration, the CEO, or the Board of Directors. Your responsibility largely ends when facts are delivered to the decision makers. Then, when something is decided, carry out the direction(s) with exactness. 

This post appeared on LinkedIn in a cross-post.