Punjab and Haryana High Court to Examine Suspected Workplace Sexual Harassment Case Involving Adidas India
Judgement Given On :
Introduction:
A former in-house lawyer has taken legal action against her former employer, Adidas India Marketing Pvt Ltd, for alleged sexual harassment in the workplace. The employee has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court after a single Judge quashed proceedings before an internal committee based on technical grounds. A Division Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta has issued a notice of motion to Adidas India and other respondents, including the State of Haryana, in response to the woman’s appeal.
Background:
The appellant, who worked as a “manager-legal counsel” at Adidas India Marketing Pvt Ltd, alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by a supervisor from November 2017 to November 2018. After raising the issue with the management, she received no response. In January 2019, she was threatened and pressured to resign without notice or proper compensation. The company’s “compliance official” later approached her regarding the charges and promised an independent investigation. However, she was not included in this internal investigation. Despite her requests, she did not receive details about the internal committee.
In March 2019, she was informed that the internal investigation had been completed but was denied access to the report. A counterblast probe was initiated concerning alleged wrongful reimbursement claims, but details about the source of documents were not provided.
In June 2019, she received a threatening letter regarding a full and final settlement. After receiving no response to her follow-up emails, she filed a complaint on “She-Box.” She was then called for a hearing before the local committee in District Gurugram, prompting the respondents to approach the High Court.
The High Court Action:
The single Judge allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings before the internal committee based on a limitation issue. The petitioner believes that the single Judge’s determination was limited to the issue of limitation and that important legal arguments were disregarded. The petition argues that the defense of limitation may not be relevant in a sexual harassment complaint that persists over an extended period.
Conclusion:
The case brings to light the complexities surrounding workplace sexual harassment complaints and the need for a thorough examination of issues beyond just technicalities. The High Court’s decision could have significant implications for cases of this nature.