UBS Criticized For Tactics In Harassment Case
last updated: 4 October 2003
A National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) arbitration panel found that the Scottsdale office of UBS Financial Services was liable for sexual harassment last month. A female employee was awarded $215,000.
Dow Jones Newswires (DJN) reports that a former broker, an ex-Marine, claimed that the branch manager in the firm's Scottsdale, Arizona, office sexually harassed her from 1999 until 2001. The manager was accused of taking the broker to a topless bar during a trip to New York and boasting of his sexual conquests.
DJN says that NASD has now come out and openly criticized UBS of abusing 'the arbitration process by extending the hearings with redundant testimony and repetitive cross-examination'. NASD has said that the firm's tactic was 'an apparent attempt to exhaust the claimant's ability to prosecute her claim'.
The claimant originally sought a multimillion-dollar settlement, so UBS is understandably quite pleased with the result. Lawyers who helped with the case are, however, disgusted with the outcome. One is quoted as saying: 'Here was a woman who was really sexually harassed at work, and it basically drove her out of the industry. Then when she brings a claim against the firm, she is completely victimized again during an arbitration hearing. The process just failed her'.
DJN says that NASD has now come out and openly criticized UBS of abusing 'the arbitration process by extending the hearings with redundant testimony and repetitive cross-examination'. NASD has said that the firm's tactic was 'an apparent attempt to exhaust the claimant's ability to prosecute her claim'.
The claimant originally sought a multimillion-dollar settlement, so UBS is understandably quite pleased with the result. Lawyers who helped with the case are, however, disgusted with the outcome. One is quoted as saying: 'Here was a woman who was really sexually harassed at work, and it basically drove her out of the industry. Then when she brings a claim against the firm, she is completely victimized again during an arbitration hearing. The process just failed her'.