But according to published reports in Switzerland and confirmed to Going Concern by several sources, the law firm engaged to lead the independent investigation never spoke to the alleged victim, a female associate who no longer works at EY Switzerland, even though she agreed to be interviewed. How in the hell do you have an investigation of sexual harassment within a workplace without talking to the person who made the claim in the first place?
In an internal email sent on Jan. On Friday, 14 th December , we wrote to you following news reports and allegations of inappropriate workplace behavior in relation to a Swiss partner and a former employee. The independent investigation that we announced has now been completed. While the investigation concludes that there was an improper behavior by this partner, it also concludes that there was no sexual harassment under Swiss law.
Reflecting on the above, EY Switzerland and this partner have agreed that he will leave the firm. Sources have confirmed to Going Concern that Schmid is the managing partner who was accused of sexual harassment and no longer works at EY. Sexual harassment is defined to include threats, the promising of job-related advantages or coercive acts to obtain favors of a sexual nature. Swiss employers by law are required to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.
How is this not considered sexual harassment under Swiss employment law? One source told me they were as perplexed as I am:. Schmid never had forced sexual intercourse with the victim. It was, however, clearly a gross breach of Swiss labor code which can also entail criminal chargesβbut under labor code, not criminal code , as well as a gross violation of EY Code of Conduct which Teigland acknowledged. The female associate left the firm in late , but at least she was given 10 months of pay, plus holiday compensation, as part of her exit package.
According to a Jan. The [ex-] employee was contacted shortly before Christmas by EY and invited to discuss the matter. The intention is to end the investigation as soon as possible, according to a letter in which this newspaper had insight, preferably until the end of This was not possible because the employee stayed overseas until mid-January. But she offered several times written statements. She was informed that her cooperation was not compulsory, as it was only necessary to investigate whether the correct measures had been taken on the basis of her complaints.
