There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest employment and labour law firms in Western Canada.” They work with both private and public sector employers.

To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same. Now that the investigation is complete, we’re able to provide a summary of the findings.

The investigation found that:

  • Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

  • Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

  • Any concerns that were raised were investigated. Furthermore, from reviewing our history, the investigator is confident that if any other concerns had been raised, we would have investigated them.

  • There was no evidence of “abuse of power” or retaliation. The individual involved may not have agreed with our decisions or performance feedback, but our actions were for legitimate work-related purposes, and our business reasons were valid.

  • Allegations of process errors and miscommunication while onboarding this individual were partially substantiated, but the investigator found ample documentary evidence of LMG working to rectify the errors and the individual being treated generously and respectfully. When they had questions, they were responded to and addressed.

In summary, as confirmed by the investigation, the allegations made against the team were largely unfounded, misleading, and unfair.

With all of that said, in the spirit of ongoing improvement, the investigator shared their general recommendation that fast-growing workplaces should invest in continuing professional development. The investigator encouraged us to provide further training to our team about how to raise concerns to reinforce our existing workplace policies.

Prior to receiving this report, LMG solicited anonymous feedback from the team in an effort to ensure there was no unreported bullying and harassment and hosted a training session which reiterated our workplace policies and reinforced our reporting structure. LMG will continue to assess ongoing continuing education for our team.

At this time, we feel our case for a defamation suit would be very strong; however, our deepest wish is to simply put all of this behind us. We hope that will be the case, given the investigator’s clear findings that the allegations made online were misrepresentations of what actually occurred. We will continue to assess if there is persistent reputational damage or further defamation.

This doesn’t mean our company is perfect and our journey is over. We are continuously learning and trying to do better. Thank you all for being part of our community.

  • @inclementimmigrant
    link
    English
    -197 months ago

    Okay, they’ve found themselves to have do nothing wrong and are threatening a defamation suit. Another great, “Trust me Bro.” moment here.

    Maybe they should focus more on doing reviews and testing methodologies that don’t suck.

    • sebinspace
      link
      English
      207 months ago

      What part about “third party” do you not understand?

      • Natanael
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        There’s a million different ways “third party” can go. Sometimes they take the job seriously and have enough mandate to get it done, sometimes they don’t. The latter is especially risky and problematic when they’re hired by the party accused.

        The only way to ensure you get the former is to let somebody not involved in the accusations make the choice of which auditors to hire

      • @Eranziel
        link
        English
        37 months ago

        What part of “we paid these guys and they said we’re fine” do you not? Why would they choose and pay and release the results from a company they didn’t trust to clear them?

        I’m not saying it’s rotten, but the fact that the third party was unilaterally chosen by and paid for LMG makes all the results pretty questionable.

        • @Mistic
          link
          English
          2
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          My guy, that’s a common business practice. If the third party skewed the results to favor their client, they risk massive reputation and monetary losses.

          That’s how any auditing works.

          Look up Arthur Andersen and what happened to them.

      • @inclementimmigrant
        link
        English
        3
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        What part of I don’t have any trust in that company don’t you understand. I bet you’re a huge fan of “third party” arbitration too.

        • sebinspace
          link
          English
          47 months ago

          Then move on with your life. There’s literally nothing that could ever change your mind, so arguing with you is even more fruitless than usual.

          • @inclementimmigrant
            link
            English
            -4
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I certainly didn’t ask you your opinion on a public forum.

            • @HauntedCupcake
              link
              English
              67 months ago

              You kinda inherently do when you post on a public forum, the other guy’s being a bit of a dick, but you can’t just expect a circlejerk whenever you post your opinion

      • @Fantomas
        link
        English
        -17 months ago

        To be fair, there were lots of words to read