Management says it will take the complaint seriously.
HR says it will be involved.
The employee says she is afraid to encounter the coworker again.
And then? According to a new lawsuit filed against the Atlanta Hawks and State Farm Arena, not nearly enough.
Tameika Hampton worked as an event security officer at State Farm Arena. She alleges that during an NBA YoungBoy concert, a coworker approached her from behind and pressed his genitals against her. Two days later, after a security captain noticed she appeared distressed, Hampton reported what had happened. The complaint says the report was escalated, she was told to submit it in writing, and management assured her that the matter would be taken seriously, HR would be involved, and her safety mattered.
Those are all the right words.
The lawsuit alleges the employer's actions did not match them.
Hampton claims she had to repeatedly follow up because HR did not timely communicate with her or schedule an interview. She alleges the interview did not occur until nearly a month later. Four days after that, the company allegedly closed the investigation, telling her the surveillance footage was too unclear to determine what happened. She also says the employer failed to give her clear safety protocols, failed to ensure she would not run into the accused coworker, and then scheduled them in a way that forced her to pass by him after a later shift, causing a panic attack.
And, according to the complaint, another female employee later accused the same coworker of similar conduct.
The defendants, of course, have not yet answered. These are allegations, not proven facts.
But the lesson for employers does not depend on how this case ultimately resolves.
When an employer learns of harassment, it owns the response.
Not the outcome. Not perfection. Not omniscience.
The response.
That means more than thanking the employee for coming forward and promising to investigate. It means acting immediately, communicating clearly, documenting thoroughly, and taking interim steps reasonably calculated to protect the complaining employee while the investigation runs its course.
In harassment cases, speed matters.
A delayed investigation is often no investigation at all. Memories fade. Video gets overwritten. Witnesses disappear. The complaining employee loses trust. And the accused employee remains in the workplace, creating ongoing risk to the complainant, other employees, and the business.
A prompt investigation does not mean a rushed or sloppy investigation. It means starting immediately. Identify witnesses. Preserve video. Lock down schedules. Review prior complaints. Check personnel files. Interview the complainant. Interview the accused. Interview anyone who may have seen or heard anything relevant. Follow the facts where they lead.
And tell the employee what is happening.
You do not need to share every detail. You should not promise a particular result. But silence is poison. "HR will be in touch" followed by weeks of nothing tells an employee that the company does not care, even if people behind the scenes are doing work.
Interim protection also matters.
An employer that receives a credible complaint of sexual touching cannot simply leave the parties to navigate the workplace on their own. Separate them. Adjust schedules. Change reporting lines. Provide escorts if needed. Clarify who the employee should contact if there is a problem. Make sure the complainant does not have to keep asking whether she will be safe walking to her car.
And be careful with the word "safe."
If you tell an employee, "You will not have to work with him," then make sure she does not have to work with him. If you tell her, "You will not be near him," then make sure she is not near him. Broken safety promises are litigation gasoline.
Employers also need to understand the legal standard. When the alleged harasser is a coworker, the employer is generally liable if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action reasonably calculated to stop it.
That phrase, "reasonably calculated to stop it," is doing a lot of work.
It is not enough to check the box with an investigation. The response must be meaningful. If the accused remains employed, what guardrails are in place? If the evidence is inconclusive, what steps will prevent recurrence? If there are later similar complaints, will the employer reopen the investigation? If the complainant reports continued fear or trauma, how will the employer respond?
The law does not require employers to believe every complaint automatically. It does require them to take every complaint seriously.
That distinction matters.
Taking a complaint seriously means you do not prejudge it. You do not bury it. You do not slow-walk it. You do not make the complainant chase HR for updates. You do not treat unclear video as the end of the inquiry. You do not ignore scheduling realities. And you do not create a workplace in which the person who complained feels punished by having to manage her own safety.
Employers should have a harassment response playbook before the complaint arrives. It should include:
- Immediate intake and documentation.
- Preservation of evidence, including video, texts, emails, badge records, schedules, and prior complaints.
- Prompt identification of interim protective measures.
- A neutral investigator with authority and training.
- Regular communication with the complaining employee.
- A conclusion supported by facts, not vibes.
- Corrective action tied to the seriousness of the conduct and the risk of recurrence.
- Follow-up after the investigation closes.
The follow-up piece is often forgotten. It should not be.
After the investigation ends, ask whether the employee has experienced retaliation. Ask whether there have been further interactions. Confirm that protective measures are working. Make sure managers understand the boundaries. Then document all of it.
Harassment policies are only as good as the employer's willingness to enforce them when enforcement is uncomfortable.
Because when an employee reports sexual harassment, the employer has a choice.
It can treat the report like a compliance inconvenience. Or it can treat it like a workplace emergency that deserves urgency, care, and accountability.
Only one of those choices keeps employees safe and helps keep the employer out of court.
