Clark County is moving to update and expand its sexual harassment policy for the first time in three years, the latest government body to consider revising its policy after a high-profile employee was accused of discriminating against female employees.

The move to draft a new policy comes just a few days after county officials hired an outside law firm to investigate claims that Public Defender Phil Kohn had acted inappropriately around female employees and had refused to probe sexual harassment allegations against “older, established” male attorneys. Kohn has denied the allegations.

Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani said the policy change, which she proposed before the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported on the investigation spurred by an anonymous letter against Kohn last week, nonetheless came at an opportune time.

“Having to do a letter anonymously is not appropriate, so this is perfect timing for us — by accident,” she said.

Giunchigliani said the proposed changes would be introduced at the commission’s Tuesday meeting and go through a public hearing in two weeks, so the earliest it could be approved would be the April 17 meeting. The last reported change to the county’s harassment policy was approved in April 2015.

The commission spent about 30 minutes discussing the policy on Tuesday, with several saying that they wanted the new policy to more clearly lay out what the punishments were for violating the policy.

“The bullying and the racial discrimination in the workplace is horrific here,” Commissioner Lawrence Weekly said. “And you don’t hear about the follow-ups, you don’t hear about what has happened, any my concern is, and I said to the manager, examples have to be made. People have to know if you’re going to say, ‘We don’t tolerate that here, in the county and in the workplace,’ then examples need to be made.”

The proposed changes would require all newly hired county employees to undergo harassment-related training within 30 days of being hired, and mandate all county staff to receive the training once every two years. The current policy only requires new employees to be presented with the harassment policy, and for copies of it to be disseminated to all county employees.

It also adds new sections creating definitions of what behavior constitutes ‘discrimination,’ ‘bullying,’ ‘workplace harassment’ and ‘sexual harassment’ — while the current policy only defines the latter.

Another change is in the definition of ‘sexual harassment’ — defined as “requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature” —  to also include situations where submission or rejection of the conduct is “implicitly or explicitly” used as a basis for a term of employment, related to any employment-decision affecting the targeted person or anything that “unreasonably” interferes with work performance or behavior that creates an “intimidating, hostile, or offensive” work environment.

The proposed policy also states the rules apply to all county employees regardless of classification or length of employment, and lays out where the rules apply — including in county-owned buildings and vehicles, during business travel and in any place county business is conducted regardless of who owns the property or if the interaction is with non-county employees.

All county employees would be covered by the policy during work hours, lunch breaks or during off-duty, work-related social or recreational activities.

Included in the prohibited behavior is making “sexual comments” about a person’s clothing or looks, displaying sexually suggestive material, “unsolicited and unwelcome” flirtations or physical contact, repeated request for dates, offering a subordinate employment benefits for unwelcome dates or sexual favors and unwelcomed “terms of endearment,” such as “sweetheart” or “babe.”

The proposed changes also include new sections specifically prohibiting bully and harassment in the workplace, which it defines as verbal abuse (derogatory remarks, slurs, insults and epithets), visual conduct (derogatory posters, photography, cartoons, drawings or gestures), verbal or physical conduct that is threatening, intimidating or humiliating, social exclusion or ostracism and any attempt to make a county employee act contrary to their work requirements on any County Commission or zoning items.

The proposal also specifically prohibits retaliation for reporting discrimination or harassment, including demoting an employee, increasing scrutiny or purposefully changing a work schedule or any action “that would discourage covered County employees from exercising their rights under the Policy or the law in the future.”

It also adds pregnancy as a condition where the county cannot discriminate against in hiring, unless it constitutes “bonafide occupational qualifications” required for the position.

The proposed changes largely keep in place the process for reporting sexual harassment claims, including filing a complaint with the county Office of Diversity and for the county manager to assign an outside law firm to investigate the claims if the allegations are true.

If approved, the county wouldn’t be the first to upgrade its policy on sexual harassment and discrimination in recent weeks. State lawmakers approved creation of a permanent reporting system for complaints at the Legislature in February, and the state Gaming Control Board is moving to adopt its first-ever policy addressing sexual harassment.

Anti-Harassment Policy Draft 3-19-2018 by Riley Snyder on Scribd

CC AAP 02-2018 by Riley Snyder on Scribd

Chris Giunchigliani has donated to The Nevada Independent. You can see a full list of donors here.

Updated at 11:47 a.m. to include new information from the Clark County Commission's meeting.