Being Drunk is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card in Business and at Work

This past week, Rep. Elizabeth Esty resigned in the wake of increasing flak she received for how she handled the investigation, severance and reference letter for her former Chief of Staff’s threats of violence and harassment of female subordinates.

A friend of the former chief of staff issued the following statement:

Ricci said Baker had a drinking problem in 2016 and has since given up alcohol and sought treatment for anger issues and substance abuse. He said Baker offered to resign after the voice mail came to light; Esty disputed that claim.

Aside from his former boss calling him out as a liar for his alleged resignation offer, the former Chief of Staff not only validated through his spokesman above that he had indeed harassed his subordinates as reported: he also blamed his drinking and inability to control his anger in an attempt to step away from his accountability for his conduct.

Harassing subordinates, like any other violation of workplace policies, is not mitigated because the target of the investigation had been drinking. As is typical in many workplaces, harassing (and threatening to kill) subordinates while drunk is a compounding (e.g., violating workplace policies that set the boundary that employees cannot be drunk at work) reason for discharge, not an excuse. Whether drunk or sober, threatening to kill a subordinate is grounds for immediate termination. It’s yet another variation of the intent vs. impact guideline: it is only the impact on those employees harmed that matters.

How does your organization hold employees accountable for their conduct, drunk or sober, in business and at work?