Reference no: EM133210767

CASE:In January 2021, a top Canadian News Network anchor, Elizabeth Maverick, received a phone call from the network's Human Resources department. She was informed that an independent investigation was being conducted into her, following an internal complaint sent two months earlier. Elizabeth was shocked and confused. Did she say anything offensive? Did she behave inappropriately toward a colleague?

A few months earlier, another woman news anchor was fired from a competing network after allegations of abusive workplace behaviors, but the details have never been released. Rumor has it that her male co-anchor was targeted by the same allegations, but that nothing came of it. He is still on air.

The investigator in Elizabeth's case refused to tell Elizabeth what the investigation was about, on the grounds that they still had to meet with other people. Elizabeth would have to wait 51 days, until March, to find out what she was being accused of. "It was a word I had said to a junior employee during the coverage of the last election night, in relation to a text they had written for me to read on air, and they clearly took my comments out of context," she said. "It was election night, the pressure was high. Some of the more junior staff responsible for writing my texts and summarizing the information were working their first election night and clearly not ready yet. I had to be firm and directive for the work to be up to the network's standards, and my own. Election nights are the Olympics of a news anchor's career. They only happen every so often and the scrutiny is heightened. Other anchors that night acted the same way." Elizabeth later said she felt humiliated by the process with the investigator. "I had an explanation for each allegation. I was accused of things that I myself had been a victim of at the start of my career, such as being denigrated on personal issues and looks, things that I would never have said."

Elizabeth admitted that she sometimes can be impatient and demanding with her team, especially on special reporting nights. "A newsroom is not a library. I'm no different from any of the other news anchors, far from it. I've come this far in my career because I've always been rigorous. I'm not a torturer. I am difficult, I am demanding, I am passionate and I have high standards. I probably do not think enough all the time and I am very direct, but I do not insult anyone, I do not curse at anyone. It is never personal; it is always about the rigor and quality of the work."

The Director-General of Information for the network refused to clarify the allegations against Ms. Maverick and limited herself to saying that it was "inappropriate behavior." "In 2021, there are behaviors that were accepted in another era that are no longer accepted," she added.

Two of the employees present that evening mentioned that they had also worked with another anchor, Mr. Neil Helm, and that "while he is also demanding, direct, rigorous, and sometimes impatient to the point of raising his voice quite frequently over the years, he is a team player and a leader. He acts out because he cares about the quality of the work so much." The Union of Workers has confirmed that a grievance has been filed regarding the sanction imposed on Ms. Maverick. "What the employer alleges to justify the sanction does not make
sense, it is exaggerated for someone who had no blemish on her file after more than 30 years working for the network," said union the union president. According to the information he had received, Ms. Maverick was never told of what offensive or hurtful things she may have done or said.

Despite Elizabeth's never being given information about the exact allegations, she was suspended without pay or benefits and asked to publicly apologize. Ultimately, she left the network. This was originally described as a retirement rather than a firing, until she spoke out to give her version of events.

A lot has been written about the situation above. On one side, some are saying that times have changed and that what used to be tolerated in the workplace is simply not acceptable anymore. On the other side, others are saying that sexism is playing a role here.

Question 1:  What attribution biases can you see at play in this case? Again, cite evidence from the case to support your claim.

Question 2: Discuss two perceptual biases or heuristics that you see in this case. Support your argument with concrete examples from the text.

Question 3: Do you think that Elizabeth Maverick was treated fairly (or justly-the two are synonyms here)? Why or why not?