In Jackson v. Rohm & Haas, an October 2001 case that has been described by the The Legal Intelligencer as one that "turned the tables on sexual harassment," a Philadelphia jury awarded $150,000 to an employee who claimed that his employer violated his privacy rights and defamed him by subjecting him to a sexual harassment investigation.

The Plaintiff, Mark Jackson, had dinner and "spent the night" with co-worker June McCrory. The employer, chemical manufacturer Rohm & Haas, launched a sexual harassment investigation after McCrory alleged that Jackson raped her (the jury heard conflicting stories from Jackson and McCrory as to what happened on the night in question). According to Jackson, however, the company's lawyers asked excruciatingly personal questions about the specifics of the sexual encounter between him and McCrory, and interrogated him "police style" so as to intimidate and embarrass him. One of the investigators was a former FBI agent who now works as security at Rohm & Haas. According to Jackson's attorney, "He [Jackson] felt like everyone was looking at him like he was a rapist." Jackson's psychiatrist also testified at trial that Jackson was "fighting a losing battle" in trying to maintain his dignity in the workplace.

The jury found for Jackson on his invasion of privacy claim to the tune of $150,000, and returned a verdict for Jackson on his defamation claim (although no damages were awarded for defamation).

While the verdict in this case will most likely be on appeal for some time, it does remind employers that sexual harassment investigations should begin as unbiased as possible, and should at all times seek to protect the dignity of the accused as well as the accuser. It is extremely important for employers to remind those investigating the sexual harassment allegations not to presume that the accused is guilty before the investigation begins, and to provide written instructions to the investigators on how to keep the investigation as confidential as possible and how to protect the privacy rights of all employees who participate in the investigation (this includes the accuser, accused, and all witnesses).