WSBA governors receive mandatory anti-harassment training emphasizing reporting duties and special governor procedures

At a mandatory anti-harassment training for the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors, facilitator Megan McNabb of Fisher Phillips outlined legal standards, reporting obligations and practical steps for handling complaints.

McNabb said the training is necessary because "harassment really harms victims" and because lawsuits and policy violations can damage individuals and the organization. Glynis Klimfelter, introduced as "CEO, HR director and chief culture officer for the Washington State Bar Association," coordinated the session and described WSBA’s investigative role.

The session set out the legal test for workplace harassment as offensive or unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic that is severe or pervasive enough to affect work. McNabb explained the offensiveness prong uses a reasonable-person standard, unwelcome conduct is subjective, and a single severe incident can meet the legal threshold. She listed protected categories covered federally (race, gender, religion, age 40+, disability, genetic information, veteran status) and said Washington law includes additional protections such as marital status, pregnancy or breastfeeding, obesity, political ideology and recent additions like credit score.

Trainers grouped harassing conduct into four categories—verbal, physical, quid pro quo and visual—and gave workplace examples: nicknames or bulletin-board captions that offend others, unwanted touching, sexually explicit images or text messages, and implied exchanges of job benefits for sexual favors. McNabb stressed that even conduct that does not meet the legal standard can violate WSBA policy and trigger disciplinary steps, noting that "it might still be against WSBA policy" even if not unlawful.

On handling complaints, the presenters advised immediate, impartial response: thank the person for reporting, inform them you must notify HR, gather evidence and witness statements, preserve relevant documents and calendar entries, and avoid destroying potential evidence. Glynis Klimfelter described the WSBA’s workplace-investigation steps—taking complainant statements, identifying witnesses and evidence, interviewing the respondent last, and turning a final report and recommendations to leadership. For conflicts of interest, WSBA uses outside investigators.

Attendees asked about confidentiality and mandatory-reporting practice. McNabb recommended telling a reporter up front that you are obligated to report and that HR will be involved while keeping details as confidential as possible. Participants also discussed bystander intervention: if comfortable, interrupt offensive behavior directly with a brief request to stop; otherwise report to HR.

The presenters addressed special circumstances: volunteers, third parties and complaints involving governors. McNabb said harassment by volunteers or third parties can still create organizational liability and should be reported; the WSBA will identify who has authority to act (for example, notifying the Supreme Court when an appointee is involved). An attendee noted a specific WSBA anti-harassment policy and a different process when a governor is implicated because "only the board has authority to hold a board member accountable."

Participants raised concerns about false or malicious reports. McNabb said the policy’s false-report provisions are intended to deter deliberate fabrication, not to punish genuine reports of being offended or uncomfortable. She advised caution about inventing claims but encouraged reporting when someone feels harassed.

The training closed with a short Q&A and the meeting recessed for a five-minute break before returning to governors’ business.