Hickox and co-author Michelle Kaminski, associate professor in MSU’s School of Human Resources and Labor Relations, found that in many cases a company thought their accused employee should have received tougher punishment but were bound by a company’s policy. If the policy didn’t specifically prohibit the harassment, then arbitrator was unable to enforce it.

Hickox continued: “It is interesting that the employer’s anti-harassment policies play a part in whether the harasser’s discipline was upheld. Policies that included specific examples of harassment were more often associated with the discipline being upheld.”

Both of the study’s authors called for more carefully crafted anti-harassment policies. Hickox said: “To be sure that these harassers aren’t allowed back into the workplace, employers need to look much more closely at harassment policies, as well as the power they give arbitrators in resolving these cases.

“I believe that arbitration is a fair process and can be effective, but I’m a firm believer in consequences,” Hickox said. “You can train people on harassment until they’re blue in the face, but until there are clearer, more stringent policies from employers, the issue will continue.”

Images: Getty

How many accused harassers are allowed to return to work? More than you might think