Howard Levitt: I would gladly name, shame and sue #MeToo accusers who have ulterior motives

Article here. Excerpt:

'In the #MeToo era, investigations have become de rigueur. If anything, we are in a climate of over-investigation where management, too often alleges the need to investigate so they don’t have to make necessary decisions. Employers have also neutered their own human resource departments by using outside investigators when their own trained human resource executives know the company’s culture, policies and the individuals involved far better. They can usually do a more efficient and effective job than an outsider. Companies also too often use lawyers for investigations when that only invites the affected employees to bring their own lawyers, further delaying the process. (Employees otherwise have no right to bring counsel to an investigation.)

There is also the problem that the very fact of an investigation usually seals the fate of the investigated employee. I have seen few cases where an employee, suspended pending investigation, has ever been reinstated, regardless of the ultimate findings.

But one particular case, in which the investigator cleared the employee from allegations of sexual harassment and worse, seems particularly egregious. In that case, a complainant, M.C. (for Main Complainant), made serious allegations of violent rape, purportedly years earlier, against Steven Galloway, who was a sessional instructor when the rape allegedly occurred, but, at the time of the complaint, UBC’s Creative Writing Chair. M.C.’s allegations were conveyed by Chelsea Rooney, a former student in the department. Rooney claimed that she could bring forward an additional 19 former and current UBC students who could also allege abuse by Galloway.
...
UBC eventually did retain, to its credit in this case, a professional factfinder, retired former B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Ellen Boyd, who had a history of strong decisions in favour of victimized women. I note that, unlike lawyers, who are skilled in cross-examination, judges have expertise in fact-finding. Boyd found that M.C. fabricated her story and that, rather than a violent rape, M.C. and Galloway had conducted a two-year-long consensual affair, which went on long after the rape was alleged to have occurred. There were also no 19 complainants. The few witnesses whom Rooney conjured up had complaints that were, at best, trivial and in no way constituted sexual harassment.'