In any workplace or educational setting, allegations of misconduct, especially those involving harassment or abuse, demand a response that is both neutral and decisive. Yet too often, institutions falter at the first step: determining how serious the allegations are. This initial judgment shapes everything that follows, from whether an investigation is launched to how the public perceives the organization’s integrity.

1. The Case: A Coach, a Student, and a Community in Crisis

In a small school board, a high school student reported that her coach, who also held a senior administrative role, made sexually inappropriate comments and touched her in ways that made her uncomfortable. The alleged behavior occurred during sports practice and included remarks with sexual innuendo and physical contact under the guise of instruction.

The student’s parent raised the issue directly with school leadership. The coach acknowledged the inappropriate comment in writing, but the district chose to handle the matter quietly. He resigned from his coaching role but remained in his administrative position. No formal investigation was launched, and no public statement was made.

Community members eventually learned of the incident and demanded accountability. Over 100 residents attended a school board meeting, calling for transparency and the coach’s removal. The board placed him on paid leave only after sustained public pressure.

This case reveals a troubling pattern: the organization treated the allegations as a minor lapse in judgment rather than a serious breach of trust and safety. Why?

2. Why Organizations Misjudge Seriousness

Organizations often misjudge the seriousness of allegations due to:

• Familiarity bias: When the potential respondent is a respected leader, there’s a tendency to minimize or rationalize their behavior.
• Fear of reputational harm: Leaders may worry that acknowledging serious misconduct will damage the institution’s image.
• Lack of clear protocols: Without a structured framework, decisions are made ad hoc, often influenced by emotion or politics.
• Misunderstanding trauma: If decision-makers lack training in trauma-informed approaches, they may misinterpret the complainant’s distress or credibility.

3. Assessing Seriousness

To avoid these pitfalls, organizations may adopt a structured, neutral framework that considers multiple dimensions of the allegation(s). For example, the institution may answer a series of questions related to the nature of the conduct, impact on the complainant, power dynamics, credibility and corroboration, risk of recurrence or harm, and legal and policy implications.  This framework doesn’t replace investigation, but it guides whether one is warranted, its urgency, and who should conduct the investigation, if any.

4. Lessons from the Case

In the case above, the organization failed to apply a structured assessment. Instead, it relied on informal judgment and personal relationships. The result was a loss of public trust, emotional harm to the complainant, and a leadership crisis that could have been avoided.  Had the board used a framework like the one above, it would have recognized:

• The power imbalance between coach and student.
• The sexual nature of the comments and physical contact.
• The emotional impact on the student and her family.
• Chances of recurrence.
• The legal risk of failing to investigate or report.

These factors point to a high level of seriousness, which required immediate interim measures, a formal investigation, and transparent communication.

5. Conclusion: Seriousness Is Not Subjective

Organizations must resist the urge to downplay allegations based on personal loyalties or fear of fallout. Seriousness is not a feeling, it’s a structured assessment based on facts, impact, and risk.

By adopting a clear framework, institutions can respond with integrity, neutrally, promptly and procedurally fair.

If your organization is facing a sensitive complaint and you're unsure how to assess its seriousness, feel free to reach out, I help employment/labour lawyers and paralegals, investigators, HR and leaders navigate these moments with clarity and neutrality.