Lynn Martin was the former Secretary of Labor for President George Bush Sr. She dealt with numerous employers to improve corporate management and advise company policies. However, on May 14, 1996, she was hired by Mitsubishi Motors to rectify harassment policies at a local plant in Normal, Illinois. This case would be remembered as the largest sexual harassment case in U.S. history.

Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. is a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Motors, which produces a wide variety of automobiles such as the highly popular Galant and the Eclipse Spider. It owns plants throughout the globe that generate billions in revenue each year. The plant in Normal, IL is the largest employer in the town, with over 4,000 employees of which nearly eighty percent are male. Prior to 1991, Chrysler Corporation half-owned the factory, where management was equally divided between Americans and Japanese. Mitsubishi later bought Chrysler’s share and filled its top management predominantly with Japanese. American management followed orders directly from Japanese corporate headquarters. Since its opening in 1988, the management claimed a zero tolerance policy for any harassment and discrimination in its workplace.

Despite Mitsubishi’s policy, the plant provided no formal sexual harassment training of any kind. Management was a large part of the dilemma. While management tried to encourage workers to report sexual harassment in newsletters, the actuality of the work environment did not stop women from experiencing harassment. New female employees were thought of as fair game by male supervisors, where several new hires faced sexually explicit comments.

Mitsubishi Corporate Culture

From its long standing Japanese principles, Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. was derived from one of the top automotive companies that prospered for over a century. The brand is synonymous with excellence and innovative technology. As a new part of Mitsubishi Motors, the company wanted to base its foundation on Japanese culture. This corporate culture was imposed throughout all of the organization.

Orientation for American management consisted of learning a foreign style of business and being introduced to the Japanese culture. Male employees quickly learned that Japan is a patriarchal society. It became evident that Japanese businessmen do not support women in the factory workplace. Under Japanese culture, female workers are viewed as the weaker sex, resulting in a clear inequality. This disrespect discouraged women from looking their male managers in the eye. For Mitsubishi Motors, this was the corporate custom and it was not to be challenged.

Mitsubishi managers often sent American plant managers to Japan for extensive training. The managers witnessed the Japanese culture firsthand as men dominated every aspect of business. Women were rarely seen and were candidly referred to as sex objects. On company downtime, Mitsubishi management opted to show their American counterparts how to really relax after a hard day’s work: sex parties. Plant employees were routinely treated to Japanese strip clubs, where women danced nude, engaged in sexual acts with workers, and even had sexual relations with animals upon request. American employees observed Japanese workers taking several pictures of the events. Afterwards, they circulated the photos in the employee boardroom and later bragged about it around the office.

American managers were obviously surprised at Japan’s corporate culture. This Japanese mentality was obviously not representative of the U.S. culture. Yet this was not an American company, nor did Mitsubishi Motors strive to achieve American principles. American managers were in an unusual position. They were being paid abundant salaries and given equal respect in the company. However in the United States, such radical behavior was both unethical and unlawful.

Although in America, men practice this behavior in a more discreet manner. In Japan, it was not uncommon for men to frequent strip clubs or for prostitution to occur on city streets. Under Japanese training, these sexual events presented a crucial experience of how co-workers bonded. In the office, sexual comments were expressed as playful banter. The Japanese culture allows men to openly express their innate sexuality. After all, in Japan there are no laws to deem this as unlawful behavior. American managers perceived this situation in the best way they knew how: when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Back to Normal?

Upon returning to the Normal plant, American employees were heavily persuaded to restructure their corporate culture based on the Japanese elements that they had learned. It was the only formal training they had received. This training became pivotal in Mitsubishi’s American strategy. Should they follow a foreign ideology that clearly defies their cultural values? Since no formal discussion ensued on whether management felt conflicted over this issue, the Illinois office became fraught with sexuality. Sexual romps were scheduled for employees at hotels nearby the Illinois plant. These parties often included a buffet dinner, a beer keg, and strippers. The events were well photographed. Pictures were taken to document the events and posted at the plant offices. These parties continued at the manager’s insistence, urging other male employees to partake in the fun. Not one male employee was ever reprimanded for their actions, and women were subjected to management’s demeaning banter.

American management couldn’t help indulging in this new business mentality; it empowered them. They were merely acting upon what they had been trained to do, and Mitsubishi depended on them to carry out their corporate policies. The company had a high adulation for men and rewarded them with high salaries. It was a powerful employee incentive.

Under the Japanese philosophy, it was a return to their traditional values of living in a “man’s world.” This was a small town, where women were predominantly homemakers. Men were still predominant breadwinners and some were known to discreetly visit strip clubs after hours. For American management, this Illinois town was simply an extension of the Japanese business environment.

Harassment of Mitsubishi’s Female Employees

For men, Mitsubishi Motors was a powerful and authoritative setting, but women dealt with a much different reality.

For example, Sandra Rushing worked a few years in the production plant before quitting in 1991. She often feared her male co-workers, afraid of the physical anguish she endured on a daily basis. She recalls, “Not only did they touch me. They used their wrenches [and] air guns…in-between my legs. They’d pretend like they were extensions of themselves. That was one thing they really liked doing because we have very large wrenches there, good-sized wrenches, and they just thought that was hilarious” (Brackett, Online News Hour).

This account wasn’t the only case of harassment. Terry Paz reported that a male co-worker fondled her breasts, flicked his tongue, and inquired about what sexual positions she preferred. Another woman spoke of being slapped across the butt, while being forced to put bananas and other sexually-insinuated objects into her mouth for her co-workers’ amusement. Women endured embarrassing notes that were posted on their backs with such phrases as “Sexually overactive,” and “Sperm bank, deposit here.” One victim stated that it was not uncommon to see male co-workers simulating masturbation in front of female employees (Millman A1-11).

Men often proudly displayed obscene photos of women in their offices and cafeteria. Some had sketched sexual graffiti of genital organs and naked drawings of female staff. The bathrooms were covered in erotic etchings of female employees in sexual positions, including their phone numbers. Similar drawings were found scratched into the employees’ vehicles.

The extreme behavior also included verbal abuse. One male worker threatened a woman with her life unless she slept with him. Women were freely labeled “sluts” and “whores” around the office. Female employees were often told that they belonged back at home. A supervisor once stated, “I don’t want any bitches on my line. Women don’t belong in the plant.” Most employees were discouraged from complaining about the events that had taken place. Women who criticized this behavior often faced harassment. Those who complained about the situation were told to “go sling hamburgers” (Burns A1-14).

This quid pro quo sexual harassment went beyond the borders of employee comfort, as many women were assured tangible benefits in compliance with their male co-workers sexual requests. American management threatened female employees who refused to comply with their grotesque demands. Women were subjected to constant groping, and were even forced to engage in sexual acts with male staff.

Women File Lawsuit

In 1994, a private lawsuit was filed by twenty-nine women from the Normal plant who claimed they had been sexually harassed and subjected to a hostile environment. Two of the women dropped out of the settlement for reasons unknown. Three years later, the case was quietly settled. Mitsubishi pledged to donate $100,000 to local women’s charities. While the details of the event were not disclosed, an anonymous source declared that the company would pay the women a total of $9.5 million. Each plaintiff would receive an amount of $500,000 or less, depending on the degree of their harassment. However, Mitsubishi was determined to uphold its innocence in the lawsuit. The company’s primary lawyer, Walter Connolly, declared, “I do not think the company has ever admitted that it violated the law, but we did feel we had an obligation to deal with these women” [Mitsubishi Settles].

EEOC Files Suit

On April 9, 1996, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a class action lawsuit for three hundred women who claimed they suffered sexual harassment at the factory in Normal, IL. They accused Mitsubishi management of creating a hostile work environment and allowing this behavior to continue. The EEOC asked for an immediate stop of any mistreatment towards women at the plant. They demanded that the company pay the workers for both punitive and compensatory damages, escalating to as much as $300,000 per employee. In addition, Mitsubishi was to reinstate anyone they had fired on the basis of the quid pro quo. A thorough investigation ensued into the Mitsubishi plant. The EEOC further indicated that the company would be a prime example for firms that allow sexual harassment to occur in the workplace. It declared that Mitsubishi “creat[ed] and tolerat[ed] a sexually hostile and abusive work environment. The magnitude and scope of sexual and sex-based harassment at Mitsubishi, and the degree of managerial complicity therein, are unprecedented” [Cray].

At the start of the lawsuit filings, Mitsubishi Motors fought back claiming the lawsuit was “inaccurate, misleading, and inflammatory.” Instead, they accused the women of slandering the company’s reputable standing. Employee complaints about the misconduct were repeatedly ignored, while practically no action was taken to discipline the harassers. Meanwhile, plant managers were cynical and unconvinced of the employee accusations. They claimed that the complaints resulted from “interpersonal conflicts.” As for management’s conduct, Mitsubishi officials argued that their managerial sex parties were completely irrelevant to the court filing.

American management even accused the EEOC of presenting a biased perspective of Mitsubishi to the media. For instance, they claimed that the EEOC had not shown that Mitsubishi had fired an employee for parading naked pictures of himself around the office. In instances where no action was taken, Mitsubishi Motor management alleged that some women’s complaints weren’t even witnessed by anyone. Therefore, it was completely hearsay. In one case, company officials stated that the office harassment is actually a mutual exchange of humor. They argued that female employees have also been known to joke in a sexual manner.

The company also complained about how the EEOC was handling the allegations, where it sent a letter to the women involved. It indicated that they would receive monetary benefits in return for testifying. Mitsubishi’s lawyer, Walter B. Connelly Jr., stated, “They’re saying, ‘You can get money, and these are the things you have to testify to….it encourages people to point their testimony in a certain direction” (Sharpe, “Mitsubishi” A4). The EEOC countered that their method of questioning was typical for any witness in an investigation.

Employee Reaction

On April 22nd, Mitsubishi workers protested outside the EEOC building in Chicago to show their support for the company’s innocence. The protest started a media frenzy as it was later revealed that the protesters were given a paid day off to protest. Yet the lawsuit could have also hurt more than just their reputation; it could have negatively affected car sales. Some suggested that protestors were more concerned about their job than the company’s character. Employees later reported of a company meeting that threatened layoffs if the harassment claims caused a drop in sales. The company was an engine of growth to the Normal community. One such protestor claimed that she used to work for $5 an hour, but after being employed at Mitsubishi, she’s now making $50,000 annually. Meanwhile, others felt the harassment claims were completely fabricated.

Larry Ramsey was one such employee who believed the lawsuit simply held no truth. He viewed this event as a government “witch hunt,” claiming that he never observed any sexual harassment at the Normal plant. Ramsey even felt that the women also played a part in the allegations. A female employee came to work “wearing a white t-shirt without a bra …leaving nothing to imagine.” He believed that the women were in it for the money and that this was merely a precedent for other women to extort money from private companies. Rumors soon circulated of women that sang “We’re in the Money” in the company bathroom. Ramsey kept to himself at work, fearful that a false allegation could be attributed to him. He earned $63,000 with Mitsubishi, which is four times more than he did as a pinball repairman. His wife, a homemaker, criticized, “How much of this do women bring on themselves?” Ramsey’s response was a clear indication of his frustration on the issue, “This is the 90’s now. Men aren’t supposed to be men” (Sharpe, “Why” A6).

Public Reaction

Mitsubishi Motors also had a weak labor contract with its employees, which clearly lacked any specific indication of how to properly handle sexual harassment or effectively deal with employee complaints. The company works with a union to protect their employees. This agreement required management to maintain the Japanese “Wa” or harmony among people. In the case of a problematic issue, employees are expected to speak with their supervisor. If they are dissatisfied, the employee can meet with the union coordinator, who is obligated to meet with Mitsubishi Motor officials. This is the only way a grievance can be reported. It is questionable whether company actions addressed the harassment complaints, but union officials were also chastised for not taking further action in the matter. Some civil-rights committee members suggested that the union’s priority was clearly to protect jobs. Upon meeting with the union official on harassment accounts, the union coordinator told a female employee that she “shouldn’t go after her ‘brother and sisters’ in the union” (Sharpe, “Mitsubishi” A4). It illustrates that union officials opted to safeguard jobs in place of following upon harassment allegations.

The public took a much harsher viewpoint of the Mitsubishi situation. Rev. Jesse Jackson, along with the National Organization of Women, organized a nine-month boycott of Mitsubishi products. Once Mitsubishi settled the dispute, the parties lifted the boycott on the condition that Mitsubishi Motors would increase the number of minorities and women who managed their car dealerships by five percent over the next few years. With the dispute over, Mitsubishi released a statement from Vice President Reijiro Kuromizu stating that the boycott had little impact on their 1996 sales in the first place. Thus, the settlement seemed more of an illusionary appeasement than a serious solution.

Lynn Martin Hired

On May 14th, Mitsubishi Motors decided to hire Lynn Martin to study its office environment and offer suggestions. Martin had much to sort out. There are no official records of her reactions upon entering the Normal plant, but her investigation was extremely thorough. It took nearly nine months for her finish the complete examination.

Martin recommended drastic changes and detailed a plan that would ensure those changes would be followed. She also gave an audit of how the company was altered after it implemented new protective policies and procedures.

Her plan to reconstruct Mitsubishi Motors was divided into seven sections:

Creating accountability
Ensuring Workforce Development and Opportunity
Human Resources Department
Communications
Quality of Life
Process and Procedures
Leadership and Commitment

Martin’s recommendations primarily concentrated on accountability without forgoing the company’s significant Japanese values.  The plan addressed the need for a new mission statement and identified how job development and compensation will be administered through human resource. More importantly, the quality of life was to be focused on ensuring the employee’s comfort within the company.

She stated, “To some, quality of life issues are considered ‘women’s issues.’ But a new reality is rapidly taking root in the workforce across America and here at MMMA. These issues have become critical to men and women alike” (“Lynn Martin”).

Her compiled report was supported by extensive internal and external research. The research was conducted by both Martin and her group of consultants from the corporate mentoring company, Menttium. She worked candidly with nearly half of all employees at the MMMA. Any employee who wished to speak with her group could do so openly.  Each worker was asked for any available input they could provide to the company’s employee relations department. The workforce was also carefully observed in their natural environment to measure the accuracy of their inputs and generate further recommendations.

Martin also required Japanese management to conduct their own survey of the top thirty companies in the automobile industry that they perceived had the best policies. This exercise gave management insight as to how other companies manage their employee relations and inspired them to open their minds to the prospect of new ideas.