There is a growing body of literature concerning workplace mobbing and the law.
As early as 1988 the Stanford Law Review addressed the issue of workplace mobbing in the following article:
Regina Austin, Employee Abuse, Worker Resistance, and the Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, 41 STANFORD LAW REVIEW 1 (1988). One of the earliest works on psychologically abusive treatment of employees, emphasizing racial, gender, and class dynamics.
I started working at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld in 1988. I was terminated by Akin Gump days after I made a creditable claim of workplace mobbing with the firm's senior attorney managers. What I find interesting is that Akin Gump was able to convince the D.C. Department of Human Rights that my claim of mobbing was actually a product of mental illness. The D.C. Corporation Counsel was able to convince both the D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals that my harassment complaint was without merit.
It is ironic that if a non-employee victim of workplace mobbing sought out an Akin Gump attorney (or a Williams & Connolly attorney) for representation in a lawsuit against his employer in the year 1991, and if that Akin Gump attorney (or Williams & Connolly attorney) advised the prospective client that his claim was without merit without first researching the legal literature on workplace mobbing, we would have to question his professional competence in light of the recognition of workplace mobbing in the literature.
What does it say about the D.C. Department of Human Rights that it was not aware of the published literature concerning workplace mobbing in the period 1992-1993?