Founder of startup hears sexual harrassment complaint, what would you do?

[Chicksdonthavewangs]

Firing seems unjustified for flirting. I hope you get sued and beat up should you go that route

[Phookah]

Given the definition of harassment, the vague standard used, that is absurd.

Unintentional harassment? - That's cool.
Once again, in the absence of an objective standard (I.E, NOT what a woman 'feels') - This shit is patently unjust.

You cant do those things unintentionally - There mere fact that you did not intend them, means you didn't commit a crime.

- - - Updated - - -



No it wasnt.
Only way that works is if you parse his 'do you want to hang out' as do you want hook up - Which is not a reasonable interpretation.

- - - Updated - - -



The and is the important part.

Excuse me, I should have been more clear: Do you know how many times I've made gross comment like that AT ALL? Zero. Zero times.
Better?

[Deleted]

In the adult world we recognize that things are not cleanly separated into neat little boxes from which the contents of one do not touch the other. You'll learn more about this when you get out of kindergarten.


Your argument, which has been stated repeatedly in this thread, is nothing by sophistry attempting to deflect by word play.

You cannot, in any way, tell a co-worker she is a MILF out of the blue and not have it be both grossly unprofessional and inappropriate. The medium in which you call her a MILF is 100% irrelevant to this.

All you guys who somehow can't get this are the reason the rest of us keep having to do these stupid, and they are stupid, sexual harassment classes.

Yes, and that is your opinion, meanwhile in grown people land we know that not everyone has these same standards.

[Deleted]

Excuse me, I should have been more clear: Do you know how many times I've made gross comment like that AT ALL? Zero. Zero times.
Better?

My point was, that if she had been pleased by this man's comment, perhaps because she has had a hard time finding a guy that is cool with her being a mom, We would not be having this conversation right now.

[Karnak]

Yes, and that is your opinion, meanwhile in grown people land we know that not everyone has these same standards.

In reality, where it would behoove you to join us for your own sake, no legal argument that the fact that the conversation happened off of company chat and time means it doesn't affect work would be taken seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

My point was, that if she had been pleased by this man's comment, perhaps because she has had a hard time finding a guy that is cool with her being a mom, We would not be having this conversation right now.

Ideally, yes. Why? Because he is a loose cannon and a liability to her company that her company needed to be aware of. Ideally she would advise her company of this liability.

[Endus]

Look at rule one of harassment, that would called pressure or intimidation, so yes, that would be considered Harassing someone, but just asking someone out, no matter how awkward is not harassing, because it needs to happen repeatedly in order for it to be considered harassment.

You keep citing general dictionary definitions, which aren't relevant. What matters is the legal definition. Which makes no such requirement for sexual harassment.

So, mind reading it is... Because, no two persons will agree with what a certain social cue will mean, nor is everyone skilled in the arts of social skills. Everyone will interpret social cues differently, and everyone will have different social cues. It is nothing like "stealing" or "hitting someone" quite frankly, those are horrible examples and don't even come close. You do not accidentally hit someone in the face by offending them and stealing something by accident because you talked to someone doesn't happen either. "Social cues" are a way to vague concept specially if you going to have "feelings" as a measuring point.

Still not "mind reading". And yes; those examples are comparable, as they are examples of attitude. You not recognizing that your actions are illegal is not a legal defense.

Given the definition of harassment, the vague standard used, that is absurd.

Unintentional harassment? - That's cool.
Once again, in the absence of an objective standard (I.E, NOT what a woman 'feels') - This shit is patently unjust.

It isn't a subjective standard. You keep pretending that it is, but it isn't.

[Dug]

He did nothing wrong. Explain what he did wrong: It was not at work. The communication method was not derived because work mandated it. It was not persistent.

The who is important here not what he did. He could go do that with any random non coworker, get turned down and move on with his shit but he decided (as a new hire, mind you) that it would be a genius idea to ask this coworker to speak after work hours (she agrees but only if its in a work context, as friends) and he takes that as an invitation to hit on her or "flirt" as some of you want to call it. At the very least he could have had some subtlety to his approach and it probably wouldn't have been an issue but instead we get "You're a milf" which is about as forward as you can get.

Hell if it works for the guy good for him but he should have had the foresight to know that would have been a very very bad idea.

[Phookah]

My point was, that if she had been pleased by this man's comment, perhaps because she has had a hard time finding a guy that is cool with her being a mom, We would not be having this conversation right now.

No way you're saying that if someone agrees with the thing you said, than its a non-issue? Duh?
MY point is that you probably shouldn't go around telling random women that they are "MILFS", and you'll never have to worry about this.
Do people not understand things like body language? Knowing your audience when you go to say things goes a LONG way.

[Luxxor]

Once again, this dude can and should be fired for gross unprofessionalism.

Does this open them up to liability? Fuck anything these days can be brought to court. However the facts of this case dictate that a civil suit brought by the woman would be laughed out of court.

[Dug]

No way you're saying that if someone agrees with the thing you said, than its a non-issue? Duh?
MY point is that you probably shouldn't go around telling random women that they are "MILFS", and you'll never have to worry about this.
Do people not understand things like body language? Knowing your audience when you go to say things goes a LONG way.

People act like its mind reading to read basic social cues. "sure as friends in work context" is fucking plain english. It's not a vague in the slightest. Don't care if you're socially inept, it doesn't excuse unprofessionalism.

[Deleted]

You keep citing general dictionary definitions, which aren't relevant. What matters is the legal definition. Which makes no such requirement for sexual harassment.



Still not "mind reading". And yes; those examples are comparable, as they are examples of attitude. You not recognizing that your actions are illegal is not a legal defense.



It isn't a subjective standard. You keep pretending that it is, but it isn't.

Right, definitions of words are not important, that is just a crazy statement. In the law they will make whole stories about something like the "definition" you linked earlier, but the still use the common definition of words as they are. Just because they have to explain everything to the letter doesnt make thing magically mean different things.

Yes, it is mind reading, and no, those are not comparable one bit. They are not examples of attitude, as the one thing is measured by "feelings" and not attitude, nor is saying that you didn't know that you could not steal or hit someone is rather stupid. The sole reason for the illegality of the man's actions is what the woman "feels", if it was another guy that she did fancy then it would not have been harassment.

[Dug]

Yes, it is mind reading, and no, those are not comparable one bit. They are not examples of attitude, as the one thing is measured by "feelings" and not attitude, nor is saying that you didn't know that you could not steal or hit someone is rather stupid. The sole reason for the illegality of the man's actions is what the woman "feels", if it was another guy that she did fancy then it would not have been harassment.

It's not mind reading. "sure as friends in work context" is a clear statement that I don't want you hitting on me or flirting with me. It's just put more nicely than flat out saying "I know what you're doing and I'm going to stop you right now and say theres no way in hell".

[Deleted]

In reality, where it would behoove you to join us for your own sake, no legal argument that the fact that the conversation happened off of company chat and time means it doesn't affect work would be taken seriously.

- - - Updated - - -



Ideally, yes. Why? Because he is a loose cannon and a liability to her company that her company needed to be aware of. Ideally she would advise her company of this liability.

Right, come join our side, i can't give you any reason for it, but come join us! We are better! /s
Really, its obvious that not everyone will react the same on stimuli, just like the world is not black and white, right? If you let something trivial like that affect your work then you won't be very productive, you will spend most of the day being offended instead of working.

[Endus]

Right, definitions of words are not important, that is just a crazy statement.

Definitions are important.

You're just using an incorrect definition that has no relevance to the topic. That's the point.

[Deleted]

It's not mind reading. "sure as friends in work context" is a clear statement that I don't want you hitting on me or flirting with me. It's just put more nicely than flat out saying "I know what you're doing and I'm going to stop you right now and say theres no way in hell".

Right, be cryptic with wat you want and then complain that other people didn't get your cues. The guy stopped after she said no, thats all there is to this, move on with your life and stop complaining.

[Luxxor]

Given the facts it seems the woman came to management because she didnt want any problems on the team ie perverts who refer to coworkers as "MILFS."

She was alerting them to his gross unprofessionalism, not because she felt offended or harassed.

[Phookah]

Right, come join our side, i can't give you any reason for it, but come join us! We are better! /s
Really, its obvious that not everyone will react the same on stimuli, just like the world is not black and white, right? If you let something trivial like that affect your work then you won't be very productive, you will spend most of the day being offended instead of working.

Well considering we've had these standards and practices in effect for going on what? 30-40 years? And things still get done, I'd say your comment is incorrect.

[Deleted]

Definitions are important.

You're just using an incorrect definition that has no relevance to the topic. That's the point.

Nope, im using the correct definitions of the words. That the law needs pages and pages of text to cover it doesn't mean that the normal definitions are wrong, they merely explain it in more detail then the common explanation.

[Dug]

Right, be cryptic with wat you want and then complain that other people didn't get your cues. The guy stopped after she said no, thats all there is to this, move on with your life and stop complaining.

That's not cryptic at all, what the hell? "Sure as friends in work context". How is that cryptic and a possible invitation to hit on her? For all you know she only agreed to talk to him outside of work because he's a new hire, she's an existing employee and maybe she thinks he had questions. But she realized real quick what he was really getting at, tried to nip it but he continued after "sure as friends in work context" to go on to call her a milf.

But even then it's not the issue that he hit on her, cause that isn't the problem. It's how he went about doing it in such an unprofessional and sleazy way that prompted her to inform HR that this new hire may be a problem in the future.

[Collegeguy]

From my understanding, an employee hitting on another is not illegal or punishable, but an employee hitting on someone after they said no severely is.

I wouldn't go with the fire fire without context, but comments like milf depending on context, idk.