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

[Phookah]

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.

Actually no, "friends in work context" is PLAIN ENGLISH. It's a nice way of saying "Sure, we can talk. But it's going to be small talk, or work related. You know, things you would talk about with a co-worker."
And he says he wants to fuck her.
Super professional. /s

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Your understanding how general definitions and legal definitions work is hilarious.
No, they aren't the same thing. Both are correct, but used for different things.
Moving on.

[Deleted]

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.

What exactly are those standards? When a girl smiles at you is she A, just being a nice person. B. falling madly in love with you. C. unsure of herself and just smiling at everyone. D. Flirting with you E. feeling petty for the freak that you are.

Now what is it? It can be all of them, because you can't read anything like that from a smile. Same goes for every other "social cue", there isn't a guide, people will interpret things differently. So, if you want something, you have to be clear about it, very clear, if you are not explicitly clear about your meanings its nothing more then guessing.

[Dug]

What exactly are those standards? When a girl smiles at you is she A, just being a nice person. B. falling madly in love with you. C. unsure of herself and just smiling at everyone. D. Flirting with you E. feeling petty for the freak that you are.

Now what is it? It can be all of them, because you can't read anything like that from a smile. Same goes for every other "social cue", there isn't a guide, people will interpret things differently. So, if you want something, you have to be clear about it, very clear, if you are not explicitly clear about your meanings its nothing more then guessing.

This just in "sure as friends in work context" is not at all a clear cue to keep it professional and only work related.

[Deleted]

Actually no, "friends in work context" is PLAIN ENGLISH. It's a nice way of saying "Sure, we can talk. But it's going to be small talk, or work related. You know, things you would talk about with a co-worker."
And he says he wants to fuck her.
Super professional. /s

- - - Updated - - -



Your understanding how general definitions and legal definitions work is hilarious.
No, they aren't the same thing. Both are correct, but used for different things.
Moving on.

That all really depends on the setting where it was said, maybe she could not speak freely at the time. It depends on how its said, maybe it was just done really quickly and in between things and was she not clear. Apparently she wasn't clear enough because the guy had to "ask" before he got the message.

So, are you saying that the broad terms that are used in the law to describe something isnt done purely for more detail so everyone knows what they are talking about. It isn't just wacking words together and give them a different meaning, they all still have the same meaning, they are just as clearly outspoken as they can be, just as this woman should have done.

[Luxxor]

This just in "sure as friends in work context" is not at all a clear cue to keep it professional and only work related.

If the guy had asked her to join a non work related channel, asked her out on a date and said, "I think you are cute," there would have been no issue at all unless she said no and he persisted.

The MILF part is wildly unprofessional and anyone who thinks that ok to say to a woman you dont know is an idiot.

[Deleted]

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.

Apparently she wasn't clear on that, otherwise the would not have tried now would he? After she made it clear it didn't happen again, so...

- - - Updated - - -

This just in "sure as friends in work context" is not at all a clear cue to keep it professional and only work related.

If she was clear about it then why would the guy try ones and stop his efforts?

[Dug]

If the guy had asked her to join a non work related channel, asked her out on a date and said, "I think you are cute," there would have been no issue at all unless she said no and he persisted.

The MILF part is wildly unprofessional and anyone who thinks that ok to say to a woman you dont know is an idiot.

Pretty much. Some are making this out to be the woman and employers are mad that she was asked out, when that isn't the issue. It's entirely on how the guy did it.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently she wasn't clear on that, otherwise the would not have tried now would he? After she made it clear it didn't happen again, so...

- - - Updated - - -



If she was clear about it then why would the guy try ones and stop his efforts?

Because apparently he's like you and can't take a basic plain english social cue to mean no from the start, so he tried again until he finally got the message. It doesn't matter if people take social cues differently, unless you're autistic or some other mental disorder that actually prevents you from reading into these type of things there is no excuse. You fuck up you're going to be punished. "I wasn't aware of..." is not going to hold up anywhere.

[Deleted]

Pretty much. Some are making this out to be the woman and employers are mad that she was asked out, when that isn't the issue. It's entirely on how the guy did it.

The point is that if a guy she fancy's had asked the exact same thing then it would not have been harassment.

[Endus]

So, are you saying that the broad terms that are used in the law to describe something isnt done purely for more detail so everyone knows what they are talking about.

No. The law defines those terms for its own purpose. Other uses of those words outside of the law are completely irrelevant.

For instance, you can say that someone is a "thief" for stealing your idea, but in the world of the law, that's copyright or patent infringement, not theft. The common use of the word is irrelevant, and the legal definitions are all that matters; the offense in question is not legally defined as "theft".

Sexual harassment does not require persistent behaviour. If you tell a female employee that she can have the promotion if she blows you, that's sexual harassment, and it's actionable. Even if that's the only time you said it. You don't get a "one harassing action free" card that lets you harass people a little bit before the law kicks in.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is that if a guy she fancy's had asked the exact same thing then it would not have been harassment.

In much the same way that slapping a stranger is assault and battery, but slapping a girlfriend who's into being slapped and has asked you to do so for her, well, isn't.

You literally described the context that makes the difference, and pretended it was nothing.

[Deleted]

Pretty much. Some are making this out to be the woman and employers are mad that she was asked out, when that isn't the issue. It's entirely on how the guy did it.

- - - Updated - - -



Because apparently he's like you and can't take a basic plain english social cue to mean no from the start, so he tried again until he finally got the message. It doesn't matter if people take social cues differently, unless you're autistic or some other mental disorder that actually prevents you from reading into these type of things there is no excuse. You fuck up you're going to be punished. "I wasn't aware of..." is not going to hold up anywhere.

Oh personal attacks now you cant' do it with words, how nice of you! He did not "try again" he tried only one time, when it was clear that she didn't want this he stopped. Saying that people have a mental disorder because someone cant' be bothered to be clear is a bold claim, let see you back that up. He did not fuck up, he merely asked, though stupidly, if she was interested in him. She had to make a point out of it for some reason.

[Dug]

The point is that if a guy she fancy's had asked the exact same thing then it would not have been harassment.

Except the woman to our knowledge didn't even claim it was sexual harassment just that it was grossly unprofessional. Just because her employers are calling it that doesn't mean she was because if was true sexual harassment she probably would be trying to get the dude fired but she specifically asked HR not to make a bigger deal out of it just that it was a heads up that this new hire may cause problems in the future. So that they know it's not just some isolated incident but a repeated pattern of behavior

- - - Updated - - -

Oh personal attacks now you cant' do it with words, how nice of you! He did not "try again" he tried only one time, when it was clear that she didn't want this he stopped. Saying that people have a mental disorder because someone cant' be bothered to be clear is a bold claim, let see you back that up. He did not fuck up, he merely asked, though stupidly, if she was interested in him. She had to make a point out of it for some reason.

There's no personal attacks, you're saying "sure as friends in work context" is a cryptic message when it isn't. It's plain fucking english. Nor am I saying the guy has some mental disorder I'm saying thats an actual excuse. Just being socially inept and in general awkward in your approaches towards women is not a free pass to be vulgar and unprofessional.

And he did try again, the first time when he asks her to hang out when work is over and she says "sure as friends in work context" is the first time. He should have dropped it there and kept it professional. Instead he decided to keep going and be a bit more forward before she had to shut it down again, possibly more concisely and "mean" to actually drive home the point for someone who can't take a simple hint.

[Deleted]

No. The law defines those terms for its own purpose. Other uses of those words outside of the law are completely irrelevant.

For instance, you can say that someone is a "thief" for stealing your idea, but in the world of the law, that's copyright or patent infringement, not theft. The common use of the word is irrelevant, and the legal definitions are all that matters; the offense in question is not legally defined as "theft".

Sexual harassment does not require persistent behaviour. If you tell a female employee that she can have the promotion if she blows you, that's sexual harassment, and it's actionable. Even if that's the only time you said it. You don't get a "one harassing action free" card that lets you harass people a little bit before the law kicks in.

- - - Updated - - -



In much the same way that slapping a stranger is assault and battery, but slapping a girlfriend who's into being slapped and has asked you to do so for her, well, isn't.

You literally described the context that makes the difference, and pretended it was nothing.

No the reason that you didn't need to be persistent in that one case is because off things that could be considered intimidation or pressure, not because it only happened once. See, totally true still to the definition, they didn't randomly have to change anything for that. There is no reason what so ever that you have put forth as to why it doesn't have to be persistent, and remember the asking for sexual favors or the like is not valid as that is pressure or intimidation and that is also covered, even if it only happens once.

The point on the second bit is that it all depends on feelings of the second party, those feelings are unknown to that point to the other party. So when the advance is made she will either like it and it won't be harassment or she doesn't like it and then it will be harassment. The only difference here is what she feels, and on the basis of how she perceives this the guy is punished or not. Something should either be allowed or not allowed, but you can't go around punishing people because other people didn't like what they had to say that one time.

[Endus]

No the reason that you didn't need to be persistent in that one case is because off things that could be considered intimidation or pressure, not because it only happened once.

And now you're moving goalposts. You can't say that there needs to be a persistent pattern, and now say that a persistent pattern isn't required. You've contradicted your own prior claim.

[Deleted]

Except the woman to our knowledge didn't even claim it was sexual harassment just that it was grossly unprofessional. Just because her employers are calling it that doesn't mean she was because if was true sexual harassment she probably would be trying to get the dude fired but she specifically asked HR not to make a bigger deal out of it just that it was a heads up that this new hire may cause problems in the future. So that they know it's not just some isolated incident but a repeated pattern of behavior

- - - Updated - - -



There's no personal attacks, you're saying "sure as friends in work context" is a cryptic message when it isn't. It's plain fucking english. Nor am I saying the guy has some mental disorder I'm saying thats an actual excuse. Just being socially inept and in general awkward in your approaches towards women is not a free pass to be vulgar and unprofessional.

And he did try again, the first time when he asks her to hang out when work is over and she says "sure as friends in work context" is the first time. He should have dropped it there and kept it professional. Instead he decided to keep going and be a bit more forward before she had to shut it down again, possibly more concisely and "mean" to actually drive home the point for someone who can't take a simple hint.

And in doing so she did exactly what she didn't want, so either she is stupid in believing that saying something like that isn't going to cause problems or she just wants to cause problems and be nasty about it.

He didn't try again, as she obviously wasn't clear enough, the guy dropped it after he asked and she said no. Because she wasn't clear he tried his luck, and that wasn't to her liking so she informed the boss of his unwanted behavior "not wanting to cause trouble"

- - - Updated - - -

Except the woman to our knowledge didn't even claim it was sexual harassment just that it was grossly unprofessional. Just because her employers are calling it that doesn't mean she was because if was true sexual harassment she probably would be trying to get the dude fired but she specifically asked HR not to make a bigger deal out of it just that it was a heads up that this new hire may cause problems in the future. So that they know it's not just some isolated incident but a repeated pattern of behavior

- - - Updated - - -



There's no personal attacks, you're saying "sure as friends in work context" is a cryptic message when it isn't. It's plain fucking english. Nor am I saying the guy has some mental disorder I'm saying thats an actual excuse. Just being socially inept and in general awkward in your approaches towards women is not a free pass to be vulgar and unprofessional.

And he did try again, the first time when he asks her to hang out when work is over and she says "sure as friends in work context" is the first time. He should have dropped it there and kept it professional. Instead he decided to keep going and be a bit more forward before she had to shut it down again, possibly more concisely and "mean" to actually drive home the point for someone who can't take a simple hint.

And in doing so she did exactly what she didn't want, so either she is stupid in believing that saying something like that isn't going to cause problems or she just wants to cause problems and be nasty about it.

He didn't try again, as she obviously wasn't clear enough, the guy dropped it after he asked and she said no. Because she wasn't clear he tried his luck, and that wasn't to her liking so she informed the boss of his unwanted behavior "not wanting to cause trouble"

[Dug]

And in doing so she did exactly what she didn't want, so either she is stupid in believing that saying something like that isn't going to cause problems or she just wants to cause problems and be nasty about it.

He didn't try again, as she obviously wasn't clear enough, the guy dropped it after he asked and she said no. Because she wasn't clear he tried his luck, and that wasn't to her liking so she informed the boss of his unwanted behavior "not wanting to cause trouble"

Hey you're probably right, she probably isn't the brightest if she didn't have the foresight to know this wasn't going to be swept under the rug but regardless the guy dug his own grave. I doubt she would have had a problem had he just said something along the lines of "Hey I think you're cute/beautiful/attractive etc" and she denied but instead he went with the tried and true "You're a MILF".

Not even going to bother with your second point, you clearly can't see why "sure as friends in work context" isn't cryptic.

[Deleted]

And now you're moving goalposts. You can't say that there needs to be a persistent pattern, and now say that a persistent pattern isn't required. You've contradicted your own prior claim.

No it is not, you need to be persistent with the definition and the definition states..

ha·rass (hə-răs′, hăr′əs)
tr.v. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es
1. To subject (another) to hostile or prejudicial remarks or actions; pressure or intimidate.
2. To irritate or torment persistently: His mind was harassed by doubts and misgivings.
3. To make repeated attacks or raids on (an enemy, for example).

So this means, you need repeated actions of hostile or prejudicial remarkS Notice how the s makes this plural. Or be pressured or intimidated, see this only needs to happen once, because you know, you can't have people being intimidated.
Now we get to the important part, because this is what matters 2. To irritate or torment persistently, so not just once, but persistently. So, asking someone out, no matter how badly and inept you are at it, is not harassing. Only when you keep doing this can you call it that.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey you're probably right, she probably isn't the brightest if she didn't have the foresight to know this wasn't going to be swept under the rug but regardless the guy dug his own grave. I doubt she would have had a problem had he just said something along the lines of "Hey I think you're cute/beautiful/attractive etc" and she denied but instead he went with the tried and true "You're a MILF".

Not even going to bother with your second point, you clearly can't see why "sure as friends in work context" isn't cryptic.

Oh your right, he is a dumb sorry excuse for a ..., but that isn't to say that he truly knew she wasn't interested, we simply don't know.

[Dug]

Oh your right, he is a dumb sorry excuse for a ..., but that isn't to say that he truly knew she wasn't interested, we simply don't know.

I'm not calling the guy anything but unprofessional. And yes it's obvious he didn't take the hint the first time that she wasn't interested, that's not an excuse. Especially not to the employer. Doesn't really matter what you or I think, the employer doesn't like it and would rather shut this down before it blows up anymore than it has.

[Deleted]

I'm not calling the guy anything but unprofessional. And yes it's obvious he didn't take the hint the first time that she wasn't interested, that's not an excuse. Especially not to the employer. Doesn't really matter what you or I think, the employer doesn't like it and would rather shut this down before it blows up anymore than it has.

What do you mean with "that is not an excuse"? She is the one that talked here, we do not know what she said, we only know what she said that she said. Very often "cues" aren't half as obvious as the people giving them would believe them to be.

[Dug]

What do you mean with "that is not an excuse"? She is the one that talked here, we do not know what she said, we only know what she said that she said. Very often "cues" aren't half as obvious as the people giving them would believe them to be.

The employer has access to the texts and is outraged enough to want to take action. We don't have the entire chat log so I'm sure context is lost for us but the employer doesn't think so. It's suspect anyways how a conversation can go from "sure as friends in work context" to "You're a milf". Because the first statement was a very clear and concise Keep it Professional

[Endus]

No it is not, you need to be persistent with the definition and the definition states..

ha·rass (hə-răs′, hăr′əs)
tr.v. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es
1. To subject (another) to hostile or prejudicial remarks or actions; pressure or intimidate.
2. To irritate or torment persistently: His mind was harassed by doubts and misgivings.
3. To make repeated attacks or raids on (an enemy, for example).

So this means, you need repeated actions of hostile or prejudicial remarkS Notice how the s makes this plural. Or be pressured or intimidated, see this only needs to happen once, because you know, you can't have people being intimidated.
Now we get to the important part, because this is what matters 2. To irritate or torment persistently, so not just once, but persistently. So, asking someone out, no matter how badly and inept you are at it, is not harassing. Only when you keep doing this can you call it that.

Again, that definition is irrelevant, since we're talking about a legal term. That definition is not the legal definition of harassment.

And by your own argument, here, your attempt to use it this way also completely invalidates your arguments regarding this particular case. You're not being internally consistent.

You're also ignoring that there was clearly more than a single message involved, to boot.