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

[Karnak]

My previous employer and my current employer both have a no tolerance policy with regards to sexual harassment. If you sexually harass someone, and internal investigation proves you did, you're out. No second chances.

Liability. If it occurs again the company risks an expensive, even if they win, legal battle about fostering a hostile work environment. Much easier to just kick them out the door.

[TirielWoW]

Liability. If it occurs again the company risks an expensive, even if they win, legal battle about fostering a hostile work environment. Much easier to just kick them out the door.

Absolutely. My former employer is also the subject of a class action lawsuit alleging they paid female employees less money than male employees for the same jobs, and denied them promotion opportunities. So, they're extra sensitive.

[Luxxor]

Having done managerial work before, yeah, the smart thing is to fire him with cause.

Riiigght....

[THE Bigzoman]

Morals of the story:

If you're socially awkward, don't try to date women at work. Matter of fact, you're there to work anyway, not make friends. Get your shit done and get out.


Also, keep porn terms in the home.

[oplawlz]

Also, keep porn terms in the home.

And on mmo-champ, of course.

[hrugner]

Morals of the story:

If you're socially awkward, don't try to date women at work. Matter of fact, you're there to work anyway, not make friends. Get your shit done and get out.


Also, keep porn terms in the home.

This is really the best advice. Though dropping porn terms into conversation as their literal meaning and seeing who gives you a look is a time honored tradition that must be upheld.

[Deleted]

The legal definition of sexual harassment does not require persistent behaviour. I've said this before, don't pretend otherwise;
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...7#post40271347
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post40272621



Not true; I mentioned an example of requesting a blow job in exchange for a promotion. Also, the creation of a hostile work environment does not require persistent behaviour, in its own definition; it can be established in other ways, and what's important is the existence of said hostile work environment, not a pattern of behaviour within it.



That's literally what sexual harassment is. It's like saying you're not guilty of domestic abuse, you just slap your wife around a bit when she's mouthing off to you. Yeah, that's exactly what domestic abuse is.

- - - Updated - - -



Except that we know, from the article, that there were multiple messages involved. This wasn't a one-off.

Yes, you have said this before, and i have not claimed otherwise. However, you say many things that are ludicrous, and you have yet to prove that the legal definition of harassing is any different then the normal definition of harassing. There is need of a pattern because otherwise EVERYTHING can be considered harassing. So, that means you are hitting a strawman, again...


Yes, and i told you how this still applies to the normal definition of the word harassing, rendering your point moot. So still no example on your part.

Right, so now sexual harassment is not being able to pick up cues. That is just plain stupid for obvious reasons, you can make unclear cues and blame other people for not getting them.

So yet again, no proof that harassing someone is defined differently by law, only your word that we now have to believe.. NOT
No examples as to why someone only has to say something once to be harassed, and once again all you do is beating some straw man.

[Endus]

Yes, you have said this before, and i have not claimed otherwise. However, you say many things that are ludicrous, and you have yet to prove that the legal definition of harassing is any different then the normal definition of harassing.

Yes. I did. I cited the legal definition, which is different.

There is need of a pattern because otherwise EVERYTHING can be considered harassing. So, that means you are hitting a strawman, again...

This is false. There are still elements that have to be in place, a pattern of behaviour is simply not one of them.

When I pointed this out with an example, you even conceded the point, only to hypocritically return to this argument, which you conceded was incorrect.

Right, so now sexual harassment is not being able to pick up cues. That is just plain stupid for obvious reasons, you can make unclear cues and blame other people for not getting them.

No, it's not picking up on cues and acting in a way that makes someone uncomfortable as a result.

Besides, ignorance is not a defense. "I didn't realize I was sexually harassing her" isn't an argument that wins you anything.

So yet again, no proof that harassing someone is defined differently by law, only your word that we now have to believe.. NOT

Is this the third time I've linked this? http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ual+harassment

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when

• submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
• submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
• such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])

No mention of any pattern of behaviour as a requirement. A single interaction that fits any of those three categories is sexual harassment, even the first time it happens. I really don't know why you're willfully ignoring this.

No examples as to why someone only has to say something once to be harassed, and once again all you do is beating some straw man.

Again; if a woman's boss demands she blow him to get a promotion, is that or is that not sexual harassment? Does he get to require the first blowjob for "free" without it counting as such? That's your argument.

[TirielWoW]

Yes, you have said this before, and i have not claimed otherwise. However, you say many things that are ludicrous, and you have yet to prove that the legal definition of harassing is any different then the normal definition of harassing. There is need of a pattern because otherwise EVERYTHING can be considered harassing. So, that means you are hitting a strawman, again...

As Endus pointed out, in the case of sexual harassment, there does not need to be a pattern of behavior. One time is enough to oust you from a job.

[oxymoronic]

nobody here knows the order of the conversation at hand. from what appears to me is when she said we "friends" he stopped. but of course the nutjobs will think its the other way around, that she 1st said friends then he harassed her. also asking a woman out and calling her a milf is not harassment. what kind of sad world do you live in???

[XangXu]

I'd sexually harass HIM, see how he likes it.

[RickJamesLich]

Strictly the first time I've read this post but I don't think it's worth firing the guy, rather just have HR talk to him (and if you don't have an HR department, you can talk to him). It sounds like he let the lady know he was interested in her, she said no, and that was it. Unless he is still bothering her, in which case I'd definitely say fire him. It's sad that people have to worry about being sued or suing over something like this.

[Deleted]

As Endus pointed out, in the case of sexual harassment, there does not need to be a pattern of behavior. One time is enough to oust you from a job.

Right, now, please point out where it says this in a definition of it, you can say allot, now back it up please.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. I did. I cited the legal definition, which is different.


This is false. There are still elements that have to be in place, a pattern of behaviour is simply not one of them.

When I pointed this out with an example, you even conceded the point, only to hypocritically return to this argument, which you conceded was incorrect.



No, it's not picking up on cues and acting in a way that makes someone uncomfortable as a result.

Besides, ignorance is not a defense. "I didn't realize I was sexually harassing her" isn't an argument that wins you anything.


Is this the third time I've linked this? http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ual+harassment



No mention of any pattern of behaviour as a requirement. A single interaction that fits any of those three categories is sexual harassment, even the first time it happens. I really don't know why you're willfully ignoring this.



Again; if a woman's boss demands she blow him to get a promotion, is that or is that not sexual harassment? Does he get to require the first blowjob for "free" without it counting as such? That's your argument.

No, i did not concede to anything, i pointed out how your example was still explained away by the normal definition of harassment but you ignore this, like so many other things.

Now when we look at your definition then ....... Unwelcome sexual advances TADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA it is plural, meaning that it has to be something that is repeated, not just a one of thing when it comes to remarks and advances. Yes, there are other things that you have pointed out but that is still explained away by the normal definition of the word.

So the use of plurals doesn't mean "more then one" now does it!? So yes, it does need to be more then one occasion according to your own definition just like in the definition we all use every day. And when read the definition that you provided you will notice how nothing in that description has happened in this case. Why is it so hard for you to understand that soliciting sex in order to keep your job doesn't get the same treatment as a coworker asking you out. One of these things only need to happen once, the other one has to happen more often before it is harassment.

Again, this is explained away by the normal definition, for the third time that you ignore this simple fact. So again a strawmen of you! How unexpected!!!
But im done with you, you simply are being dishonest and only making strawmen to try and cover it up.

[Slant]

He said he wanted to share secrets with her, that's about what we know though. That's pretty creepy.

I do agree with you though, no matter how minor the infraction was, this guy is a lawsuit liability. Having done managerial work before, yeah, the smart thing is to fire him with cause.

Based... on one chick telling you a wild story. Without verifying it? You've clearly never done an hour of managing.

[oxymoronic]

I'd sexually harass HIM, see how he likes it.

so you gonna ask him out? dont think he would mind...

[Deleted]

t has nothing to do with protecting her. She herself said as much.

Sexual harassment laws are (currently) just pandering to females paranoid delusions and the supremacy of her 'feelings' - He made her feel uncomfortable - He should not be allowed to do that.
Wonder why those patriarchal structures emerged? (hint, it was because woman is special flower that needs special protection)

You don't need to be a fucking psychic to know telling a coworker you barely know that she is a MILF is an absolutely moronic thing to do.

It doesn't matter what the fuck he said, its still:
She felt uncomfortable, therefore, man needs to protect woman!

- - - Updated - - -

This is pretty much nonsense. I'm married to someone that I hung out with as "just friends" for months. This isn't terribly uncommon. People that start hanging out as friends occasionally wind up being a lot more.

Someone needs to find his wife and rescue her from this evil man who clearly sexually harassed her!

[Hyve]

Fire him. His actions aren't acceptable, and everyone in this day and age knows that. You're a start up, the last thing you need is a legal process taking up valuable finances and time. Remove him, let the Female know the situation has been dealt with, and to ensure she blocks him on any Social Media / WhatsApp etc... so he can't contact her.

It doesn't matter what the fuck he said, its still:
She felt uncomfortable, therefore, man needs to protect woman!

It has nothing to do with that. It just so happens that in this particular case, the Male is her boss, and as such he is the one she went too.

[Slant]

Fire him. His actions aren't acceptable, and everyone in this day and age knows that. You're a start up, the last thing you need is a legal process taking up valuable finances and time. Remove him, let the Female know the situation has been dealt with, and to ensure she blocks him on any Social Media / WhatsApp etc... so he can't contact her.



It has nothing to do with that. It just so happens that in this particular case, the Male is her boss, and as such he is the one she went too.

You should check if the story holds first. And when you fire him, fire her, too. Remove all involved in such a manner. Make sure everyone else knows why they've been let go, so they know where you're coming from.

[Deleted]

It has nothing to do with that. It just so happens that in this particular case, the Male is her boss, and as such he is the one she went too.

Sexual harassment laws are essentially the west version of the burka, that's my point.
Woman felt uncomfortable - Society needs to make sure that doesn't happen!
Which is why you get shit like this.

[Hyve]

You should check if the story holds first. And when you fire him, fire her, too. Remove all involved in such a manner. Make sure everyone else knows why they've been let go, so they know where you're coming from.

Fire her, for being sexually harassed? That's such a stupid idea.

If the story holds up true, if she can give me the evidence, I'd fire him immediately. She doesn't deserve to be fired because she was made to feel uncomfortable ... What a fucking backwards way of thinking.

Sexual harassment laws are essentially the west version of the burka, that's my point.
Woman felt uncomfortable - Society needs to make sure that doesn't happen!
Which is why you get shit like this.

Except, Sexual Harassment laws work for both Men & Women. How is it acceptable for this guy to just send her with inappropriate messages? It's not, and that's why the laws are in place to say, not only is it unacceptable, but we as a society won't tolerate it. It's a perfectly acceptable law, especially in cases like this.

This isn't some Women who has gotten "confused" or taken something out of context. She's specifically been made to feel uneasy, because some guy feels its acceptable to call her a "MILF" ... It's not acceptable, I'd fire the guy.