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

[Berengil]

To restate my conclusion ( not just from this case, but the easily offended society we're in now): Guys, don't ever ever ever ever ever ever date/make advances/etc towards ANYONE at your workplace, ever. It's not worth the risk. Third wave feminists like a certain moderator are just hovering, waiting for 1 mistake to crucify yet another man on the altar of "feels."

Tinder is a thing. Use it. The people on there are pretty clearly looking for some action. No sussing out of intentions needed.

[Cthulhu 2020]

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

People seem to have a really hard time reading on MMOC for some odd reason.

The OP shows that the guy in question sent messages, which she showed to the manager.

[nextormento]

That's why it's not honest; we're talking about a legal term, and you're trying to use a non-legal definition to broaden what it means. In this case, so you can introduce extraneous factors (the existence of a pattern of behaviour) that don't exist in the legal definition, and argue that it doesn't qualify under that legal definition, because of your newly-expanded definition.

That isn't how anything works. We're talking about sexual harassment. That's a discussion about the law. It isn't a discussion about "conventional language", and bringing that up is a deliberate attempt to straw man.

No, Endus, no.
People are rejecting the legal language because legislation, in this case, is largely irrelevant, as there's next to no grounds for that lawsuit.
It's not newly expanded: as much as the term is a legal one, the word precedes legislation. As every word does.

As an aside, the legislation also contemplates behavioral patterns through the investigation of pervasiveness.


And no.
We're not talking about sexual harassment. You are.
We're talking about a case in an office.
A case that you adamantly want to label sexual harassment. In the exact same way that the "literally murder" folks do: to pretend legislation could apply, while simultaneously knowing that it really doesn't.
On the premise that it would not be prosecuted, you insist on re-framing through legislation. If legislation doesn't apply, why bring it up in the first place?. The contention is not that folks want it to not qualify, but that your insistence on it qualifying is a distraction, and that the legislative detour is irrelevant.

If you want to talk about the legal term, get a thread of your own. This one is not it. By your own admittance: because the exchange as depicted in the OP is unlikely to constitute unlawful behavior. So far as it doesn't, it can't be sexual harassment as understood by law. The conversation should and will remain in the scope of conventional language, against your desires to unfairly constrain it to a scope it doesn't belong to.

[Endus]

No, Endus, no.
People are rejecting the legal language because legislation, in this case, is largely irrelevant, as there's next to no grounds for that lawsuit.
It's not newly expanded: as much as the term is a legal one, the word precedes legislation. As every word does.

There's no grounds for a lawsuit if the employee is fired for his behaviour.

If he isn't fired, then that's evidence to support a claim of a hostile workplace, and his actions are unwanted advances, so it's absolutely sexual harassment in that case. It's not there yet, because the employer was trying to figure out the best action, but that's the point; choosing to keep him on means he's allowing that behaviour, which means he's legally culpable.

Sexual harassment is a civil offense, not a criminal one; it's not settled with jail terms, it's settled with lawsuits.

- - - Updated - - -

Harassment almost always requires ongoing, repeated instances of inappropriate behavior to be considered actual harassment. If someone says hello to you and you tell them to leave you alone, that's not harassment.

A boss asking for a blowjob for a promotion is in a whole different ballpark - and indeed has a different set of terminology, if I'm not mistaken? - than someone just talking to you that you don't want to talk to you.

There's three categories that make unwanted advances "sexual harassment". One is if it's tied to career advancement/hiring/etc, which is why I used it there. The other is if it interferes with an employee's work performance (her being upset enough about it to have difficulty working qualifies), or if said behaviour contributes to a hostile/offensive work environment (as allowing someone to behave like that would). There's no required pattern of ongoing behaviour required for either. And that's my point; you can't argue that such a pattern is required for it to be sexual harassment, without implicitly arguing that any boss can demand a female employee have sex with him to earn that promotion, once, as a freebie. Because one instance isn't a pattern, so it can't be "sexual harassment", by your argument.

Or that pattern isn't required, and you need to drop that claim.

[Heladys]

Another vote for fire him. There's no world in which that is acceptable.

At bare minimum a stern warning, but for a brand-new hire for that to be their first action is unforgivable and does not indicate that the person should be a reclamation project. Best to can him immediately for the benefit of the remaining companies and the good working atmosphere.

[nextormento]

Just some bits from that legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ link.

Justice william h. rehnquist, writing for the Court, established several basic principles for analyzing hostile environment cases.[...] it must be severe enough to change the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. Here, Rehnquist implied that isolated occurrences of harassment (such as the telling of a dirty joke or the display of a sexually explicit photograph) would not constitute a hostile work environment.

the plaintiff in a hostile work environment case must show that sexually harassing behavior is more than occasional, but need not document an abusive environment that causes actual psychological injury.

Pervasiveness is a thing (and so is severity), like I've mentioned several times already.
One offs don't appear to qualify for the hostile environment bit, which is the only one of substance here.

Also, interestingly
defense includes a showing that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct sexually harassing behavior. A company's policy against sexual harassment would be relevant to demonstrate reasonable care. The defense also allows the employer to show that the employee had unreasonably failed to take advantage of the employer's anti-harassment procedures.

[Endus]

You keep using the absolute most extreme case (Boss demanding sex for a promotion) and then claiming that the extreme case means that "harassment" always means just a one-of event - even though it's a completely different classification of "harassment" (quid pro quo) than the one in question here.

This is incorrect. I'm not saying it's always a one-off event. I'm just pointing out that if some circumstances don't require a pattern of ongoing behaviour, you can't argue that such a pattern is a requirement, because acknowledging the former is a direct contradiction of the latter.

- - - Updated - - -

Just some bits from that legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ link.

Justice william h. rehnquist, writing for the Court, established several basic principles for analyzing hostile environment cases.[...] it must be severe enough to change the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. Here, Rehnquist implied that isolated occurrences of harassment (such as the telling of a dirty joke or the display of a sexually explicit photograph) would not constitute a hostile work environment.

the plaintiff in a hostile work environment case must show that sexually harassing behavior is more than occasional, but need not document an abusive environment that causes actual psychological injury.

Pervasiveness is a thing, apparently.
One offs don't qualify for the hostile environment bit, which is the only one of substance here.

Also, interestingly
defense includes a showing that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct sexually harassing behavior. A company's policy against sexual harassment would be relevant to demonstrate reasonable care. The defense also allows the employer to show that the employee had unreasonably failed to take advantage of the employer's anti-harassment procedures.

Yes, which is why I was saying that the guy should be fired.

Because refusing to and allowing him to continue on in your employment puts you at risk, because any future such behaviour by that employee, and your failure to take action, can be argued to constitute such a hostile work environment.

I was never arguing that the employee could sue now. I was saying the guy who creeped on her should be fired, because not doing so puts the employer at risk, down the line, because it establishes a pattern of both harassing behaviour and the employer's permissive attitude towards such, which speaks to that hostile work environment claim.

[hrugner]

Sexual harassment is a civil offense, not a criminal one; it's not settled with jail terms, it's settled with lawsuits.

Err... there are two versions of sexual harassment, criminal sexual harassment and civil.

The employer stopped being legally culpable as soon as the person who brought up the problem requested no action be taken.

Note, the dude is still an asshole for wasting people's work time and making things uncomfortable, but all the information we have shows no legal problems for anyone. Other than the complaint about this guy being on file to support future complaints from other employees.

[Endus]

"Some circumstances", yes. But those circumstances are entirely different than the one in question in this event. The actions in question in THIS event do require repetition or a pattern of behavior in order to be classified as unlawful harassment.

The situation you're describing - quid pro quo - is indeed unlawful harassment even if it just happens once. But it's not the form of harassment in question here.

And, as detailed above in my response to nextormento, my argument was never that the woman in this situation could or should sue for sexual harassment, on the merits that we have today.

It was that the employee who creeped on her should be fired, because failure to do so establishes the beginning of such a pattern and the employer's nonchalant and permissive attitude towards it, which could be argued in any future instance to be the establishment of such a hostile work environment.

If he fires the guy, that ends it all, right there. That was the point.

[nextormento]

I'll repeat, Endus: One offs don't appear to qualify for the hostile environment bit, which is the only one of substance here.

[Adamas102]

You literally said "if I had a co workers cell phone number to text for emergencies" just stop trying to lie now. You LITERALLY implied it was given from work for work purposes when it was not.

That's not what I said. Read it again if you have to. You inferred texting (specifically SMS texting, apparently). Also, Whatsapp is an app used for texting and uses personal phone numbers. So explain again how you got "texting, but not Whatsapp texting" from what I said.

Furthermore, the exact means of communication wasn't the point. You can have a coworker's personal contact info and still keep them in the "coworker friend zone", so to speak. I have good friends that I work with and I have coworkers that I am friendly with. They are two separate groups. While I'll talk with the latter group about non-work related topics or join them for things like happy hours or even accept FB friend requests from them, my interactions with them will be different because they are coworkers first and friends second. I don't share with them potentially offensive jokes or subject them to lighthearted mockery like I would with my good friends. And I certainly wouldn't tell them about "coworkers I'd like to fuck".

The "friends in work context" from the OP's story makes it clear to me that she wanted interactions between them to remain on a "coworker first, friend second" level. In other words, not the level where you call them a MILF to their face, over SMS text, through Whatsapp text, via FB, by way of messenger pigeon, or any other way.

[TirielWoW]

In a typical HR setting, it would be standard policy for it needing a persistent to make a ligitmate harassment claim. This is due to the fact that what one person considers harassment can be in a "grey" area. Usually you need to make it known that the harassed is feeling harassed, tell the harasser to stop, then need another form of harassing to proceed forward. Which is the absolute best way to go about it.

All that said, there is easily ways to negate such a policy. Ways to go way to far the first time. The original " mom id like to fuck" or your given "give me a blow Job " are beyond the need for such a policy.

The company is simply in jeopardy if there's a report and they don't act on it. If it becomes a pattern of harassment, they can lose a lot of money. But it doesn't need to be a pattern to be harassment. Just one time is sufficient.

[Polyxo]

People seem to have a really hard time reading on MMOC for some odd reason.

The OP shows that the guy in question sent messages, which she showed to the manager.

Don't worry, the next step of MRA justification backflips is accusing the victim of being a master electronic forger.

[TirielWoW]

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

I'll just give you the definition from my employer. I work for a large corporation that is present in 16 states in the US. Here is how they define harassment:

Examples of “harassment” that are covered by this policy include: offensive language, jokes, or other physical, verbal, written, or pictorial conduct relating to the Associate’s race, sex, national origin, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation or identity, veteran status, genetic information or any other characteristic protected by the law that would make a reasonable person experiencing such behavior feel uncomfortable or would interfere with the person’s work performance.

The examples above are not intended to be an all-inclusive list. It is impossible to list every type of behavior that could be considered harassment in violation of this policy. In general, any conduct based on these traits that could interfere with an individual’s work performance or could create an offensive environment will be considered harassment in violation of this policy. This is true even if the offending person did not mean to be offensive.

And this is how they further define sexual harassment in particular:

Sexual harassment is illegal workplace harassment that occurs due to the sex or gender of the victim. Sexual harassment can consist of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical acts of sexual or gender-based nature. Sexual harassment, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, is strictly prohibited.

Examples of Prohibited Conduct

The following are examples of the types of behavior that may be considered sexual harassment in violation of this policy. These are examples and are not intended to exclude other actions that may constitute prohibited harassment.

• Sexually offensive jokes or comments;
• "Sexist”comments or behavior (conduct that demeans other individuals because of their sex, even if not vulgar, lewd, or sexually provocative)
• Physical assaults or other touching that is sexual in nature;
• Promising favorable treatment or threatening unfavorable treatment based on employee’s response to sexual demands, such as, “If you have sex with me, I’ll give you a raise,” or “If you don’t have sex with me, I’ll fire you;”
• Displays of sexually oriented reading materials or pictures, including electronic materials;
• Punishing an employee for complaining about sexual harassment, including but not limited to, any of the above.

Note that nowhere does it say that sexual harassment must consist of a "pattern" of behavior. One offensive joke is enough to get you in trouble. One sexist comment. Etc.

This is in line with the policies I've seen at my previous job, which was for a nationwide corporation.

- - - Updated - - -

As a new hire, he likely should be let go, but not for those reasons. The response of the employer is not binary, the employer is not "nonchalant and permissive" if they don't immediately fire the employee in question, there is a whole spectrum of actions that can be taken. Especially when the victim in question has not made a formal complaint and indeed has asked that it not be made an issue of (yet?).

The problem is, she spoke to the owner. Even if she said, "Hey I don't want to make a big deal out of this," if she later changes her mind and decided that he should have done something, the company is placed in a really shitty position.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll repeat, Endus: One offs don't appear to qualify for the hostile environment bit, which is the only one of substance here.

Sexually offensive jokes or comments are considered sexual harassment in most companies.

[purebalance]

If I have a coworker's personal cell number in order to contact them in case of a work emergency, that doesn't give me carte blanche to treat them as I would a lifelong buddy. According to the employee, she had made it clear that their interactions should adhere to what should be expected between coworkers. Calling someone a "milf" doesn't fit within those bounds. It doesn't matter that it didn't happen at the office between the hours of 9 to 5.

Just requoting this to show yes you implied he texted her cell phone number that was given for emergency by saying "If I...." So stop lying.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what I said. Read it again if you have to. You inferred texting (specifically SMS texting, apparently). Also, Whatsapp is an app used for texting and uses personal phone numbers. So explain again how you got "texting, but not Whatsapp texting" from what I said.

Furthermore, the exact means of communication wasn't the point. You can have a coworker's personal contact info and still keep them in the "coworker friend zone", so to speak. I have good friends that I work with and I have coworkers that I am friendly with. They are two separate groups. While I'll talk with the latter group about non-work related topics or join them for things like happy hours or even accept FB friend requests from them, my interactions with them will be different because they are coworkers first and friends second. I don't share with them potentially offensive jokes or subject them to lighthearted mockery like I would with my good friends. And I certainly wouldn't tell them about "coworkers I'd like to fuck".

The "friends in work context" from the OP's story makes it clear to me that she wanted interactions between them to remain on a "coworker first, friend second" level. In other words, not the level where you call them a MILF to their face, over SMS text, through Whatsapp text, via FB, by way of messenger pigeon, or any other way.

No, she agreed to communicate on a social media/texting app. At that point she blurred the lines and he could have pursued her sexually. She said no, and he stopped. There was nothing wrong.

[Kapadons]

-snip-:
.

Does it have a written policy for what the punishment is? Is it immediate dismissal? A formal write-up? Suspension without pay?


I'm not sure many are arguing that he shouldn't have some kind of reprimand, just that he shouldn't be fire. I personally would over the milf comment. But also know that what "can" be considered harassment can be a grey area. Which I'm sure is why your own company policy states they couldn't possibly cover everything.

[TirielWoW]

Does it have a written policy for what the punishment is? Is it immediate dismissal? A formal write-up? Suspension without pay?


I'm not sure many are arguing that he shouldn't have some kind of reprimand, just that he shouldn't be fire. I personally would over the milf comment. But also know that what "can" be considered harassment can be a grey area. Which I'm sure is why your own company policy states they couldn't possibly cover everything.

The way my company has it written up, any kind of offense against the code of conduct - whether you're stealing money or sexually harassing a coworker - you are subject to unspecified punishment, up to and including termination of employment.

In practice, people don't stay if they harass.

[Luxxor]

There's no grounds for a lawsuit if the employee is fired for his behaviour.

If he isn't fired, then that's evidence to support a claim of a hostile workplace, and his actions are unwanted advances, so it's absolutely sexual harassment in that case.

No absolutely not. Would be laughed out of court in a heartbeat.

[PosPosPos]

No absolutely not. Would be laughed out of court in a heartbeat.

In the US? Not necessarily no.

[Kapadons]

The way my company has it written up, any kind of offense against the code of conduct - whether you're stealing money or sexually harassing a coworker - you are subject to unspecified punishment, up to and including termination of employment.

In practice, people don't stay if they harass.

Wife works back office at Wells Fargo. Was victim of "grey area" harassment. In the end it wasn't her that filed a complaint but her boss overheard what he said. He was given a formal written warning and forced to attend a sexual harassment seminar. Which I think is probably how alot of cases are handled.