Sexual Harassment

[JOEBIALEK]

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html

For the first time in his 25 years of employment, a female employee has made a verbal allegation of sexual harassment against a male friend of mine. "John" was notified of this by his immediate supervisor via an email. The email did not indicate an incident or complaint but rather was framed in the context of "feedback" advising John to be carefull when it comes to dealing with female employees. It went on to say that comments, compliments, innuendos, flirting, wandering eyes, etc. can be misperceived and possibly jeapordize his job. Needless to say, John was absolutely astounded. He immediately approached his supervisor and demanded clarification. The supervisor indicated that a female employee had verbalized the allegation. He then clarified his position on the matter by stating that he has never witnessed any such behavior by John nor believes any incident occurred. What bothers John however, is why was the email sent in the first place? Does it constitute some form of written warning? The employee handbook states that standard operating procedure requires a verbal warning first and then written warning followed by a final written warning and then termination. Were John's civil rights violated?

The work environment today in the United States is becoming more and more polarized. Women are flagrantly disregarding company dress codes in order to flaunt there sexuality. It was interesting to discover how narrowly defined sexual harassment has become. A clause in the code mentions "visual harassment"; defined as any display that promotes the sexuality of what is depicted, or draws attention to the private parts of the body, even if there is partial clothing. Consequently, men are flagrantly disregarding verbal and visual inhibitions as they react to the sexual stimulus. The question that remains however, is which side constitutes criminality? Is it the sexual provocation or is it the sexual reaction? Do wandering male eyes encourage women to dress more provocatively or does female attire encourage wandering male eyes? Does a loose verbal atmosphere in the work place exacerbate the problem? Would clamping down constitute a violation of freedom of speech? What about the constant bombardment of sexual messages facilitated through various media? The 1960's ushered in the sexual revolution. Perhaps it is time for the counter revolution.

[Bryan]

If possible, I'd ask for a meeting between the boss, him, and her. Find out the specifics of what happened and try and put it in context. Of course, if either one of them is a member of a union they need to include the local union rep in on the meeting.

[FLZapped]

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Yes, the email could constitute a written warning. If it wasn't intended as so, it is. This email will remain in the company's records forever and if something ever happened, could be retrieved through a court order. Erasing it from your machine, or your bosses machine won't help. A copy is on the email server.

Luckily, it doesn't appear as though it is being persued through HR. There is no winning. Once accused, you're guilty. HR will not be interested in the truth. They will circle thier wagons and go into the protect the interest of the company mode. If John looks further into it, he'll probably find this is one of those offenses that carries an immediate termination clause.

The law is EXTREMELY vague and since it is a he said/she said scenario, it always goes to the woman making the accusation.

This is an area you need to tread extremely lightly in. I would suggest that John make no further contact with this woman, if he has any idea who it is. ESPECIALLY away from work. Yes, away from work too. This extends into your private life.

And John can forget having any civil rights in this matter.

-Bruce

[Bryan]

Here is where it would depend upon company policy for the email server. Some places save everything back to day one. Other places only save 30 days or so. Either way, this is a no-win situation for someone alleging the harrasement is almost as good as it being fact rather than an allegation with no basis in the truth or in fact.

[JSE]

I can't comment on your friend's situation but I have always found that if you act like a gentleman and a professional at work, there's nothing to worry about. Simple as that.


Also, some women in my office have worn some pretty "revealing" outfits in the past. People, male and female are going to look. It's our nature. It's how long we look and "How" we look that get's people into trouble. Eyes popping out of our heads and tongues dragging tends to get more attention than the outfit in question.

JSE

[RGA]

The Boss is covering his ass in this situation.

My dad worked for the Federal government of Canada. A female employee who actually WAS verbally harrassed by her immediate supervisor made the complaint to the department head who wwas the department head for 25 years. This person didn't do anything about the complaint just kinda of syaing it's no big deal etc. Well the woman's supervisor was fired as was the department head for not acting upon the complaint.

In your friend's case the supervisor has sent a warning via e-mail - no doubt the supervisor will keep his e-mail on file so if someone comes saying he didn't do anything he can say he warned "John" of the complaint - even if he thinks the woman in question is an anal ***** he has to protect himself.

Reason #49 not to be a supervisor unless it pays enough to retire 15 years early so you can recovr from the added stress and no friends.

[jack70]

I can't comment on your friend's situation but I have always found that if you act like a gentleman and a professional at work, there's nothing to worry about. Simple as that.

That may generally be true. Ah, but if life was so pure and simple. You're either very young, naive, uninformed, or blissfully lucky. (maybe all 4). I'm sure you also believe that if you obey all the traffic laws you'll never have an accident or get killed. (because innocent people never get injured).

Over the past few decades, the workplace has added a lot more women, especially in certain all-male type jobs. I've personally seen many such horror stories that went way beyond what even the "intent" (whatever that is) of what some ditsy women "imagined". I've read about many others too. Some people get "offended" by the most innocuous things, often imagined. Some even think they have a "right" to silence others because of their warped view of the law. I'm not talking about true "harassment," which has strick legal elements including intent, but going overboard into a quasi-Orwellian speech/thought police. If you read the law, it's lacking in many specifics of the type in say, criminal law, which often leaves the accussed at a real legal disadvantage. The original (good) intent of such laws has often devolved into Kafka-like results that poison normal interaction. All it takes is one idiot, and a boss without common sense or backbone. It certainly helps if your co-workers are stand-up people who'll speak up, vouch for you, and deliver real justice.

I've seen guys who fawn all over women employees, putting their hands on them etc, and nothing is ever said. Another might once in a blue-moon utter a swear word out of earshot of a woman, yet get reprimanded for it. 99% of women can be cool, but all it takes is one moron, who can now get the full weight of the legal system (government) to come after you. The scary thing here is that it doesn't matter if the charges are true, it's the charge that becomes the issue. Ever try to prove a negative?... that's why these laws CAN BE so corrosive. They don't need a video tape or dozens of witnesses, just a bunch of silly "official" complaints.

The problem is the company & government bureaucracy is likely to take sides with the moron, regardless of the merits of the case. You tend to find milktoast spineless people in those positions (supervision & legal depts), instead of truth-seekers and people of solid character & leadership. They too often acquiesce to the easiest way out, simply to avoid being pulled into a legal suit themselves... so they tend to side with the complaintent, or at least not try to solve the issue or get to the truth of the matter, simply to protect their own asses (getting fired) & any future court proceedings (fines). It could be a misunderstanding, an accident, a boorish loudmouth employee, or... it could be a ditsy, insecure, nut-case employee. If you think they (ditsy, insecure, nut-cases) don't exist, I've got a bridge to sell you. LOL. Half the population is below average (by definition)... in the lower end of that half, there are some real winners.