Well-handled sexual harassment complaints
October 11, 2018 8:56 AM Subscribe
Have you seen, heard of, or experienced good handling of sexual harassment complaints and situations in a workplace?
Whenever I've been privy to a company responding to complaints of sexual harassment, the most common response seems to be to move the complaining party to another team, and leaving the harasser in his* role. Since moving teams usually delays promotions, means coming up to speed on new work, content, etc, this seems like just a smaller version of the target of harassment paying the cost of someone else's bad actions.
I'd like to work with my company's HR department to handle this better. I'm looking for examples of practices, policies, and personal experience, where a company did a better -- or even good -- job responding to harassment.
Whenever I've been privy to a company responding to complaints of sexual harassment, the most common response seems to be to move the complaining party to another team, and leaving the harasser in his* role. Since moving teams usually delays promotions, means coming up to speed on new work, content, etc, this seems like just a smaller version of the target of harassment paying the cost of someone else's bad actions.
I'd like to work with my company's HR department to handle this better. I'm looking for examples of practices, policies, and personal experience, where a company did a better -- or even good -- job responding to harassment.
Someone I know at a large tech company got her manager fired verrrry quickly. She was moved to a new team where she's happier. Same person had a lot of trepidation about the process because she'd had a previous complaint in college handled poorly.
posted by lbergstr at 2:40 PM on October 11, 2018
posted by lbergstr at 2:40 PM on October 11, 2018
Oh! Sorry. You were looking for actual useful information, which I don't have. I know there was an investigator that took evidence from her, then she didn't hear anything for a couple weeks, then boom.
posted by lbergstr at 5:28 PM on October 11, 2018
posted by lbergstr at 5:28 PM on October 11, 2018
I had some peripheral experience with this. A number of years ago I worked in IT for a medium-sized law firm. One day the COO called me into his office and said one of the legal secretaries was accusing her attorney of harassment. He was a middle-tier partner and she'd seen him viewing porn on his computer (we had no content blocking software at this time). She was willing to have the issue taken care of quietly, but was insistent that something be done, or she would bring a lawsuit.
To his credit, the COO's first reaction was to believe her (he was an all-round good guy, not just in this case). He didn't want a lawsuit, and he didn't want to lose a legal secretary who was well-liked and had been with the firm for years.
We wanted proof, of course. The attorney was good at cleaning up after himself...there was no record I could find that he'd been browsing porn sites. So we found and installed software that surreptitiously took a screencap every minute. We were able to find proof that he was surfing for porn within a day.
The attorney was confronted and allowed to resign quietly. The secretary was satisfied and, as far as I know, still works there.
posted by lhauser at 9:35 PM on October 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
To his credit, the COO's first reaction was to believe her (he was an all-round good guy, not just in this case). He didn't want a lawsuit, and he didn't want to lose a legal secretary who was well-liked and had been with the firm for years.
We wanted proof, of course. The attorney was good at cleaning up after himself...there was no record I could find that he'd been browsing porn sites. So we found and installed software that surreptitiously took a screencap every minute. We were able to find proof that he was surfing for porn within a day.
The attorney was confronted and allowed to resign quietly. The secretary was satisfied and, as far as I know, still works there.
posted by lhauser at 9:35 PM on October 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
One case I know of, not directly involving myself/company: it was strongly suggested to the party that they leave immediately, and they did so. Vanilla announcement sent out without any names named. No other consequences per se, but people talk and he was quietly blacklisted.
Another case - duty of care violation + harassment + a bit more in a govt-linked workplace. They reported it to the overseeing authority the same afternoon and the employee was placed under monitoring pending investigation. In this case there were clear guidelines about mandatory reporting, which made the first stages of the process move very quickly - the person in question had to tell his superior even if the victim did not want to pursue the case.
posted by ahundredjarsofsky at 10:25 PM on October 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
Another case - duty of care violation + harassment + a bit more in a govt-linked workplace. They reported it to the overseeing authority the same afternoon and the employee was placed under monitoring pending investigation. In this case there were clear guidelines about mandatory reporting, which made the first stages of the process move very quickly - the person in question had to tell his superior even if the victim did not want to pursue the case.
posted by ahundredjarsofsky at 10:25 PM on October 11, 2018 [1 favorite]
I have knowledge of two situations in the same workplace that were handled differently from each other but, in my opinion, handled somewhat well (could've been better but could've been worse).
In situation 1, the accuser made a complaint after being fired (the alleged harassment was unrelated to the firing). Nobody was put on leave (I assume either because there was a perception that the complaint was merely retaliative or because the accuser and the accused weren't in the same workplace anymore). An independent third party was brought in to investigate. Allegations had been made against two people, and I guess the first allegation was determined to not be harassment even if true.
Although the allegations were supposed to be confidential, the second allegation required more investigation - everyone on the team was actually interviewed by the investigator because it was an incident that allegedly took place at a team outing. It was difficult to maintain confidentiality because asking "did person X do this to person Z at this event?" and "has person X ever tried to kiss you?" made it apparent what the allegations were and who the accuser was. I'm not sure whether this could have been handled more discreetly and yet had a thorough investigation.
Also, the manager pulled in the team members individually to give them a heads up about the interview and express his opinion about the ridiculousness of the allegation (to be clear, this allegation was about another team member, not him). To add extra confidentiality-failure, the letter with the allegations was mistakenly saved to a folder on the server that was supposed to be private, but the lead manager didn't realize she actually needed to set the folder settings to "private" (I imagine this was a headdesk moment).
My understanding is that, ultimately, the complaint was determined to be unfounded but the accuser received a settlement in exchange for confidentiality and to avoid the costs of litigation. The accused didn't receive any consequences but it was made clear to her throughout the investigation that, depending on the outcome of the investigation, the consequences could be anything from sensitivity training to firing.
In situation 2, the accused was immediately put on leave, with pay, and asked to wait for HR to contact them. Given an opportunity to consult a lawyer, which they did. They received a letter clearly laying out the alleged incident and why it was considered harassment if true. The allegation was, in fact, true and the accused admitted to it as well as acknowledging that it was inappropriate.
That situation ended after at least a month of back and forth between HR and the lawyer, with the accused receiving several months of severance pay. As far as I know, they negotiated the pay on the basis that the manager's behaviour had created an environment in which this behaviour seemed acceptable. In the interim, the accused did not return to work but was allowed to collect their belongings. Nobody was told the details of why they were on leave or why they didn't come back.
In terms of practices to glean from this, I'd break it up into "good" and "bad" - I think knowing what not to do is just as important as what to do:
Good:
-The complaints were taken seriously. They were thoroughly investigated and the accuser felt heard.
-Telling the accused to immediately leave the office
-The accusers didn't receive any reprisals.
-Having an independent third party investigate was probably helpful.
-In the situation where the complaint was considered founded, the accused was told to leave permanently.
-The accusations were clearly set out in writing for both the accused and the accuser to see
-The parties were given the opportunity to consult a lawyer
-The parties were never asked to be in the same room together
-Attempts were made at confidentiality by having all communications go through HR
Very Bad:
-Money was thrown at the problem to make it go away instead of setting an example (in situation 1, the person who made unfounded allegations was paid; in situation 2, the harasser was paid)
-Attempts at confidentiality failed. Principally, this was because the manager was given information by HR that they didn't need to have.
- The accused was allowed back into the office during business hours to collect their belongings
-No changes other than the one firing were made. Allegations against three (four?) different people on a small team hint at a systemic problem and nothing was done to address this (and, as far as I know, still hasn't been done. I thankfully got out of Dodge soon after this).
Hope this was somewhat helpful. In writing I realized that perhaps these situations weren't handled as well as I thought. Good on you, though, for trying to make sure your company handles these things well.
posted by ersatzhuman at 7:16 PM on October 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
In situation 1, the accuser made a complaint after being fired (the alleged harassment was unrelated to the firing). Nobody was put on leave (I assume either because there was a perception that the complaint was merely retaliative or because the accuser and the accused weren't in the same workplace anymore). An independent third party was brought in to investigate. Allegations had been made against two people, and I guess the first allegation was determined to not be harassment even if true.
Although the allegations were supposed to be confidential, the second allegation required more investigation - everyone on the team was actually interviewed by the investigator because it was an incident that allegedly took place at a team outing. It was difficult to maintain confidentiality because asking "did person X do this to person Z at this event?" and "has person X ever tried to kiss you?" made it apparent what the allegations were and who the accuser was. I'm not sure whether this could have been handled more discreetly and yet had a thorough investigation.
Also, the manager pulled in the team members individually to give them a heads up about the interview and express his opinion about the ridiculousness of the allegation (to be clear, this allegation was about another team member, not him). To add extra confidentiality-failure, the letter with the allegations was mistakenly saved to a folder on the server that was supposed to be private, but the lead manager didn't realize she actually needed to set the folder settings to "private" (I imagine this was a headdesk moment).
My understanding is that, ultimately, the complaint was determined to be unfounded but the accuser received a settlement in exchange for confidentiality and to avoid the costs of litigation. The accused didn't receive any consequences but it was made clear to her throughout the investigation that, depending on the outcome of the investigation, the consequences could be anything from sensitivity training to firing.
In situation 2, the accused was immediately put on leave, with pay, and asked to wait for HR to contact them. Given an opportunity to consult a lawyer, which they did. They received a letter clearly laying out the alleged incident and why it was considered harassment if true. The allegation was, in fact, true and the accused admitted to it as well as acknowledging that it was inappropriate.
That situation ended after at least a month of back and forth between HR and the lawyer, with the accused receiving several months of severance pay. As far as I know, they negotiated the pay on the basis that the manager's behaviour had created an environment in which this behaviour seemed acceptable. In the interim, the accused did not return to work but was allowed to collect their belongings. Nobody was told the details of why they were on leave or why they didn't come back.
In terms of practices to glean from this, I'd break it up into "good" and "bad" - I think knowing what not to do is just as important as what to do:
Good:
-The complaints were taken seriously. They were thoroughly investigated and the accuser felt heard.
-Telling the accused to immediately leave the office
-The accusers didn't receive any reprisals.
-Having an independent third party investigate was probably helpful.
-In the situation where the complaint was considered founded, the accused was told to leave permanently.
-The accusations were clearly set out in writing for both the accused and the accuser to see
-The parties were given the opportunity to consult a lawyer
-The parties were never asked to be in the same room together
-Attempts were made at confidentiality by having all communications go through HR
Very Bad:
-Money was thrown at the problem to make it go away instead of setting an example (in situation 1, the person who made unfounded allegations was paid; in situation 2, the harasser was paid)
-Attempts at confidentiality failed. Principally, this was because the manager was given information by HR that they didn't need to have.
- The accused was allowed back into the office during business hours to collect their belongings
-No changes other than the one firing were made. Allegations against three (four?) different people on a small team hint at a systemic problem and nothing was done to address this (and, as far as I know, still hasn't been done. I thankfully got out of Dodge soon after this).
Hope this was somewhat helpful. In writing I realized that perhaps these situations weren't handled as well as I thought. Good on you, though, for trying to make sure your company handles these things well.
posted by ersatzhuman at 7:16 PM on October 16, 2018 [1 favorite]
« Older http hangouts font size changed! help! | Homicide/Missing Persons Investigations during... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Accuser went to their manager first, and showed her documentation of a pattern of harassment along with cited examples in the employee handbook of how it was sexual harassment. Requested that the manager come with her to HR to report. She specifically said to her manager, "I will be reporting this, but I wanted to tell you first, and I would feel better if I knew you had my back and would accompany me to this meeting." Manager opted not to attend.
Accuser went to HR, showed HR their documentation of harassment. HR took complaint seriously, called in senior HR person, told the accuser she was doing the right thing in reporting, and made copies of the documentation. Called in accuser's manager and asked her pointedly if the accuser had told her, and she had to say yes. Manager looked bad in front of HR, but accuser did not.
The accused was called into HR two days later. Was informed in no uncertain terms that there was a credible sexual harassment claim made against him, and he was suspended immediately without pay. Should the claim be unfounded, he was assured that he would receive back pay. On that day he was not asked for his side of the story or anything at all, just asked to go home. (He guesses that this was an opportunity for him to just resign, which he did not.)
While the accused was out, the accuser went back to work as if nothing had happened. No one said anything. No announcement was made that the accused was out for any reason, most people assumed he was sick. His manager sent out an email saying he was out, so please send requests to a backup person. Very casual, no mention of a return date, no one raised an eyebrow.
The following Monday he received a call from HR, with legal counsel on the line. HR noted that they had some specific questions about the incidents, and let him know that he could have a lawyer with him to answer the questions, or not, and if he wanted one, they would be happy to schedule a call with him once he was ready but he would be on unpaid leave until that time and would not be able to come back to work. He opted not to get a lawyer, but said he didn't feel pressured to answer without one and thinks HR would have been fine with a delay while he got one. While the call was being recorded with his consent, he answered the questions truthfully as he did not feel the incidents amounted to sexual harassment in the workplace. After about an hour of very objective questioning, they thanked him for his time and let him know that they would evaluate things and follow up with him by Friday. He said he felt heard and that the questioning was not accusatory.
HR and counsel apparently reviewed the documentation and decided that he did indeed sexually harass the accuser. They informed him on Friday of their decision, and let him know that he would be terminated unless he resigned. He opted to resign. He was told that he would not be receiving severance or back-pay, or a reference beyond HR confirming that he worked there and was not eligible for re-hire. He tried to negotiate the "not eligible for re-hire" thing since it sounds bad but they would not budge. They wished him luck and informed him that he was not to come back on premises and they would mail him his personal items.
They mailed him his personal items the following Monday.
The accuser still works there and has not told anyone her role in the situation; she doesn't think anyone actually knows except her, her boss, and the HR department (and me, though she doesn't know I know the accused's side of the story too). She was told under no uncertain circumstances that her report was valid, appreciated, and that no matter who is involved, termination is the consequence for sexual harassment, up to and including the CEO.
posted by juniperesque at 9:30 AM on October 11, 2018 [43 favorites]