What’s all this, some kind of obscure innernets lingo? How is anyone supposed to know what you are talking about? Talk like a normal person, dammit!
This is not the topic or forum to ask about mod decisions or questions.
Please take this question to ATMB for further discussion. I realize you have a topic in there now, but that doesn’t seem to be about this issue, it seems to be more of a suggestion for something else.
Okay, this issue is getting more out of hand. Everyone take your problems with other posters to the Pit and stop the hijack entirely now beyond this post.
If anyone wants to further debate English language or definitions, make a new topic. Let’s get back to the OP.
Further hijacking this topic over the definitions may result in warnings.
No shit. How hard would it have been for anyone in the know (not necessarily the OP, who apparently hasn’t returned) to type “C-Level = A guy at the top”; and I’ve never dated anyone that high up in any job.
ETA: Hope this comment doesn’t violate Idle Thoughts’ instructions, which I only saw just now. :eek:
‘Subordinate’ is not ‘demeaning’. How utterly absurd an assertion! It is a fact that there is a hierarchy in every organization of more than two people, and there is nothing wrong with being Vice President. What *is *demeaning is calling people ‘reports’!
Sorry, but the identification of both parties as “C-Level” and “direct report” is very relevant to the OP’s situation and it’s quite a different situation than saying “a person who works for me is screwing one of the bosses.” The identification of the people as “c-level” (which means you’re not going to be able to do a damned thing about this guy) and “direct report” (which means you’re directly responsible for guiding the CxO’s fuck-buddy’s career development and dealing with any potential HR issues caused by their new, erm, “position”) is germane to the discussion.
ETA: And now I see the Mod note, so that’s that on this discussion.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
To get back to the topic of the thread. One possible legal issue here is a subset of sexual harassment called sexual favoritism. Catherine Broderick, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, won a lawsuit over 20 years ago because Senior employees were having relationships with junior employees and rewarding them with raises and promotions.
Here is a cite (which I’ll admit right up front I haven’t read in detail) http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/law_review/pdfs/full_issues/30_1/Best.pdf
There are other possible issues - what got Brian Dunn (IIRC) was not favoritism or the inappropriate relationship, but that he expensed some expenses of his subordinate but not direct report girlfriend to travel with him - she didn’t have a justifiable business purpose to be on the trip (I think several trips, but I’m not sure if that is gossip or published details).
Life isn’t fair, and I don’t see the issue here. Boys will be boys!
It’s about the power imbalance, not cliches.
This is now a warning for you. Knock it off means knock it off.
The sticky widget in this discussion is the fact that the C-level executive is responsible for Human Resources (HR). So the one group that should be able to advise and guide a manager in this situation is effectively closed off as a resource.
I agree with the others … documenting and transferring are the only viable options here. The problem with keeping the employee within your department / group is that if / when things blow up, it’ll look bad on you that you didn’t do anything beforehand.
Psst…
DANGIT! I KNEW I should’ve double-checked that.
Thanks for the correction.
Yep - and it sounds like the HR exec is a peer to the OP - the OP also reports to the CEO - so the only place to document is up to the CEO and laterally to Cheif Counsel explaining why you think this might be a potential legal risk for legal to evaluate.
But laterally to Chief Counsel depends on the size and nature of the organization. If this is small and privately held, about all you can do is document to the CEO and hold your breath that it won’t explode - or if it does explode, you won’t get hit with the shit.
Or just ignore it.
Yeah, but see, the OP’s direct report actually hamstrung him here by telling him about the situation. If he ignores it, and then things go south in a spectacular fashion, the OP can’t claim ignorance. By doing nothing, he can be held responsible (at least partially) for whatever fallout occurs, because he didn’t act to protect the company’s interests in this obviously volatile situation.
He can’t go to HR, because the relationship involves the head of HR (who really ought to know better).
If he goes to the CEO, then he’s potentially creating a career-damaging rift between him and the head of HR.
One thing that I would like clarification on, that I don’t think has been revealed in the thread – are either of these folks married?
This is a really important point: the OP’s direct report could easily turn around six months ago and sue, pointing out that she even told her boss about it and nothing happened. Regardless of how consensual it appears (or is) right now, in court that could become a claim of quid pro quo harassment. That aside, however, HR isn’t just one person…OP, isn’t there someone else in HR you could talk to?
Or his other direct reports could - especially if any of their complaints end up in writing…
I don’t think that is correct. The corporate-speak wording in the OP did nothing to make this clear, but I suspect that the OP is not a peer to the Chief Officer - but rather is outranked and worried about retaliation if he were to take action against the Chief Officer’s love interest. Retaliation is a concern regardless of where it comes from, but it is obviously more a concern if the person wishing to retaliate outranks the OP.