This scenario is workplace sexual harassment? Really?

Great Debates
1

I had a mandatory sexual harassment seminar at the company HQ today. (I work in a satellite office, out of my home, in which I live alone. So if I sexually harass my co-workers, call The White Wagon. But I digress.)

The speaker works for corporate, and does these for newspapers in this particular publication chain all over the country. So I assume she is well-versed in what she is talking about.

Anyway, this is the scenario she presented us with. It’s kinda long, but bear with it. I found it interesting.:

Jill hires on with The Company. She finds out that the employees in her department go out for drinks at a nearby pub regularly after work on Fridays. So she goes.

There she strikes up a lengthy conversation with Jack, a guy who works next to her. Jack is being quite friendly, and seems interested in her romantically, and she is reciprocating in somewhat the same spirit. She thinks he’s cute.

The next day, Jack sends Jill an email at work, saying he had a great time, and they should do something similar together again sometime really soon. Jill responds with an email saying she agrees; that would be great.

Later that week, Jack sends Jill an email saying the regular Friday get-together is being switched to that night, and he hopes she can make it. Jill is really busy, and doesn’t get to confirm this with any other co-workers.

After work, she goes to the pub to find only Jack. He has set up a ruse to be with her alone. Jill is a little off-put by this, but she still kind of thinks the guy is cute, and she has a bite to eat and a drink with him.

That Friday, she gets roses sent to her at work. The card makes it clear they are from Jack. Jill has decided there are some things she doesn’t like about Jack, so she avoids eye-contact with him all day and tries to stay busy in a way that avoids conversing with him.

That weekend, she gets a phone message from Jack at home. She didn’t give him her number, but there are ways he could get it without extraordinary means.

He says, “I really want to see you again, and next time I’ll make a nice dinner at my place, and start a fire in the fireplace. It will be really romantic. By the way, you looked really hot in your outfit today. I hope I someday get to see what it looks like underneath.”

She continues to avoid Jack on Monday. He’s sending emails, wondering why he hasn’t heard from her.

Jill decides to go talk to her supervisor about moving her work station. When he asks why, she says, “Well, there’s a lot of traffic through there, a lot of distraction.” The boss says something like he’s not sure where would be a better place for her to move. She says, “Forget it. It’s fine.”

Is Jack guilty of sexual harassment? The person who put on the seminar said YES. That it was pervasive, repeated, and caused Jill an uncomfortable work environment.

I believe, at worst, Jack is guilty of being a clueless and somewhat obnoxious dork, that can’t seem to take a hint. That because he is still operating under the idea of their initial conversation and receptive email, he is not out-of-bounds in continuing to pursue a romantic interest with Jill until she tells him she’s not interested, or has someone else do it.

The seminar-conductor said, while in a perfect world clear communication would solve this much easier, Jill is not obligated to tell Jack to buzz off. She said similar cases have been tried and won by Jills, and companies found liable, even when the situation wasn’t made clear to superiors, as in the above scenario.

I couldn’t believe this. What do y’all think?

2

I think that’s a little ridiculous. I think the first question that should be asked in any sexual harrassment suit is ‘Did the harrassed person make it clear that the harrassment was unwelcome to the harrasser?’

I could conceivably flirt with a female co-worker, lead her to believe that I was interested in her romantically, then save emails and recorded calls from her and use it to make it seem like I was harrassed. Sounds way too easy.

3

Not my area of expertise, but here goes.

I agree with your assessment. IMO harrassment must be unwanted attention, and there should be some burden upon the object to provide some intelligible signal that the attention is unwanted. Seems absolutely lacking in this example.

As I recall training I have undergone, tho, harrassment is defined by the person complaining of it, not an objective standard. Perhaps, if the trainer is correct, this is an extreme extension of that. Sorry I couldn’t be more illuminating, but hey, I’m not a lamp! I’ll check with the missus later on. I believe the course she teaches has a portion on sexual harrassment.

Regarding your personal situation, I don’t see the problem as long as you aren’t wierd about it and don’t tie yourself up first or anything. (Thank you Tom Waits)

4

I think the presenter’s point was that Jill’s avoidance of Jack should have been the intelligible signal. Her scenario had this happening over the course of a week or two. Would it make a difference if it was longer? A month, say? Should clueless Jack have “gotten it” by then, and at some point his conduct constitute sexual harassment? It gets kind of gray.

The presenter gave another scenario, in which a guy disseminates to co-workers via company email jokes that become increasingly sexually explicit. While some find them hilarious, other workers are made to feel uncomfortable.

In THAT scenario, I clearly saw the sexual-harassment-via-hostile-work-environment. The guy was bringing an inappropriate element of sexuality and degradation to the workplace, and it disturbed certain co-workers.

The scenario of my OP, however, I still find incredible.

5

Dinsdale

I don’t think this is correct. As far as I recall, harassment is defined as that which a reasonable person might interperate as harassment.

When I sat through one of these courses, I was hung up on similar aspect, about which I quizzed the instructors intensly. According to them, once a reasonable person might perceive something as a hostile envoronment, they need make no effort to reveal this. In the example I asked about, suppose there was an atmosphere in which people made off-color jokes. A person could actually participate fully in these conversations, contributing their own material, and subsequently claim, come lawsuit time, that they found the whole thing offensive but felt “pressured to go along” in order to fit in.

It’s important to distinguish, when discussing these issues, what is right or wrong from what is legal or illegal. Clearly these are not synonymous issues.

6

Here’s a question, though since the positor of the scenario isn’t here, I suppose it’s moot (but hey, this is the place for endless discussion of moot questions!):

Did the scenario posit that it was harassment before Jill went to the boss to complain, or afterwards?

I can see the liability issue in the latter case; Jill had told the boss that Jack was creating an uncomfortable work environment. The boss responded with no action. Therefore: the company has been informed that Jill was in a hostile work environment (one of the three categories of sexual harassment), and did not do anything. Therefore, they’re liable.

If it was still harassment before Jill went to her boss, I’m a little more neutral on the situation. But after she told her boss what was going on, it became the company’s responsibility to act. Doesn’t matter that Jill could have just said something to Jack; once management is informed of the situation, it becomes their liability if they don’t work to resolve it.

7

Another thing to remember about workplace harassment seminars is that they will tell you what to do to be very certain that the company escapes liability. When a trainer says, “this [borderline-sounding] case is sexual harassment,” what it means is “we think there is a not insignificant risk that a court could hold this behavior to be sexual harassment, so the company wants you not to engage in it so as to minimize our risks of an adverse judgment.”

8

Hmmm, sounds like you had the same training that I had at my old company, where ironically there was a harassment problem, and not a minor, “gray area” case, either. Frankly, I think this particular example is crap.

IMO, unless Jill explicitly tells Jack she’s not interested, this should not be considered harassment. Slightly clueless, yes, but not harassment. Expecting people to pick up on subtle cues in a situation like this is not reasonable; Jack could be thinking that Jill is playing hard to get, or is a little nervous, or whatever, especially* because she initally expressed interest. If she tells him she’s not interested and the attention continues, then I would consider it harassment (or stalking). In the scenario proposed, Jill is immature and has no balls (so to speak). And frankly, I think cases like set equality in the workplace back.

[aside]Milo, you could always harass yourself if the urge strikes. Leave the dog alone, though, ok. ;)[/aside]

9

I think the company is being somewhat overcautious here, because they want to discourage you and your colleagues from engaging in any behavior that might be considered remotely questionable.

In the scenario you describe, I would say that the major mistake Jack committed was in inviting Jill out under false pretenses. He compounds it by sending her the flowers at work (an aggressive and inappropriate move, really) and especially by calling her at home, when she hasn’t given him her number nor has she indicated that he could contact her outside of work like this (doesn’t matter that he could get her number from the phone book). From a guy’s perspective, I can see how you might think that Jack is perhaps just a bit clueless when it comes to the best way to approach women. In this day and age, though, that kind of behavior can easily be viewed as undesirable by women, even if they liked the guy initially. At best, Jack comes off as pushy and taking liberties at an extremely early point in their relationship; at worst, it’s the sort of behavior that John Douglas (“The Mindhunter”) describes as characteristic of stalker types. In any event, it is disturbing at some level for the woman involved. I don’t know of any women who find this sort of attention flattering or wanted, and that’s where the charge of harrassment comes in.

Personally, I think Jill should speak up and let Jack know she’s not interested, but I can understand why it might prove hard to do. After all, she is relatively new to the company - who wants to make waves just after they’ve started a job? And if Jack was anything but a co-worker with equal status, there are additional complexities and difficulties that come into play.

I’ll say here that I was actually the recipient of a “bogus” invitation to a night out. The inviter happened to be my boss, who lied to me and told me that he was taking both myself and the staff secretary out as a thank you for a difficult job we had recently helped coordinate. It was an extremely uncomfortable evening for me; I didn’t want to go along with him, but I felt I had no choice. I was 21 at the time, and had been in that job only a couple of months, and it was a very small company (a total of 18 people; my boss was one of the vice-persidents) - who could I go to discuss this? I can tell you that that evening changed the character of our interactions permanently, because I had a hard time viewing him as anything other than a creep who used his position to try to get me in the sack. I couldn’t wait to get out of that job, and thankfully I was able to find another job soon after I started looking… not everyone is so lucky.

10

JC, when did she tell her boss? As I read it, she complained of traffic. Why should the boss have read her mind such that he had notice of her concerns?

Sorry, but I exhausted my thimbleful of knowledge on this topic in my prior post. As far as my opinion is concerned, I think that for harrassment to be actionable, the object/victim should generally have to tell either the harrasser or a supervisor that the attention is unwanted. What is the problem with this position?

Let me give myself a little wriggle room. (Hey! What do you expect? I’m a lawyer, for crying out loud!) I can imagine a limited list of actions that might be per se harrassment. For example, I invite a female colleague into my office and whip out Mr. Happy. I guess maybe even some porn’joke examples, tho these give me a little more pause. But a person asking someone else out? There are a lot of socially clueless folk out there. And I’ll suggest both Jack is clueless in not getting the hint, and Jill is clueless in not sending a more clear message. Doesn’t mean Jack needs to be punished in some way, or the employer should be liable for damages. How “sensitive” are people allowed to be?

11

“He says, ‘I really want to see you again, and next time I’ll make a nice dinner at my place, and start a fire in the fireplace. It will be really romantic. By the way, you looked really hot in your outfit today. I hope I someday get to see what it looks like underneath.’”

Someone telling me they want to see me naked is a step beyond asking me out. Although I definitely see this as different from someone walking into a “hostile environment” where they had no part to play in it, and I think anyone is dumb for getting involved with a co-worker, someone saying they want to see me without my work clothes on is pretty unsettling, especially if I have to have them close by all day.

yikes–can I say “run-on sentence”?

12

Hey, gigi. I’m not defending or recommending the clod’s actions. We could agree to a number of ways to describe them. Clueless, insensitive, inappropriate, rude… He’s a jerk.

But the OP asked whether he committed sexual harassment. That implies legality, and liability. How much has Jill been damaged? And is the employer required to compensate her and punish Jack?

My point is simply that in a workplace situation, I do not feel it is unreasonable to expect someone complaining of harassment to have at least said “cut it out” once.

Let me provide myself a little more wriggle room, to specify how unreasonable I consider it to describe this specific scenario as harassment. Jack is not her supervisor, which would make Jill’s situation much more sympathetic. Nor were these actions made publicly, such as the posting of pornography or obscene messages, which would imply the employer was or should have been aware of the hostile environment.

So whaddya say, folks? Those of you who feel this constituted harassment by Jack, how should he be punished, and how should Jill be compensated?

IMO, if she complains to her supervisor (which the OP never really said she did) Jack should be told to not bother Jill again. If feasible, Jill should be given the opportunity to physically move her work station or perhaps transfer within the company if it is large enough. That is all. If Jack is stupid enough to say anything other than “Hello” or “Goodbye” to her afterwards, well, nail the dumbass to the wall.

13

Dinsdale, I’m right with you. Not only is it unfair to Jack to expect him to read Jill’s mind, it is insulting to women to base policy on the assumption that a woman lacks the brains or guts to simply say something like, “Thank you, but I’m not interested in seeing you again. Please don’t make any more overtures.” As a woman, I want to be treated equally, which means I accept equal responsibility to act like an adult and confront possibly uncomfortable situations.

14

Again, I have the feeling that the company is being a little overcautious in scenario described in the OP. The reason is simple: they REALLY don’t want you to do anything that might get you (and them) into trouble, so they show you how a seemingly harmless situation could develop into a problem. The potential for misundestanding seems obvious here in the responses to the OP - the guys don’t see much wrong with it, while I think that both gigi and I spotted something off about Jack’s behavior.

In real life, I think it would be best if Jill were to say SOMETHING to her boss and/or Jack. Her boss should first try to get Jack to cease and desist, and consider transferring Jack later (why should Jill pay the price for Jack’s behavior?). If he doesn’t stop making inappropriate comments and/or actions, then IMHO his employer should consider letting him go - in the very least, he’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Now, if her employer (through her boss) were made aware of the situation and did nothing, I’d say they left themselves wide open to any legal recourse she saw fit to pursue.

15

Would it make a difference to you that the above comment was made not at the workplace, but via his personal phone to her personal answering machine?

You may be interested to know that, of about 25 people in this particular seminar, I was one of only two who thought the above scenario was not sexual harassment. (Obnoxious and clueless, but not meeting the legal threshold of sexual harassment.) The other was a male as well. And more than 20 of the people in this session were women.

I don’t know what it means, but the apparent gender split on this issue seems interesting.

16

Sorry, I don’t agree with your generalization. First, I am most definitely not a guy. Second, I think it’s apparent that the everyone who’s posted to this thread think Jack is a bit of a numbnut - but that doesn’t mean that the behavior should be considered harassment.

I’m a little sensitive on this issue because, as mentioned, I worked at a place where there was a harassment problem, and ultimately not a damn thing was done about it. IMO, frivolous harassment as desribed in the original scenario makes it all the harder for serious cases to be taken, well, seriously. It also paints women as helpless little flowers. Frankly, if you (generic you) don’t have the gumption to tell someone you’re not interested, don’t go out drinking and flirting with the guy.

17

I think it could only really be called harrasment if there is a complaint about it. One couldn’t do anything about it if one don’t know of the situation.

Givent that, why didn’t Jill get a male friend to clue in Mr. Oblivious?

That said, I hate Sexual Harrassment talks. A former boss summed it up nicely. “Don’t do anything with them. Above all, do not touch in any way, shape, or form. If you do fraternize, do it in groups. Do Not under any circumstances be alone with them.” I have had some trainers tell me not to even comment on dresses. No “Hey, that’s a nice dress.”

Damn, society sucks.

18

I wonder what would happen in this scenario if Jack pursued a claim of harrassment. Jill entertained his early advances, and then nothing. Her failure to reply to his messages was “pervasive, repeated, and caused an uncomfortable work environment.”

19

My apologies, porcupine - I didn’t realize that you weren’t a guy. But Milo’s description of the responses of people in his class - apparently divided along gender lines - underscores my point about women and men generally having differing interpretations of this scenario. As with anything, YMMV.

And sure, Jack might just be a numbnut, but Jill doesn’t know that for sure. I’d recommend that anyone who doesn’t understand why the above scenario should be taken seriously by company management should read John Douglas’s book “Obsession,” specifically the chapter relating to a workplace harassment problem that went to extremes - and that problem started with the guy “harmlessly” leaving fruit and cakes on the woman’s desk… Complaints of any kind should be dealt with immediately, with the level of company response being appropriate to the particular situation (no, the FBI doesn’t need to be called in for every case).

Also, while the scenario described was a woman dealing with unwanted advances by from a man, alternate possibilities exist and should be illustrated as well, so that guys don’t feel picked on and women don’t have to feel like “helpless little flowers.” Equal opportunity, folks.

Sure it would be best if she told him directly to back off. And if she does, and he doesn’t, do you think the situation is still her fault for having talked with him in the first place? Just curious.

20

Well, count me in as one woman on your side. My dealings with my sex on these issues have been disheartening. I find that the majority of women out there want some sort of law that will make it so that the cute, successful guys who they’re interested in can openly and enthusiastically ask them out, and that the drippy, bad guys who they don’t want to talk to are somehow prohibited by law from even looking at them. Oh, and add in that they themselves want to be able to do nothing that might be even a little uncomfortable, like telling the guy that she’s not interested in dating. (Can you tell I tend to get frustrated with women in general? All the rights, none of the responsibility. But that’s another thread.)

(ahem… present company excepted, of course. Obviously, all the smart women are here on the SMDB)

Anyway, to get back to the OP… the laws today are incredibly biased, IMO. You poor guys gotta watch out for everything. My own SO was once accused of sexual harrassment. He and a group of coworkers had been working at a client site in a nearby city. On the way home, as they pulled into the hip, new-age, exercise zealot town they all lived in, he spotted woman in a sports bra and biking shorts riding her bike on a bike path next to the road. He remarked “Well, we must be in <town name> again!” This was construed as sexual harrassment by one of the women in the car. He didn’t lose his job over it, but the incident was written up and put in his file.