Sexual Harassment & the man in the Workplace.

[Stud Daddy]

It was suggested that my post on the Upstate NY site should be shared. It was written in response to a Posters concern about Sexual Harassment. My Reply contains information that can help a gentleman should he find himself in such a situation. It is based on 1st hand & other experiences.


One point I can not make strongly enough.

If you are ever accused of Sexual Harassment at work Speak to NO ONE in HR without Your Lawyer there to advise you. The Company will only be Looking out for Itself 1st & the Accuser 2nd.

The Company will NOT (in most cases) Advise you of the serious nature of the accusations and the potential criminal and/or civil liabilities you can face in addition to a severe reprimand or the loss of your job. They are under no legal mandate to tell you.

Even if she/the accuser is wrong or making a False accusation, Say Nothing, admit Nothing. Just excuse yourself from the HR/Personnel Interview & CALL a/Your Lawyer.

You can be held Civilly & Criminally Liable depending upon circumstances in addition to losing your Job.

Most Companies will Fry a Guy just to avoid any legal complications from the Left-leaning Women's Rights Advocate groups or the State or Fed EEOC Dept.. Having a Lawyer can save your Butt, many $$, much Aggravation and perhaps your job , while ensuring that the Company just doesn't hose you/sacrifice you on the altar of Woman's Lib.

I'm dead Serious here.

That being said please don't harass any of your co-workers.

[Capt. Lincoln F. Stern]

I agree with you. In Texas there have been cases where the "accused" was investigated for 1-3 days, then just "released" - no proof of the harassment found but because Texas is a right to work / at will state, the company suddenly became no longer willing to keep the accused around.

[ShysterJon]

I also agree with the OP, except in two respects. Regarding these statements:

The Company will NOT (in most cases) Advise you of the serious nature of the accusations and the potential criminal and/or civil liabilities you can face in addition to a severe reprimand or the loss of your job. They are under no legal mandate to tell you.

While this is USUALLY true, I can think of at least three situations when it is not. First, an employee of a governmental entity has more rights than an employee of a private employer, and a government employee is entitled to reasonable notice of the basis of a charge against him or her before adverse action can be taken. Second, union employees may have rights under a collective bargaining agreeement not held by a non-union employee. Finally, an employee who is employed under an employment contract may have a right to notice under the contract. Also, in at least these three situations, the employee may have the right to a hearing on the charge, maybe multiple hearings to appeal proposed adverse action.

The other statement I differ with is this:

Most Companies will Fry a Guy just to avoid any legal complications from the Left-leaning Women's Rights Advocate groups or the State or Fed EEOC Dept.

I don't know how things are in New Yawk, but down here in Texas employers reign and the courts are loathe to interfere with employers' decisions in the workplace. This means employers here are usually not pressured by outside influences regarding employment decisions because they know the courts will usually back them up. For example, a few years ago, the Texas Supreme Court (the highest civil court in the state) held that there is no cause of action for adverse employment action based on a negligent investigation of charges by an employer. In other words, an employer may be flat-out wrong regarding the factual basis for firing an employee, but the fired employee has no remedy in court. (By contrast, some states in the northeast have deemed that private sector employees have a property interest in their jobs and may sue for "wrongful termination," a cause of action which does not exist in Texas, except when an employee is fired for refusing to commit an illegal act.)

Also, the federal appellate court over Texas is by far the most conservative in the U.S. on discrimination issues and will only find sexual harassment in the most extreme cases. The north Texas district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal employment discrimination laws) is one of the busiest in the nation and will only conduct an investigation in the most extreme cases.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

. For example, a few years ago, the Texas Supreme Court (the highest civil court in the state) held that there is no cause of action for adverse employment action based on a negligent investigation of charges by an employer. In other words, an employer may be flat-out wrong regarding the factual basis for firing an employee, but the fired employee has no remedy in court. .

That may be true but most organizations (particularly large ones/small entrepreneurial comany = all bets are off) are deliberate about terminations and investigations because they are wary of a wrongful termination suit regardless of what the outcome may be. They are expensive to defend and disruptive. My experience (as supervisor and later in a consultancy capacity, not harasser) is the alledged harasser usually leaves with a nice settlement himself in exchange for a non disclosure/no recourse agreement.

Back to the original post, the practical advice I would give is

1) be very wary if someone from HR joins what would ordinarily be just a one to one meeting with your boss

2) lots of misunderstandings occur in the workplace...if your boss asks to see you and says, "Kim in Accounting was uncomfortale when you tried to hug her at her birthday celebration," I'll suggest trying to stop the meeting to call your lawyer doesn't serve your interests either, even if legally that may be your right - particularly if you value your career there

[Stud Daddy]

While my initial post was based upon "at will", "non-Union" employment the points made about having a "Contract" union or otherwise gives the accused very little additional rights just a few more notification protections and perhaps the opportunity for a "negotiated" settlement.

However given the Federal EEOC positions & the many Pro-woman anti-man State EEOC agencies the man (in this case) is always at a disadvantage. State Laws in Tx are there to protect the "Bosses" - Employers. The regulatory agencies are there for the "minorities". You the average man in essence have precious few Rights & even the Union will throw you under the Bus of political correctness at the 1st sign of Gov't involvement.

The bottom line is as a Guy, You/We need to protect ourselves from an overly aggressive Corp/Co. that fears any & all gov't intervention or intrusions ( IE: EEOC ) and they will almost always take the easy way out with means you Lose! Let's be real there are People out there that are looking to "make there bones" on any corpse - you that is available.
So Protect yourselves.

[awl4knot]

Originally Posted by Stud Daddy

If you are ever accused of Sexual Harassment at work Speak to NO ONE in HR without Your Lawyer there to advise you. The Company will only be Looking out for Itself 1st & the Accuser 2nd.


Even if she/the accuser is wrong or making a False accusation, Say Nothing, admit Nothing. Just excuse yourself from the HR/Personnel Interview & CALL a/Your Lawyer.

My experience is that you don't have a right to legal representation at an employer conducted interview. You may have a right to an employee representative as a witness, but that is about it.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't contact a lawyer immediately, but if the employer refuses to allow you to have representation, there is nothing you can do about it. Refusal to attend will be treated as insubordination and will probably result in termination.

I don't know that laws in other states so this may not apply universally, but I bet in "employment at will" states (aren't they all?) this rule will probably apply.

[Capt. Lincoln F. Stern]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

My experience is that you don't have a right to legal representation at an employer conducted interview. You may have a right to an employee representative as a witness, but that is about it.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't contact a lawyer immediately, but if the employer refuses to allow you to have representation, there is nothing you can do about it. Refusal to attend will be treated as insubordination and will probably result in termination.

I don't know that laws in other states so this may not apply universally, but I bet in "employment at will" states (aren't they all?) this rule will probably apply.

I could not agree more. And most companies look at the fact you went and found a lawyer as a sign you are guilty.

The way I have seen company HR departments work is this:

If you have an issue with a fellow employee, be the a supervisor, subordinate, or peer, the company will try to work things out so that no-one gets in a tizzy, but they will only work with you for a certain amount of time before they decide the entire lot of you are too much trouble for them to spend time on and they dismiss the primary players.

If you have a problem with the company, they will first look at your record to see are you worth working with to make things better, if so, they will give a set amount of effort before they decide you are not worth it and get rid of you.

If the company has a problem with you... well then you are gone.

HR departments are there to protect the company.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

I don't know that laws in other states so this may not apply universally, but I bet in "employment at will" states (aren't they all?) this rule will probably apply.

No, not all states follow the "employment at will" doctrine. As I noted before, there are states in the northeast that have vested a common law property interest in jobs held by employees working in the private sector.

[Stud Daddy]

Originally Posted by Spirit13

I could not agree more. And most companies look at the fact you went and found a lawyer as a sign you are guilty.

The way I have seen company HR departments work is this:

If you have an issue with a fellow employee, be the a supervisor, subordinate, or peer, the company will try to work things out so that no-one gets in a tizzy, but they will only work with you for a certain amount of time before they decide the entire lot of you are too much trouble for them to spend time on and they dismiss the primary players.

If you have a problem with the company, they will first look at your record to see are you worth working with to make things better, if so, they will give a set amount of effort before they decide you are not worth it and get rid of you.

If the company has a problem with you... well then you are gone.

HR departments are there to protect the company.

Point is that the man being accused is at a severe disadvantage at all times throughout the HR Process.
You made a couple more good points but the fact is depending upon what type of Harassment and how severely it is viewed you.the man may be civilly &/or criminally liable should either the "victim" or the company file with the state of Fed EEOC, thus your need for a lawyer.

The US Constitution ( which many companies & school districts & colleges like to ignore ) stills applies to these types of acts. Yes it could ( probably will ) cost you your job but having legal representation could also save you a big fat lawsuit since far too often ( as poster notes) you the accused are just trashed & tossed aside with no real chance to clear yourself or even face your accuser.

Poster does note that Many Good Companies will try to resolve issues at the lowest levels. I concur that such an approach is best & if offered between you & a local supervisor for example take it. But Once HR becomes involved get that Lawyer.

[awl4knot]

Originally Posted by Stud Daddy

The US Constitution ( which many companies & school districts & colleges like to ignore ) stills applies to these types of acts.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel generally applies only to criminal actions brought by the feds and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, to state criminal investigations and proceedings. In civil investigations, those conducted by HR of a federal or state administrative agencies, you just don't have a right to a lawyer unless it is by contract, a collective bargaining agreement, statute or administrative rule.

In most sexual harassment cases, there is little risk of criminal involvement, unless there are allegations of rape or indecent assault. Then the criminal issues may predominate and the accused needs a lawyer. But an employee has an obligation to answer questions about his job performance and if he "takes five" then the employer can clearly discipline him for insubordination or neglect of duty. So you have to decide early on: Do you want to risk losing your job for non-cooperation or do you want to make sure that you don't make a statement that can be used by a prosecutor?

None of this diminishes the importance of seeking counsel early on, but a lawyer isn't an automatic safe harbor in sexual harassment cases. He or she is only the beginning.

[atlcomedy]

I can tell you that nobody likes this stuff.

As a boss/supervisor I've had about half a dozen instances when either a direct report or someone that reported to my direct report (2 down) was party to a harassment claim (either the giver or the receiver) & I'll tell you it is a royal pain in the ass.

Not only does it take up a ton of time, you have to document every conversation & find yourself walking on thin ice yourself around all parties. You find yourself thinking, "if I'm overly critical of Joe's work will he come back and claim it was because Sue made a claim against him & I'm building a case to get rid of him..." Add to that, in an effort to respect the individuals' right to some privacy, you can't openly acknowledge what is going on with the rest of the department, even though they all know and are gossiping about it at the water cooler. Huge distraction.

In my experience, both with the cases involving my people & those I'm otherwise aware of, unless the situation can be quickly dealt with (e.g. Tom grazed Beth's ass by accident...simple misunderstanding...honest mistake...lets move on) in the vast majority of instances within a year both individuals are reassigned just because of the toll it takes on the department.

[Stud Daddy]

AWL & ATLCom.
you both make good points. However the Constitution does apply and the right against self incrimination and the right to face your accuser are rights in both civil & criminal matters.

Again I agree with ATL on trying to get an honest mistake or a wrongful accusation resolved at the lowest level as soon as possible.

However as you have both noted at some point the accused is the one facing all the problems & consequences and he needs to know what his rights & responsibilities are under the law.

I can tell you from 1st hand experience that a major Corp sees an accused man as "baggage" that can cost them in bad publicity & in lost business if things get messy & go to court and become public. A lawyer can help you to get the best settlement possible with the least hassle & long term ramifications.

I guess the bottom line is here in the 21st century men are still targets of wrongful 'anything' cases and all that equal rights Baloney of the past 60 years was about advancing the rights of everyone but HIM. the divorce courts, HHS agencies etc all still overwhelmingly favor the Woman or other perceived victim. The Company is out there trying to protect itself first & the accuser 2nd, the accused ( & make no mistake this happens) can be actively retaliated against and no one will really care of take any actions to stop or document it. Now if the accuser is retaliated against all hell could break loose but the accused has no such Protection under NYS law & I imagine elsewhere as well. Most State workers in these areas are Women with a chip on their shoulder (some might call them man-haters) and even if you the accused are attacked or retaliated against they couldn't careless & they won't take any actions supportive of you especially if you are trying to deal with it without the help of a lawyer.

Lastly just trying to find a lawyer that will defend an accused person is often difficult because most of them have relationships with major employers and represent them or the aggrieved victim at company expense.

[Stud Daddy]

Here's a link to a worst case scenario that occurred here in NY.
the Taxpayers will be footing the bill.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/...for--1-million

[Shake_N_Bake]

I would like to offer a few insights based on my 10 years working in large corporations and having been involved in 25+ sexual harassment cases.

First of all the Company is under absolutely no obligation to speak with your lawyer or allow them to participate in the investigation process. The only value you will obtain from a lawyer is after you have been fired in obtaining a favorable settlement. This settlement will never include you getting your job back, it will be a monitary settlement that may equal a couple years salary at most. The brings up another point. Your lawyer will be working on a contingency basis so unless you are a high salaried individual then their interest in your case will be minimal. These cases are frequently hard fought and quite an investment in your lawyers time so do the math...your lawyer gets 40% so if you make 30k per year do you really think they want to spend a bunch of time on your case when the settlement will be 1-2 years of pay?

The second point here is don't lie. The chances are the you have been stupid enough to leave a trail of some sort and you may not even know that you were leaving a trail. I have seen Companies store data like internet usage, instant messages and emails on storage servers for 6-9 months. Can you think of all the discriminating shit you have done or said in the last 6-9 months? Also, the chances are that others have seen the way you act toward her or she has been running her mouth about you to others for some time so you already have a reputation. So when HR comes calling talk to them. It's makes you look bad when you go and pull the lawyer card. You can refuse to cooperate but just think about how that would sound to the jury when you are on the stand, can you think of an innocent person that refuses to talk. So admit to what you did but from here you can go one of two ways. You can either claim 1) that you did not know you were breaking any rules (this is one of the principals of just cause, the company has to prove you knew you were doing something wrong) or 2) acknowledge that you made a mistake. Of course if you are a bad employee neither or these tactics will save you but if you are a good or decent employee you might get off with a reprimand.

Which takes me to my last point; if you care about your job then leave the women at your work alone. There are plenty of other fish in the sea. More times than not whatever it is you think you have going with these women will end and most of the time end with sour grapes. And when it ends she will be pissed and will stop at nothing to get you back. There will certainly be a trail that is left behind. I mean, I have seen women save everything, hundres of pages of notes and IM's and you name it. When that happens then you are gone.

Gentleman, there are plenty of chicks so leave the ones at work alone.

[Stud Daddy]

All good points, esp. they don't poop where you work rule.
major corps keep all IMs for 2yrs, They scan them occasionally with word search SW & those can come back to haunt you.

The purpose of the OP was to deal with being Wrongfully accused
in this type of situation. Yes, It happens through misunderstandings & through persons actually trying to "wack" you for some reason or another. Point is men are still at a disadvantage in the workplace in these types of situations & they/we need to careful.