My thoughts on harassment and settlements

[Kber]

I work in HR and, as part of my responsibilities, have investigated and acted upon numerous claims of sexual harassment, so for what it's worth, here are my thoughts based on 15+ years in the field:

1) the most common request people who come forward with a claim is "make it stop". Most folks aren't looking for revenge, payouts, etc. They want to be able to go to work without having to interact with someone who makes their skin crawl. I believe this is morally reasonable. From a cold hearted business perspective, this is also desirable. Employees who are constantly watching their backs or who are being bullied aren't really focused on doing their best work, even if they want to be.

2) the majority of perpetrators fall into a category that I can only describe as "dumb, but not evil". These are first (and only) time offenders who, when I point out the effect that their behavior is having, are genuinely embarrassed, ashamed, and, desperately want to fix the situation. This isn't to say they weren't engaged in harassment - they were. But the behavior was corrected and not repeated.

3) some harassers are genuine bullies who know what they are doing and get off on doing it. This had NOTHING to do with sex and EVERYTHING to do with power. The only way I can fix that situation is to fire them.

4) in the vast majority of cases, it takes guts a combination of guts and the fact that a situation is truly uncomfortable before someone lands in my office with a complaint. I've yet to see someone in this situation bring a patently false accusation.

5) I have seen what I deemed were purposely false accusations in two cases - both where we were proceeding through the progressive discipline process. That said, I've also seen cases where an employee's poor performance was actually the result of a hostile work environment and when the environment changed the performance improved, so just because you are about to fire someone, and they bring a complaint, it doesn't mean you can discount the complaint.

6) As a matter of policy, I don't pay out settlements to make people "go away" unless I feel that there is actually some company liability. I mean ever. I've fought with senior management on this many times, but if there's a truly false claim of harassment, discrimination, etc, I'll fight to the end to defend my position. For the record, I've NEVER lost, either. That's not because I'm some hot-shot. It's because I take this kind of thing very seriously and I take my responsibility to provide a positive and respectful environment as the most important thing I can do here. So when there's an issue, I deal with it and when there isn't, I ain't going to be backed into a corner.

So I guess what I'm saying, is that if I agreed to / authorized a 12 month severance package, it would be because I'm really concerned that going to trial would be even more costly.

Once I had to make the second settlement, I'd be explaining that either the Executive or I had to go. I've also been in that situation (twice). Once I was essentially asked to leave, which I did, and once the President was fired. But my feeling is that a strong ethical backbone is critical to being able to do my job, so "standing in front of the train", as an old boss of mine once said, just comes with the territory.

[abelenkpe]

1. K&R nt

[teddy51]

2. Great Information, and thanks for the post! n/t

[daleanime]

3. Only two false claims....

in 15+ years? Isn't that strikingly low?O8)

[Kber]

6. It depends on the definition of "false claims"

I've certainly dealt with complaints, made in complete good faith, that were not, in fact, harassment. I was talking about people making deliberately false claims that they knew were not justified at the time they were making them.

Honest mistakes, on either side, happen all the time, but they aren't always made in bad faith.

[Kber]

4. One more thought

The only times I've ever had to pay a settlement is when the company in general knew about or should have known about the behavior and did not pro-actively or immediately address the issue.

I've had employees make some pretty scary complaints, but when they are taken seriously, investigated promptly and addressed immediately, the employees don't take it further.

People take things further when the company or management ignores their complaint, protects the harasser because of his / her position of power, or otherwise doesn't fix the issue.

[gratuitous]

5. After seeing that clip of Cain yesterday

I think he fits into a certain category. For those who missed it, Cain was at some press availability, and wanted to talk about his visit to some medical facility. He was surrounded by doctors in white lab coats, and he sternly lectured the assembled reporter folks that he didn't want to answer a bunch of questions about the sexual harassment episodes. When the reporters ignored him and asked what they wanted to ask, Cain got visibly upset. "Excuse me! Did you hear what I just said?" he demanded. Then he left the area with his security detail bodily pushing people out of the way, running interference like Cain was a prize running back.

My takeaway was that Cain is (and probably was) someone who isn't accustomed to being argued with, overruled or ignored. If he was like this during his time at the National Restaurant Association, I can see quite easily how he would be the type to cross any number of lines. If someone complained about his maltreatment, I can also see him bulldozing them as well. I've worked for that kind of person on a couple of occasions, and I can say pretty affirmatively that I don't like it.

[Kber]

7. Bullies are bullies

they just chose different weapons.

[MADem]

8. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times?

Guess the Bushism "Won't git fooled agin!" has to kick in at that stage of the game.

It sucks to have to get hit by a pitch, but you have to live with yourself, and you know what they say about integrity--you can only lose it once.

I agree with most of your observations. They pretty much match my experiences, though I didn't see any false accusations-- that were obvious to me, at any rate (of course, I worked in a female-in-the-very-much-a-minority work environment so it wasn't a level playing field). I had the added mess of the occasional proscribed "workplace romance," though, which sometimes was an abuse of authority, and other times an effort to make the work environment easier (this would be the junior person in the relationship). Still other times, it was just plain old horniness, but that's a Bozo No-No in uniform in a chain-of-command situation, particularly when one party is married (which makes the whole business even more problematic).

I also didn't, however, deal with cash settlements in the cases that came across my desk--they were UCMJ cases exclusively, and that's where the discipline took place. Generally speaking, where there was smoke, there was fire.

[Kber]

10. That whole "consensual" versus "welcome" thing can trip you up.

A relationship can be "consensual" in that it isn't actually sexual assault, but still be "unwelcome" in that one party feels subtly (or not so subtly" coerced. Those can be tougher to untangle. I haven't seen a straight forward "quid pro quo" case in quite some time.

[MADem]

11. When you're dealing with a senior-subordinate matter, in my line of work, anyway,

the senior always took the lion's share of the responsibility/accountability and they were generally cut no slack. About the only time the junior would get tapped for any disciplinary action is if there were obvious tangential infractions associated with the conduct.

[JDPriestly]

9. Agreed. The DSK situation was different. An accusation of rape

is not the same as an accusation of harassment.

If you report being raped on the job, you had better tell a consistent, believable story.

Harassment on the job is quite common. Generally, to really constitute harassment, it has to happen more than once. Everyone makes mistakes.

[rjj621]

12. Great post and very interesting. Thank you n/t