Wedding Woes

I would love to hear the letter from the other side.

Dear Prudence,
I’m a man who runs a mid-size team (50 or so people) at a company. Over the past year one employee has complained five times about sexually inappropriate behavior from both colleagues inside our team and in other parts of the company. Her complaints fall within the broadest concept of workplace harassment (being called “sweetie” by a co-worker, for example), but we take them all seriously. We discuss what happened and how to behave going forward with the offending party, and also note the complaint in their personnel file. My worry is that while her concerns are legitimate, they also seem like marginal offenses and her volume of complaints gives her a bit of a “boy who cried wolf” image. Outside of her, we have had one harassment claim in the past five years (which ended in a dismissal). I’m worried I am hurting the careers of her peers careers by reporting offenses that seem overly sensitive. How do I address this?

—Too sensitive?

Re: I would love to hear the letter from the other side.

  • "Nobody complained, so it was totally okay." 

    I, too, would love to see the other side of this, because even here, I get the sense of a male-dominated department that can't see past its privilege and is probably doing much worse things, and a female employee who has ovaries of steel to finally start reporting. 
    image
  • i have so many questions:

    Is it always against the same guy, or multiple members of the team? 
    Has the woman done anything to directly address this with the guy/guys in question: "Hey 'pooh-bear," enough with the 'sweetie' business - my name is Jane" or even from a nicer side "i don't really like the nickname 'sweetie" could you please call me Jane?"
    has this guy done anything to this woman beyond using an annoying (possibly demeaning) nickname?
    is there a previous relationship between these two? (could there be a personal vendetta?)
    what is the location of this company, and where is the offender and person making the complaint originally from ( not that this makes it right, but i could totally see some older southern guy referring to every younger lady as 'sweetie' or 'honey' - and I could see a woman who didn't grow up in the south being more offended/annoyed than a woman who did)

    the behavior is unprofessional, but i don't know if i would consider it "sexual harassment" based on this letter alone. i guess it would depend on how the company classifies sexual harassment. at least the manager is following protocol and noting the instances and following up with the employee in question. I don't think one or two complaints of this nature  would hurt the guy long term - but when it's 5 for the exact same reason, apparently he's just too stupid or lazy to bother calling this woman by her given name - and i wouldn't want a stupid/lazy guy working for me. 

  • I'd be pretty pissed if someone called me sweetie at work.  I'm not at work to be sweet, I'm at work to get my job done!  But I'm the type to take it up with the offender and if he persists, then take it up with the boss.  But we won't know here if this woman had done that. 

  • We discuss what happened and how to behave going forward with the offending party, and also note the complaint in their personnel file.

    Who gets the letter in their file? The woman making the complaint? The person who made the offensive remark? Is it only the woman who gets the discussion? Does anyone bother to interview the man?

    Too little information here.
  • We discuss what happened and how to behave going forward with the offending party, and also note the complaint in their personnel file.

    Who gets the letter in their file? The woman making the complaint? The person who made the offensive remark? Is it only the woman who gets the discussion? Does anyone bother to interview the man?

    Too little information here.
    "Offending party" would be the man.
  • IMO - the chick is a walking liability waiting to spring a lawsuit, get rid of her at the first chance!  There's a difference between asking the higher ups "hey, can you step in to remind Bill not to call me "Sweetie" - it really is a term that bugs the heck out of me, and even though I've asked nicely he still slips it out!" and "I'm filing a formal complaint against Bill because he called me sweetie, once, in conversation" that goes in to his formal employment record which can impact the potential for future promotions...  We had guys like this when I worked for my previous employer, they were brought in, and would file medical forms if they got a dang paper cut.  Outer spectrum, and even when told "we don't need a full report on a booboo, only if you crack your head open" they continued to file medical injuries...  Sure enough, once fired - for cause, the guy tried to sue for injuries/disability (the most substantial of which was a paper cut requiring a Band-Aid) - yea - that got thrown out in a hurry... 

    I have a friend who was on the opposite side of one of these situations - the chick filed a false complaint against him (claimed he "exposed himself" to her when she went into the bathroom to clean it), he had staff, layout, and security video to back up his statement (thing is - he was never alone during his shifts because of the nature of the industry, and the stalls were designed so that couldn't happen - even if it did - it was the MEN's bathroom - state law says she was suppose to ask if anyone was in there before entering), he lost his job (though got a healthy severance package through arbitration because under oath she admitted that she lied about the ENTIRE situation), but because the chick was in a protected class in that field, she got to keep her job...  He could have stayed, but would you honestly want to work for a company that kept someone employed who not only falsely accused you of a crime, admitted to having lied once the evidence was presented that HE was telling the truth, got caught lying under oath, but still kept them employed because they were female and Latino so the company could maintain their EOE status. 

    Time for this guy to contact his attorney for how to tread on thin ice - she's a walking liability!! 

  • MesmrEwe said:

    IMO - the chick is a walking liability waiting to spring a lawsuit, get rid of her at the first chance!  There's a difference between asking the higher ups "hey, can you step in to remind Bill not to call me "Sweetie" - it really is a term that bugs the heck out of me, and even though I've asked nicely he still slips it out!" and "I'm filing a formal complaint against Bill because he called me sweetie, once, in conversation" that goes in to his formal employment record which can impact the potential for future promotions...  We had guys like this when I worked for my previous employer, they were brought in, and would file medical forms if they got a dang paper cut.  Outer spectrum, and even when told "we don't need a full report on a booboo, only if you crack your head open" they continued to file medical injuries...  Sure enough, once fired - for cause, the guy tried to sue for injuries/disability (the most substantial of which was a paper cut requiring a Band-Aid) - yea - that got thrown out in a hurry... 

    I have a friend who was on the opposite side of one of these situations - the chick filed a false complaint against him (claimed he "exposed himself" to her when she went into the bathroom to clean it), he had staff, layout, and security video to back up his statement (thing is - he was never alone during his shifts because of the nature of the industry, and the stalls were designed so that couldn't happen - even if it did - it was the MEN's bathroom - state law says she was suppose to ask if anyone was in there before entering), he lost his job (though got a healthy severance package through arbitration because under oath she admitted that she lied about the ENTIRE situation), but because the chick was in a protected class in that field, she got to keep her job...  He could have stayed, but would you honestly want to work for a company that kept someone employed who not only falsely accused you of a crime, admitted to having lied once the evidence was presented that HE was telling the truth, got caught lying under oath, but still kept them employed because they were female and Latino so the company could maintain their EOE status. 

    Time for this guy to contact his attorney for how to tread on thin ice - she's a walking liability!! 

    WHAT???????   Are you serious?
  • The fact that @MesmrEwe keeps calling her "this chick" speaks volumes to me. My experience suggests it's not some slip in conversation, which still won't change unless you bring attention to it.  The letter writer also makes it seem the higher ups don't think this is a big deal and most likely will not intervene.

  • 6fsn said:

    The fact that @MesmrEwe keeps calling her "this chick" speaks volumes to me. My experience suggests it's not some slip in conversation, which still won't change unless you bring attention to it.  The letter writer also makes it seem the higher ups don't think this is a big deal and most likely will not intervene.

    I only called her "the chick" once, so assume I switched that out with "Brenda" if it makes you feel better since we do not know her name in the Dear Prudence, and was intended to be referencing the female gender just as "the guy" would have been for a male, though I guess "guy" can be used as across genders in some circumstances.  She's still a walking liability for the company if there has only been one complaint outside of her in a five-year span of time, none in regard to these individuals, and that the other complaint resulted in swift action on the part of the company based on justifiable procedural merit. 
  • I stand corrected, you referenced a different woman as the chick. Did you consider there may not have been other complaints because she was the only woman? You should never have to let something that makes you uncomfortable slide. Maybe she is a troublemaker, but the tone of the letter leads me to believe her complaints are not taken seriously.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards