sexual harassment

[Beth3]

"And, the "perception" of the offended person seems to matter most." Uh, yeah. If that didn't matter the most, then it would have been pointless to pass the laws. I've dealt with several fairly egregious cases of sexual harassment in which the male claimed, "But I didn't MEAN anything by..." (you can fill in the blank with whatever you want: grabbing a female co-worker's breast, behavior bordering on stalking, grabbing and kissing, etc.) Amazing how some of these guys never seem to have a clue that what they're doing is beyond the pale.

Alec, the female employee in your scenario should not have been wearing skirts that short and should have been wearing underwear - and that should have been adressed as it was entirely inappropriate. However nothing you describe remotely provided the male co-worker with an excuse to lift up her skirt and expose her further. The major error that employer made was not dealing with both situations.

 

[AlecWest]

cbg,

I've got to post this (grin) ... but I swear, what I'm about to say isn't the least bit sexual. It is a joke I heard which explains the problem with "perception" as being the sole determinant in a sexual harassment complaint.

Two Italian-American men were eating lunch in their break room. A woman was sitting at a nearby table and listening in to their private conversation. One of them said to the other:

"Okay, itsa like dis. First, emma come. Den I come. Den two esses a-come togetha and I come. Den, two esses a-come togetha and I come again. Den, two pee lata, I come again."

The woman jumps to her feet and says, "If you don't keep your filthy mouth to yourself, I'll report you for sexual harassment!"

The man who spoke then jumps to his feet and says, "Whatsa matta fo you, lady? I was just teachin' my friend how to spell-a Mississippi."

First, emma come. --> M
Den I come. --> MI
Den two esses a-come togetha and I come. --> MISSI
Den, two esses a-come togetha and I come again --> MISSISSI
Den, two pee lata, I come again. --> MISSISSIPPI

It may not be the law ... but sometimes, "perceptions" can originate from a mind that interprets the worst case scenario.

 

[Beth3]

"but sometimes, "perceptions" can originate from a mind that interprets the worst case scenario" True, which is why employers need to investigate before reaching any decisions and why the "reasonable person" standard is applied.

 

[AlecWest]

Beth3,

There can be cross-perceptions as well. In another incident in my workplace, a man was wearing a tee-shirt that depicted a Sumo wrestler. A woman told him his shirt was offensive and he told her to mind her own business. Mind you, the shirt depiction did not reveal anything other than what a Sumo wrestler would traditionally wear.

She filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. At first, they were going to put a letter of warning into his personnel file ... but they decided not to (and transferred the woman to a different department). Why?

The man was of Japanese descent and said that if any action was taken against him, he'd file suit against her and my employer for cultural bias.

In short, the woman "perceived" his shirt to be an offensive display. To him, it was just a celebration of his culture. And the man "perceived" her rebuke as racism. But to her, it was a legitimate complaint.

"Perceptions" can be complicated, eh?

 

[oberauerdorf]

I would PAY for sexual harrassement....

ANYONE?????

 

[AlecWest]

oberauerdorf,

Sure ... but only if you don't work for my employer (grin). You may want it now, but your "perception" may change.

 

[oberauerdorf]

Sorry, Alec, but the only gate I have that swings BOTH WAYS is my security gate and the two on the horse pasture

 

[StickyFingers]

Sorry, Alec, but the only gate I have that swings BOTH WAYS is my security gate and the two on the horse pasture

Awe Damn...I have had a crappy day........BUt I can't help but smile at that one!

<<titters>>>>

 

[oberauerdorf]

 

[cbg]

Alec, I don't think anyone would deny that perceptions are complicated and that sometimes people jump to the wrong conclusions. But the alternative - allowing the intent of the alleged harasser to stand - would be totally pointless, since anyone could say or do the most outrageous thing they could think of, and as long as they said, "Oh, I didn't mean it that way", or, "I was joking", they'd get away scot-free and live to harass another day.

 

[AlecWest]

cbg,

This is my concern ... as a man ... since, in my workplace, the management mentality is such that ONLY a man can be guilty of sexual harassment. In the case of the skirt-lifting incident, it was "wrong" for a man to lift the skirt but "OK" (from management's perspective) to allow a woman to violate dress code (and wear no underwear to boot). I'm uncertain whether or not the man who complained about the incident complained only about the man or also the fact that the woman was wearing improper attire. My hunch, since he was a Jehovah's Witness, was that he complained about both. But, only the man got fired.

That's an extreme example, of course. But here's the danger. Sexual harassment is a REAL problem ... and employees victimized by it have a right to complain. I'm not denying that at all. But the nature of our society has changed dramatically.

Remember that Court-TV case involving a woman who would "faint" every time she heard the word "penis" ... and filed a sexual harassment suit against a man who dared utter the word? I would truly like to believe that the vast majority of our society is tolerant ... and that there is a small minority of people who are "hypersensitive" to such things. Consequently, when cases come up involving an overheard joke or something trivial, and if that becomes the subject of a complaint, it tends to "detract" from the credibility factor of all sexual harassment complaints.

My sociology instructor called it label-libel. For example, on a radio talk show, I heard a man voicing an opinion that was strongly against gun control. The host said, in a very disparing tone, "Let me guess ... you're an NRA member, right?" As if being an NRA member was inherently evil. FWIW, the man wasn't (grin). But, there is a stigma on anyone voicing an anti-gun-control opinion ... that they MUST be an NRA "wacko." Likewise, the more cases of trivial sexual harassment complaints there are filed by "hypersensitive" people, the more likely it is that the term "sexual harassment" will take on an "uh-huh" stigma it does NOT deserve ... affecting the believability of other victims of more serious forms of the problem.

Once, our EEOC guru called our entire unit in for a "sensitivity training" lecture (this followed the Sumo wrestler t-shirt incident). When it came time for questions, I raised my hand and said something along these lines. "Excuse me, but only one person complained about that t-shirt. No one else in our unit had a problem with it. Why is it that EEOC always plays to the lowest common denominator on issues of sensitivity? What we really need is tolerance training. There HAS to come a time when the stuck-up sticky-beaks of this world are sat down and told to leave their emotional eggshells at home so the tolerant majority can get on with their lives."

The EEOC guru was not impressed. Oh, well.

 

[cbg]

Alec, I understand what you're saying, and for the most part I don't disagree. Sexual harassment can be a weapon, and I understand that as a man you feel particularly vulnerable to that. I don't blame you.

However, a couple of things:

1.) With the sole exception of the 9th Circuit, this country uses a "reasonable person" standard to determine if a fear or perception is reasonable, not a "reasonable woman" standard.

2.) Tolerance training works both ways. It also includes someone being aware of how their comments or behavior appear to others.

3.) Your company has the right to interpret inappropriate behavior as they choose. However, they are not immune from gender discrimination laws. If there is a situation where there has been a clear inequity in how the male in the situation has been treated as opposed to the woman, nothing is stopping him from filing such a suit.

4.) I do not in the least disagree that in the story you've shared, the woman should have been disciplined for violating the dress code. However, lifting her skirt was clearly out of line, whether she laughed it off or not. I'd have disicplined the man too, although I can't say for certain that I'd have fired him on the spot - too many details missing. Violating the dress code, on the other hand, is not generally a firing offense.

 

[AlecWest]

cbg,

I think you and I are more in agreement than you may know. I think sensitivity training and tolerance training should go hand-in-hand ... not one or the other, but both. Problem is, in my workplace, EEOC thinks "sensitivity" supercedes "tolerance" in importance.

In my last post, my 2nd paragraph ended with "But the nature of our society has changed dramatically." Without going into detail, I was referring to a cover-story appearing a number of years ago in Newsweek - titled, "The New American Crybaby." Whoever wrote that article was a prophet. It used to be that people on the fringe of societal norms (hypersensitive people) were expected to conform to the status-quo. Today, we're 180 degrees the other way. The status-quo is expected to cater to the norms of the fringe ... or risk being labeled "insensitive."

To summarize in terms of sexual harassment, the "reasonable person" of twenty years ago is not the "reasonable person" of today ... if they accept, by rote, the notion that the status quo must cater to the fringe.

 

[cbg]

"It used to be that people on the fringe of societal norms (hypersensitive people) were expected to conform to the status-quo. Today, we're 180 degrees the other way. "

And soon the pendulum will again swing, and hopefully center itself. That is the general way of society.

Now, since we both agree that we are in general agreement, perhaps this would be a good time to end this debate.