Dear HR Executive:
When you field a sexual harassment complaint, it can feel like you're walking a tightrope. Often, you’re dealing with an emotional complainant and an indignant accused – both of whom swear their version of events is the true one and the other is a big liar. It’s easy to get sucked into the story of one party or the other – especially that of the unhappy victim. But only trouble is ahead if you do.
Boys will be boys?
Case in point: In Sassaman v. Gamache, a female employee accused a male colleague of sexually harassing and stalking her. The man’s boss told him that if he didn’t resign, he’d be fired.
The employee resigned, but later sued for sex discrimination. He recounted a climactic conversation in which the supervisor told him: “I’m afraid she’ll sue me. And besides, you probably did what she said you did because you’re male and nobody would believe you anyway.”
In court, the employer claimed the supervisor was only giving his opinion as to what other people thought, not justifying the forced resignation. But a federal appeals court thought otherwise, and allowed the male employee’s case to go to trial. The court said the supervisor defended his decision to side with the female employee “by pointing to the propensity of men, as a group, to sexually harass women.” This made it look like the man was forced out because of “invidious sex stereotypes,” the court said.
“Guilty until proven innocent”
The court wasn’t sympathetic to the employer’s argument that it feared a lawsuit from the female employee if it didn’t get rid of the man. “Title VII requires employers to take claims of sexual harassment seriously,” the court said. But “it also requires that, in the course of investigating such claims, employers do not presume male employees to be ‘guilty until proven innocent.’ ”
That puts HR right back on that tightrope. Assuming a harassment allegation is male-on-female (still by far the majority of cases), you’re delinquent in your duty if you lean toward “he said.” But if you lean toward the “she said,” you risk discriminating against the man as a man.
What’s the solution? A thorough and impartial investigation. In this case, the court was clearly swayed by the fact that the employer didn’t do such an investigation. The employer made “minimal, if any” efforts to verify the female employee’s allegations, the court said.
Although the supervisor did refer the matter to the local sheriff’s office – which found no indication of criminal activity – he didn’t investigate. Nor did he have his assistant look into the allegations. And he didn’t refer the case to the employer’s Equal Opportunity Officer.
So although there were plenty of people around who could have investigated the female employee’s allegations – as well as the man’s counterclaims – nobody did. And the employer ended up holding the bag.
Dave Clemens
Editor-in-Chief
The HR Café Newsletter
UPCOMING AUDIO CONFERENCE: Don't miss B21’s upcoming audio conference , "Measuring Employee Attitudes: Find Out What Employees Really Think and Manage by Fact." On Thursday, June 25, our speaker, Hay Group Insight senior consultant Mark Royal, will
discuss best practices for designing successful survey systems and
using survey results to drive organizational improvements. He will
share examples of companies that have used employee surveys
strategically to attract and retain talent, improve operating
efficiency, manage change more effectively, enhance customer
satisfaction, and boost bottom-line performance.