Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html

For the first time in his 25 years of employment, a female employee has made a verbal allegation of sexual harassment against a male friend of mine. "John" was notified of this by his immediate supervisor via an email. The email did not indicate an incident or complaint but rather was framed in the context of "feedback" advising John to be carefull when it comes to dealing with female employees. It went on to say that comments, compliments, innuendos, flirting, wandering eyes, etc. can be misperceived and possibly jeapordize his job. Needless to say, John was absolutely astounded. He immediately approached his supervisor and demanded clarification. The supervisor indicated that a female employee had verbalized the allegation. He then clarified his position on the matter by stating that he has never witnessed any such behavior by John nor believes any incident occurred. What bothers John however, is why was the email sent in the first place? Does it constitute some form of written warning? The employee handbook states that standard operating procedure requires a verbal warning first and then written warning followed by a final written warning and then termination. Were John's civil rights violated?

The work environment today in the United States is becoming more and more polarized. Women are flagrantly disregarding company dress codes in order to flaunt there sexuality. It was interesting to discover how narrowly defined sexual harassment has become. A clause in the code mentions "visual harassment"; defined as any display that promotes the sexuality of what is depicted, or draws attention to the private parts of the body, even if there is partial clothing. Consequently, men are flagrantly disregarding verbal and visual inhibitions as they react to the sexual stimulus. The question that remains however, is which side constitutes criminality? Is it the sexual provocation or is it the sexual reaction? Do wandering male eyes encourage women to dress more provocatively or does female attire encourage wandering male eyes? Does a loose verbal atmosphere in the work place exacerbate the problem? Would clamping down constitute a violation of freedom of speech? What about the constant bombardment of sexual messages facilitated through various media? The 1960's ushered in the sexual revolution. Perhaps it is time for the counter revolution.

I for one, can not stand the sound of sandal-wearing female co-workers. I think it is unprofessional, and it is a huge distraction. Flop-flop-flop-flop all the way down the hall.

In my old job, it was definitely against the dress code, but in this job, things are a little more relaxed.

Double standards make me sick. This country is getting rediculous with the rules, standards, and equality overzealous BS.

Sexual harrassment is a real nebulous and forboding issue in workplaces today; and unfortunately a huge part of what is defined as "harrassment" is based on how the alleged recipient of the unwanted attention interprets the behavior, and sometimes has little to do with what actually happened or didn't happen.

I have not personally seen any of this take place, but I have heard from colleagues of people raising complaints that seemed rediculous and unsubstantiated, but resulted in disciplinary action.

"John" has every right to know exactly what he said or did that violated company policy or otherwise made the accuser feel harrassed. If the complaint ends up being unsubstantiated, then it should not go on "John's" employee file.

Also, if he is a member of a union, he has representation available that can help advocate for his rights.

In today's skittish, litigation-fearing workplaces, though, unfortunately, the burden of proof often falls unfairly on the accused employee rather than on the accuser...

Good luck...

__________________
Peace,

John

My Librarything

. . . .

First it was casual Friday, then the casual workplace. Now, almost anything seems to go.

It's time to go back to the rules. And they must be evenhanded. But, women should not be allowed to wear provocative clothing - tight pants, bare midriffs, etc. It's not an excuse for sexual harassment - it's just bad business.

I'm amazed to walk around CC these days. I feel like such an old fogie - even when not wearing a tie. I can't believe how people go to work.

And the problem with sending an e-mail to an employee is that even if it is an "informal" communication, it can probably be brought back by someone. And does it go in your personnel folder, etc.

The supervisor should have simply called your friend into his office and raised the warnings - either as an "informal" headsup or as a verbal warning. One of the problems that I have seen is that managers/supervisors are seldom trained on how to deal with the whole question and how to deal with problems when they arise. I would guess the big companies are far better at this than the small ones but I don't think anyone does a good enough job.

__________________
“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” - Jane Jacobs

Even better -- wouldn't it have been nice if the woman who felt harrassed had said something to John first? People are so damn passive-aggressive these days.

Hey, everyone! It's Be a Victim Friday!

__________________
Meatwad get the honeys, see.

The possibilities are limitless.

__________________
“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” - Jane Jacobs

I think, but I'm not 100% sure, that I posted twice in this thread, one right after my "Be a Victim Friday" post. If it was deleted, can the moderators please inform us of such activities (does this message board have a feature where if it's removed, the poster is notified by e-mail automatically?) so we have an idea of when we've "gone over the line?"

Thanks.

__________________
Meatwad get the honeys, see.

As someone who was sexually harrassed, fired and never paid as a result of the harrassment, I can tell you that perhaps the reason she never said something and perhaps the reason company policies dictate the "come to us first if you feel harrassed" happens is because the harrasser can do something to affect your job to protect their own and then no one will ever know the real story or reasoning behind the action.

I do feel like companies have gone too far. But I understand why they have. At my firm, we attorneys are supposed to be go-tos for the people under us for harrassment issues, and we are supposedly under a duty to report any and all complaints. It's sort of more of a joke to us but that's because I have good relationships with the people I work with. We say off-color things to one another all the time and there are sexual inneundos flying around constantly but we all know each others' tolerance. It's not objectionable to us and it makes work fun. If my boss though actually fired me or didn't give me a raise because he took jokes seriously, that would be objectionable to me. Corporations have to work with all levels of comfort and sensibility. Chances are that 90% of women out there wouldn't be comfortable with as much off-color banter as I am, and I understand that. In terms of staring and making someone feel uncomfortable, it's just not appropriate in the workplace. Should someone be off the hook because someone is wearing a tight shirt? No. Should the company also make sure that female (and male) employees wear appropriate clothing? Yes. But in my experience, guys who stare at women and make them feel uncomfortable are going to do it regardless of if women are wearing burlap bags...

__________________
Resident of Fishtown, Moderator of Fish/No. Libs/Kenzo forum, Real Estate Agent-Prudential Fox & Roach

WOW!!! Chris and I actually agree on something again. It's been a while, but I knew you had it in you. Thank MTV for the fashion of today. When I was in high school (mid 1980's) girls wore sweaters and oxford shirts with corduroys or jeans and when I was in college huge baggy sweatshirts and baggy pajama pants was the look. You honestly could not tell what girls looked like under all the clothes. Now on college campuses it is ridiculous what female students will wear, even in the midst of winter. I'm sure Niel can attest to this as well as I know he works at Penn.

__________________
"If you have the courage to begin, you have the courage to succeed." -- David Viscott