Conference quark::mennotes

    Call your attorney FAST! Don't dally!

Hi,

I've never been in this situation.  But I've often wondered
why it's such a difficult problem for people (I'm sure plenty
of people will tell me I'm naive).

Why not listen to the complaint with an eye for understanding
why the person considers your actions sexual harrassment, then
work with them to find an alternative way of acting that is
acceptable to both of you?

If someone at work finds your behavior offensive, sexually or
otherwise, isn't it in your best interest to find a solution
that works for both of you?  Why respond defensively?

As a simple example, if you say to a woman, "Wow!  You look 
*great* in that dress you're wearing!  Would you stand up and 
let me see it?  Very nice."  You may think you're just being
complimentary and some may agree and appreciate it.  But some
may feel uncomfortable with being singled out like this.

Lets say she responds by accusing you of sexually harrassing her.
Rather than getting defensive, you can just apologize for coming
across in a way that made her uncomfortable, agree not to make
such a big deal about her appearance in the future, and then don't.

Where's the problem?  What sort of experiences have people had
that were more difficult to deal with?  Does this seem like an
unworkable solution for this example?

Kerry

    A single instance such as the one hypothesized in .2 does not qualify
    as harassment.  Only repeated instances after the "perpetrator" is made
    aware of the problem can be legally classified as harassment.  Note
    that the instances need not all be of the same type; they must only be
    generically similar, such as offers of dates, long up-and-down stares,
    use of objectionable language, and so on, such that they indicate a
    pattern.
    
    -dick

.3> as harassment.  Only repeated instances after the "perpetrator" is made
.3> aware of the problem can be legally classified as harassment.  Note
    
    That's a common misconception, but it's still false.

    	I hope then, (but doubt) that they make allowance for cultural
    differences. I have several female colleagues who would
    be most offended if I didn't kiss them on the cheek when we met. Being
    British I was slightly disconcerted when I was introduced to a new
    manager's wife and was obviously expected to kiss her on the cheek.
    I know enough about U.S. culture to be aware that I would have to try
    to lose 12 years of living in France. A Frenchman would very likely
    make mistakes for a while.

    Re .5
    
    From the mouth of an EEOC investigator via telephone this morning,
    quoting the decision in Meritor v. Vincent, which is considered a
    landmark case of harassment, although not sexual:
    
    "Mere utterance of [an] epithet which engenders offensive feelings is
    generally not sufficient ... [The abuse] must be sufficiently severe or
    pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment or create an abusive
    working environment."
    
    The investigator said that it does depend on what was said or done, who
    knew about it, and what was done; in other words, if something really
    offensive occurs and you complain about it and get no response from
    your employer, you *might* [investigator's emphasis] have a case.  For
    almost all reasonable practical circumstances, a single incident is not
    harassment.
    
    So my statement that it *must* be a repeated abuse is indeed false in
    the absolute sense but not in the common general case.
    
    -dick

It really all depends on whose rules one is going by.  A given employer's
rules may be more strict than EEOC's.  But at least in the case of DEC,
the policy is quite clear.  Indeed, I posted a copy of it in note 3.2.

				Steve

Like several other repliers, I have not been through it, so I can only
answer hypothetically.

After reading several replies, I realized that I was assuming a context
for the accusation.  Without assuming, I can think of three separate contexts:
social, corporate or legal.

In the face of a legal accusation, I will agree with .1.  Get a lawyer.

I'll define a social accusation as a social situation where somebody says 
"Hey, that's harassment." to me.  I guess what I'd do is ask a few questions
like "What do you mean?" and "Why do you feel that way?"  If I got the 
impression that the conversation would be unproductive, I would apologize and
walk away.  If it looked like it would be valuable, I would apologize, stop 
the behavior and continue the conversation along the lines suggested in .2.

In the context of Policy 6.03 in note 3.2, I would try to set up a meeting 
with my accuser and a representative from US EEO/AA.  There I would try 
to get clear on exactly what behavior is considered harassment.  Assuming
that this is made clear, I would say that I intend to stop all such behavior.
Then I would stop.

I would do this partly as a matter of courtesy and partly to keep my job.  I 
can't imagine being so attached to any behavior with a co-worker that I 
would risk discourtesy or my job for it.

    RE:  .9
    
    Yes, it is much better to face such a problem head on, than to avoid,
    deny, or minimize it.
    
    You need to show that you are responsive.  That's all anyone can ask,
    plus change in behavior if there really is a problem.  Even if the
    woman's charge is spurious, if you a appear to be ducking it, you lose
    credibility.
    
    Laura

    The following reply has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






    I was accussed of sexual harrasment once here at Digital.  I was called
    into my manager's office and  told that a complaint of sexual
    harrasment had been filed against me.  I never knew who had accussed
    me, I never met them.  I was told that one more complaint would lead to
    a formal charge and two would mean summary dismissal.
    
    It scared the hell out of me.  I walked a fine line until I was out of
    that situation (fortunately not too long).
    
    I was told there were two complaint by the same person.  Complaint 1 -
    she  did not like the way I looked at her.  She felt I was undressing
    her with my eyes.  
    
    I dunno.  I still don't know who it was or why they thought that.
    
    Complaint 2 - She was upset by an interaction she observed between
    myself and another woman.  She felt that I had said something that was
    demeaning and upsetting to this woman.  
    
    What did I say?  I dunno.  Not much to learn here folks.  On this one,
    though, I can speculate.  A couple of days before the complaint was
    lodged, I had said something to a woman which was intended as a
    compliment.  It upset her.  She  came back to me the next day and said
    so.  We discussed it and it turned out  that what I said wasn't what
    she heard (basically, my definition of a certain term was very
    different from hers).  Once we understood that, she said, "Oh, well
    that's quite different.  I'm sorry I got upset.  Friends?" and we shook
    hands.
    
    Now, what I was told was that, the reality of that situation didn't
    matter. If the person filing the complaint was offended by what I said
    to another woman, then it didn't matter whether the person I said it to
    was offended or  not.
    
    What did I do?  Well, I couldn't begin to afford a lawyer.  I went to
    EAP as I was told to (the counselor said "I think somebody is just
    messing with  your head, but, you must be careful anyway") and was
    very, very careful not to look at any women, talk to any woman except
    where absolutely necessary,  talk about women or in any other way
    expose myself to danger.  When I changed managers about 4 months later
    I was free and clear (according to personnel).
    
    How did I feel about this?  Offended, unfairly persecuted, victimised
    and harrassed.  Women I've spoken to since then fail to see what the
    issue was, but then, they only hear my side of the story and even I am
    not sure what it was all about.  I am still an ardent feminist (sorry
    guys) and I still believe that real harrassment occurs and should be
    prosecuted.
    

    re .11, it seems ridiculous to me that someone can charge a person with
    sexual harrassment because of something that person said to a *third*
    person!!  Unless that third person specifically asked the person who
    complained for help, in a particular instance, I think the person who
    complained should mind their own business.
    
    There are legimate cases of sexual harrassment, but this was obviously
    a case of carrying something to a ridiculous extreme.  
    
    At least, that's my opinion from reading .11.  Who knows what I had
    been there.
    
    Lorna
    

.12> re .11, it seems ridiculous to me that someone can charge a person with
.12> sexual harrassment because of something that person said to a *third*
.12> person!!  Unless that third person specifically asked the person who
    
    Lorna, if you and I are talking after work, in the parking lot on
    the way to our cars (assuming we worked together), and I say some-
    thing TO YOU that someone else OVERHEARS, and does not like, that
    3rd person can file harassment charges against me.
    
    If you and I work with another person and we never once invite that
    person to eat lunch with us, that person can file harassment charges
    against us.
    
    YES, THE LAW *IS* CRAZY!             
    
    But it IS the law.  If you don't believe me, ask your Human Resources
    people if I'm making any of this up.

    	Laws vary, of course. I know of one case of serious sexual
    harrassment, not on this site. The man pestered almost every woman in
    the office for about a year. DEC paid him to resign because that was
    less expensive than a potential lawsuit for unfair dismissal.

Read DEC's harassment policy in note 3.2.  In particular:

  Practice

  Individuals who believe that they or others have been subjected
  to harassment from a coworker, supervisor, manager, customer or
  vendor can report the conduct to their supervisor or manager,
  local Personnel or others within the Company as outlined in
  Digital's Open Door Policy (see Personnel Policy 6.02, Open
  Door).  U.S. EEO/AA is also available to receive and respond to
  reports of harassment.  While employees are encouraged to report
  instances of harassment to their supervisors or managers first,
  they are not required to do so.

The events as stated in .11 would appear to be contrary to corporate policy
regarding how such complaints are supposed to be handled.

				Steve

Steve,

Which aspects of the events in .11 were contrary to corporate policy?

1. The author of .11 wasn't told who made the complaint so he couldn't
   dispute her version of the facts; or

2. He was deemed guilty of harrassment merely because he looked at her,
   even though he didn't speak to her or threaten her; or

3. One of the complaints was about a conversation he had with a third
   person?

				-- Bob

Point 1, in my view.

	Steve

I don't think the policy given in note 3.2 states that a person who is
accused of harrassment must be told the identity of person making the
accusation.  It does say:

>Employees accused of harassment should be given sufficient
>information about the allegations to provide them a reasonable
>opportunity to respond before any corrective action or discipline
>is imposed.  Accused employees should not be assumed to have
>violated this policy unless and until the investigation described
>above establishes that they have done so.

and later:

>Experience has shown that a clear statement to the person
>engaging in the offensive behavior is often all that is necessary
>to stop the conduct.  Employees who believe they are being
>harassed are encouraged to let the person engaging in the conduct
>know how they feel, but they are not required to do so.

This seems to leave it up to the judgement of the manager making the
investigation.  Now if you want to say that "sufficient information about
the allegations to provide them a readonable opportunity to respond" includes
being told who it was who made the accusation I'll agree with you, but not
every manager will see it that way.  In the case given in .11, the
"investigation" might have consisted of a conversation between the person
making the accusation and .11's manager.

				-- Bob

    You gotta love it!  Tom�s de Torquemada did it so well that Digital
    wants to do it all over again.
    
    If the accused is not permitted to confront h* accuser or even to know
    who the accuser is, then we are well on the way to a repetition of the
    Spanish Inquisition.  Anyone can denounce anyone else, and there is no
    chance for the person denounced to defend h*self.
    
    Hey, maybe this is the next step in TFSO.  A trumped-up charge here, an
    inadvertent but *surely* excusable failure there to adhere to, or even
    explain, the letter of the rules to the poor accused, and "Thanks For
    Shoving Off!"
    
    -dick

    Dick,
    
    If you haven't noticed. Reguardless of the orange book. There really
    are no laws reguarding corp personal and policies. Those who have the
    orange book call the shots. Those who do not have the orange book are
    doomed to be "Spanish Inquisition'ed". And what ever favor the wind
    blows is the prevailing thoughts of the day. Asin, how many angles can
    fit on the end of a pin.
    

    Oh, yes, George, I've observed.  Don't mean I gotta like it.

    
    What do you and your husband think motivated her to do this?  
    
    
    bill

    Its unfortunate that we are all so vulnerable to false charges, but, we
    are.  Yes, what do you think motived her to make the charges? What is
    in it for her that you can determine?
    
    IMO since he is innocent its important that he not let this push him
    around. SHE is the one who should leave the co, not him.  Are the OTHER
    employees supportive of your husband, or, are they suspicious that the
    charges are true?  I ask because if they are supportative then it makes
    even MORE sense for him to stay.  Your husband can bring a suit against
    her for 'defamination of character' can't he?  I know, I know, the
    hassles and expenses of a suit, but he is being ATTACKED, they may be
    a way to defend himself.
    
    (I am not a lawyer, the above are personal opinions only)
    
    Jeff

    There is a bill before the New Hampshire House and Senate that will
    give a cart-blont (sp) to women who are to have a child out of wedlock
    that will enable them to name, without trail, without proof of burden
    by the accuser, that the named male will be the father who will pay to
    the state of NH child support and other cost of child rearing. 
    
    Imagine..... the humor, if you will someone going thru the phone book
    in a hospital.....looking for a name....:)

    It's 'Carte Blanche', like the credit card...and paternity is an easily
    proven/disproven condition these days, via genetic testing, so any NH
    law to assign paternity at random is rather meaningless.
    
    As for the harassment charge, well hell hath no fury, I supposed...
    
    tim
    

    
    Sorry about being so nasty this morning, I don't mean this as the
    slam against .0 that it's going to sound like, but I don't know any 
    other way to put this:

    Looks like "men's rights" has found another recruit. Isn't it
    interesting that no one seems to give a flip about this sort of thing
    until it happens to _them_?  I keep thinking of the thing that many of
    the "minorities" are fond of throwing around about the German preacher
    saying, "they came for this group and I said nothing, They cam for that 
    group and I said nothing etc...".

    I keep tilting at windmills and speaking out about such things, but
    until enough people get fed up enough with this *&^% to do something
    about it, it will continue. Not just men, some of biggest supporters of
    "men's rights" have been, wives, second wives and girlfriends who
    get a first hand look at what's going on.

    Unfortunately it seems that the trend is in the opposite direction right
    now.  Men's careers and lives can be ruined on nothing but accusation or 
    "recovered memories".  However, as I indicated before,  there is a
    growing opposition to this sort of thing also.

    fred();

>    It's 'Carte Blanche', like the credit card...and paternity is an easily
>    proven/disproven condition these days, 

Aat cost of money/time/stress on the victim (selected 'father').  Will this
carry any liabilty against the woman if FALSE claims are made?  If not,  why
not?

    I've never been in a harassment situation, but I have been in a few
    other types of situations and have read of many where a defense of some
    form was required by a victim, and I can tell you that when a person is
    attacked in any manner, the mindset of that person is of utmost
    importance to the outcome.  Abandon the defensive mindset.  Take the
    offense and hit hard is what I say.

    � Will this carry any liabilty against the woman if FALSE claims are
    � made?

    It has not been enforced in the past, I rather doubt it will be in the
    future. There is money to be made by those who can rally a cause
    against us Neanderthal, knuckle draggin, rasputin male types.;)

    
    
    	In the case of a woman naming a man as the father the 
    	state/welfare dept will proscute and there isn't many
    	defenses. The burden of proof is put on the man to
    	prove he is NOT the father. They seem to be just looking
    	for someone/anyone that has the money to pay support.
    
    	A friend of my who used to work on these told me when
    	a woman came in and named multiple men as possibles.
    	The first thing they did was run a credit report on them
    	and then go after the one most likely to be able to pay
    	(good job/assets).
    
    	If the man can prove he is not the father which can take
    	years thru the courts. He cannot get back any temporary 
    	child support the courts have made him pay since the 
    	beginning of the legal process.
    
    
    	Also can has the option of suing the woman, but how much
    	do you want to invest in lawyers to sue a mother and 
    	child on welfare getting no child support. Not a very good
    	chance of getting anything even if you win.
    
    
    			DAC
    
    
    

    Something that really set my flames off the other day was by a local
    candidate for County Commissioner.  She bragged about how she was
    responsible for collecting child support from *deadbeat dads*, and
    ended the add with "I don't expect any votes from these _men_
    just a check".

    1) An extremely sexist attitude that all deadbeats are men.
    2) If she really _is_ in charge of that mess, I know a lot of
       people that are waiting in the backlog that would like to 
       talk to her.
    3) If men who don't pay child support are "deadbeats", then what
       are women who will stay on welfare because it pays more than
       working?

    fred()

    answer to #3.... Low self asteam women. Same MO as Mrs. Smith... The
    woman who took her kids to the lake for a swim.

>                                       She bragged about how she was
>   responsible for collecting child support from *deadbeat dads*, and
>   ended the add with "I don't expect any votes from these _men_
>   just a check".

It's likely that all the non-custodial parents from whom she collected
back child support *were* men.  As you've complained many times, it's
difficult for fathers to get custody, and even if they do, it's unlikely
that the mothers will be ordered to pay child support.

Re .32

The same thing is happening in the UK at present.  A new government dept called
the CSA was formed approx. 2 years to collect maintenance from fathers instead
of the money being paid to the mothers in the form of Social Security.

The problems are roughly these:

1.  The CSA can overridr any court settlement made at the time of the divorce. 
This has been used to increase the amount of maintenance some fathers were 
already paying (ie. the easy targets)

2. The amount of maintenance decided was in some cases over 50% of salary and
the calculation didn't include all teh current financial liabilities such as 
children by a new relationaship, loans, etc.

3.  The mother didn't receive any more money as the amount paid was just deducted
from the Social Security.  Therefore, the kid wasn't any better off but the father
was poorer.  Some fathers avoided paying by giving up there job.

4.  There initially was no appeals mechanism.

5.  Instead of targetting the fathers who didn't pay any money they should of 
been paying they hit the ones paying maintenance.

6.  'Clean Break' divorces (where the father paid a lump sum to the mother, then 
no maintenance - usually the house) did not count.


However, I think the most controversy came because newspaper editors probably 
found they had to pay some money!!



I think the kind of situation is always difficult except in the cases where 
the person without custody is earning money but not paying support.  What is
best for the kid should ALWAYS been the prime consideration and this can never
be determined by simple (or complex) financial calculations.  What price a kid
knowing and respecting its father?

John Hussey (Ayr, Scotland)


PS. My situation is that I live with my partner and her 10 year old son whose
father does not pay maintance

    re .35

>It's likely that all the non-custodial parents from whom she collected
>back child support *were* men.  As you've complained many times, it's
>difficult for fathers to get custody, and even if they do, it's unlikely
>that the mothers will be ordered to pay child support.

    No. Women who are non_custodial_parents are _routinely_ ordered
    to pay just as men are.  However, a higher _percentage_ of the
    women who are ordered to pay are deadbeats.  It is a lot easier
    for them to avoid working.  I hauled my ex into court a couple
    years ago on contempt charges for not paying.  The judge said that
    he couldn't hold her in contempt because she was unemployed and
    unable to pay.  She had quit her job and was living off her husband's
    income.  Let's see what happens when a man tries that.

    fred();
    

    
     The ex-wife does pay.  I remarried six weeks ago.  My wifes ex and
     his spouse are looking for $500.00 more per month in child support.
     based on her now being married and "our" income level being higher.
    
     My wife has paid child support from day one.  She lost a very ugly
     child custody case in Arizona.  I'm trying to get a hold of the
     Arizona Bar to see what legal action I can take.  We have 20 days
     from the date the order was issued 10/28, to respond.  We received it 
     yesterday, certified mail from her ex... I was expecting a return 
     address of the courthouse.  I don't even know if the paperwork was
     filed with the court????  
    
     Can anyone lend a hand here??
    
     Mark
    
    the mail.  As usual the ex
     can't just let us get on with our lives.

    The first thing I'd file is a request for an extension of time to 
    reply stating the reasons given (delay in mail, lack of return address
    of court house).  

    Most states don't take into account the new spouse's income, 
    apparently some do.  Most go by some sort of "schedule" set down
    by the state.  You will need to get the forms to fill out for
    your income.  If your income hasn't changed, or her ex's income
    hasn't changed, and the "child support" was based on the schedule
    in the first place, then the ex shouldn't be entitled to any
    increase.

    Sadly, the thing that you are probably going to have to do is to
    find some lawyer in Arizona to handle this.  Trying to fight these
    out-of-state actions can be a real *&^%.

    fred();