Who can initiate a Harassment Investigation?

BLC

Here's the situation. A male manager made an inappropriate comment to a female manager. She then told him the comment was inappropriate and not to do it again. He apologized and the conversation ended amicably. Another male manager overheard them talking and then confronted the female manager, who then shared the story of what happened with him. During that conversation, the company president overheard them (yes, it's a small office.)

The president then told the female manager she must file a formal complaint. To complicate this even more, the male manager who made the comment has been disciplined for inappropriate comments in the past. The female manager feels she has taken care of the situation and does not want to file a formal complaint. My questions are, can the female manager be forced to file a formal complaint?, and can the president initiate an investigation on heresay if she doesn't?

Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks.

ray a

Simple answer, anyone can initiate a harassment claim. I have trained our supervisors that if they get any word of a complaint like this they are to immediately inform me then I will follow our investigation procedures.

Not sure what your president means by "formal" complaint. Anytime an ee tells someone in a position of responsibility they were harassed, the company has an obligation to do something and failure to do so opens them up to legal action. Thus, any complaint to a person in a leaderhip position is "formal" and should be treated seriously.

In this case, based on what you have said, I would probably just document what occured and ensure the female manager was OK with the outcome documenting that also. An investigation is just acquiring the facts. Sounds like you have already done that. Since the male manager has been disciplined previously, another disciplinary action may be necessary.

System

Welcome BLC.

It seems like the female manager handled it properly. The male manager, in my opinion, did not commit harassment if the behavior ceased and he apologized. The other male manager and the president have a problem with it because, apparently, since the first male manager was disciplined before, he committed the offense again.

No, the female does not have to file a complaint. The other male and the president have an obligation to act if they believe it is harassment. At best, they can open up a harassment file, interview the female, and they can make her provide a written statement, if that's what they're looking for.

I see the president's point of view. The written statement will provide a formal document by which he can issue another discipline even if the harassment is unfounded.

AluminumBoy

HR SHOULD investigate this. YOu've gotten word of a situation, so do what's REQUIRED and investigate. Do you just let the other managers handle harassment issues on their own?

The schmo who made the comment has been disciplined in the past? and he's not bright enough to keep his mouth shut? You need to get serious with this fellow.

Let me ask you this. What if another employee files a harassment claim in the future and it turns into a big deal...i.e. a lawsuit. Will your actions of the past be looked at...hell yes.

You just had a manager who had been disciplined in the past screw up again. So, should you investigate and take some action...I would.

I've seen this exact thing happen with a previous employer...see Ellerth vs. Burlington Industries. It went to the Supreme Court in a landmark decision. The lackadaisical approach of some incompetent HR folk cost the company a lot of money. Not fun to deal with the mess of those who don't investigate and take appropriate action.

So, in conclusion, DO SOMETHING!!!

Whatever

Anytime you hear about any type of harassment, you must follow through. If this is not investigated and if need be the manager disciplined, in the future this could be costly to the company. Furthermore, if the company does nothing, the male manager could interpret this to mean that it is okay to make inappropriate comments. Nobody, including managers, should have to be disciplined more than once for harassment. Obviously this guy is clueless.

Parabeagle

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-11-04 AT 10:05AM (CST)[/font][br][br]"HR SHOULD investigate this. YOu've gotten word of a situation, so do what's REQUIRED and investigate. Do you just let the other managers handle harassment issues on their own?"

It's a well-settled point of practice (for a long time now) that if (1) the accused is confronted by the victim and informed the conduct is inappropriate and (2) the conduct ceases (he even apologized for the comment) and (3)the victim is satisfied with this resolution that is really all that needs to be done. No need to turn something so simple into a full-blown investigation. Given the past behavior of the accused in this case, however, I think a review for appropriate disciplinary action is warranted.

sonny

I agree with Beagle but would also do as Ray suggested and document the whole thing.

mwild31

I agree with Beagle. This issue is solved in my mind. In order to cover potential liability issues, document the exchange, the outcome and the decision of the female manager not to proceed with an investigation. As to the president and the other manager - I'm happy that they take it so seriously & recognize it for what it is, however, I would explain to them that the female manager is perfectly happy with the course of events and outcome and to let it rest. My opinion would only change if you had written documentation in the male manager's file that he has been written up or counseled on this very topic in the past. If that's the case, then I would do as AlumBoy suggests, as the female manager is probably unaware of previous incidents of the male manager.

Gillian3

The Pres is making a mountain out of a molehill. There is some validity to some sort of interaction with the male manager because of the apparant pattern of a loose mouth but, other than that, the issue is being unnecessarily prolonged. Further, forcing a written complaint after the issue has been resolved is stupid. Requiring written complaints in these situations is a questionable practice, anyway, because it tends to reduce complaints. Employees may feel embarrassed or intimidated by the requirement and not complain, then the problem is bigger when it finally comes out.

AluminumBoy

When people sue companies, its a an ugly process of getting to the facts. The EEOC and lawyers make this an incredibly ugly process.

I always advocate as little HR crap as possible, but in this case, you've got to be consistent in your investigation procedures.

As I've mentioned, I've seen this exact issue come to light in a full fledged investigation that turned ugly.

From a common sense standpoint, I agree with parabeagle...100%. From a liability standpoint, I don't.

I'm not saying fire the guy or make a big whoop-dee-doo (pending what he said), but be consistent in your documentation and how you handle it relative to issues in the past...especially if you have a written policy. It can be done quietly and in simple fashion.

SandiF

I read the Ellerth vs. Burlington Industries case. The harassment in that case was much more severe. It's hard to compare the two cases as Ellerth vs. BI involved a supervisor harassing an employee. In BLC's case, it is one manager harassing another. I agree with Parabeagle's answer. In this case, documentation is warranted because the manager had already been spoken to about his behavoir.

Gillian3

We have to remember that all parties have rights, including the manager. If a full fledged investigation were to take place under the circumstances described in the post, the manager could make the case, I think, that his rights were infringed because when the issue was over and done with by an apology which was accepted by the other party, the company knowing that, decided to investigate anyway. This does not mean that the manager should not receive discipline consistent with the conduct nor that an investigation should not take place if the issue were different than described in the post. Timing is everything and, absent some extenuating circumstance, the issue is over and investigations do not take place after the fact.

Pork

Pull out the documentation of the 1st offense, provide it to the Top Dawg and inform him there is no need to investigate further; however, based on this document the company may want to write him up another letter of warning which lays out any new inappropriate behavior will subject him to sever discipline from a week off without pay to termination. Put the signed copy in his file and wait for the next event consider the event based on the merits of the event and give the manager a week off with out pay or terminate, immediately.

PORK

mbeam

As mentioned before, would pull the document listing the prior write-up and look at the specific situation and the action plan to address it.

If another manager overheard and is offended - it may warrant going a step further. Before going forward, I would want more specifics on this particular situation (what exactly was said) and whether it bears a striking resemblance to a behavior that has already been flagged as needing to improve.

AluminumBoy

OK, this is just sad.

In regards to the Ellerth case, the part you don't see is a full fledged investigation at every location in the COmpany...searching for every minor inconsistency in how every claim was handled. Every single one!!! When you cross location boundaries, its pretty easy to find inconsistencies, even in well run HR companies.

Let's say that the scenario described above comes to light in verbal interviews, then, subsequently the investigator looks into it to see how it was handled.

The above responses indicate that its ok to say that there was an apology, we believe that's all that happened, and the case deserved no further attention. In common sense land, that would be great. In EEOC land (this is a group filled with people who can't make it in the real world), this is a problem. Keep in mind, they are highly inconsistent in their approach.

You have a guy who is now a repeat offender. He apologized, and you accept that is the end. I don't think these responses are indicative of people who have seen this process in action. But, ALuminumBoy may be wrong, so I'm going to now step out of my office, walk down the hall and tell the next lady I see that she's has a nice tail. When she becomes offended, I will apologize and expect the situation to be over.

There are a couple of ladies in the office that I've been wanting to say some offensive stuff to, so now I have a pass to do it...Cool!!

Once again, I'm not saying you HAVE to discipline the guy. I'm not saying you have to speak to 20 people. I'm saying, follow what your written procedure is, document it as a harassment claim, and jump through all the little, crappy loops that the EEOC uses to justify their pathetic, sad existance.

ray a

Aluminumboy, I believe most of us said a full blown investigation is not necessary in this case not because the offender apologized, but rather because the offended party accepted the apology. The acceptance is predicated on the actions of the offended not the actions of the offender. That does not give one a free pass to go make uncouth remarks to the opposite sex. We also said to document what occured including the acceptance of the apology. In addition we said further disciplinary action may be warranted for the offender, but with the minimal details provided, that is not for us to decide.

AluminumBoy

Ooops, I thought it meant that I had a free pass. I said some pretty crass things to a few ladies, but they were nice enough to accept my apologies. Everything worked out fine for me. Whewww!!!!

ray a

Aboy, your sarcasm reveals you for what you are.

System

ABoy, Don't get too comfy with the "Pardon me, Ma'am's." They're giving their statements as you sigh.

SandiF

Go Ray!

You still can't compare this case to the Ellerth case, ABoy. I think everyone gets the point about the documentation, and yes, you would handle the two types of cases differently.

AluminumBoy

We're missing the point on the Ellerth case. The initial incident that prompted this explosion in the Ellerth case is very different from what happened in this instance. It's quite obvious. The point is, it went to the Supreme Court. It is possible for one isolated incident in any company to get blown up to this level. This one incident sparked an investigation across a 20,000 employee company where every little inconsistency in policy was closely examined. The point is, apology alone is insufficient. Very easy for small things to get blown up into great big giant issues and you have to jump through all the crappy hoops. This is not an attempt to say that this is the same as the Ellerth case.

This is in response to the very clear posts that say, don't investigate, stop at the apology.

Based on the posts, it surely didn't seem that people got the point about documenting.

Gillian3

As long as many of us have been around, I would think that accepting that we should document is a given, and really not necessary to say. Guess that assumes a bit too much.

SandiF

"Based on the posts, it surely didn't seem that people got the point about documenting."

I re-read once again, and disagree.

Oh well, neither of us is going to change our opinion on this one.

lnelson

What is wrong with the boss of the 2 (named x & y) managers to sit both of them down confirm the events document and have both sign that such and such was said by x manager to y manager, x manager apologizes and y manager accepts apology.

The boss can then discipline x manager for it being 2nd offense, case closed.

ray a

Yep Inelson, that's pretty close to what most of us were advocating. Only difference to your suggestion, I would personally be in attendance as the HR rep to ensure everything is done correctly.

lnelson

Oops Ray - I shouldn't have assumed but that would be the case. I'm BAD x:D

mbeam

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-17-04 AT 07:35PM (CST)[/font][br][br]BLC - please update us on the inappropriate remark - our responses to your question are based on the assumption that it was sexual harassment since the comment was made from a male manager to a female manager. Could it be that there was a disagreemnt and inappropriate language was used?

Also for Aluminum Boy, not saying that we should ignore court cases as once a decision has been made we know that it's likely to be used when defending a similar case. However, if we ran our businesses based on every court case that's out there - no one would be in business anymore. Any decision is a risk and you have to make the best choice with the facts you have. I don't think we have enough facts on this to give an absolute answer.

AluminumBoy

I agree. Thanks for wrapping this up.

ritaanz

Huh??? Are you messin with us?