Hostile Work Environment????
Leslie
1,729 Posts
My friend is an HR director for a company that strongly encourages car pooling. Anyone who carpools three or more days a week is eligible for a weekly drawing. One woman carpools with her male supervisor - although she has no other way to work and does not compensate him for gas, it is still considered a car pool for drawing purposes. Early this week, the woman brought salsa for everyone. For whatever reason her supervisor did not get any. So when he takes her home that night, she runs into her home to get him some. When she comes back out he is in the car pleasuring himself. She becomes aghast, he says he was just scratching himself. Later, he becomes concerned she might contact his wife, and calls and leaves a message - with no admission of guilt. Then, by caller ID account, phones her 13 more times, and comes by four times (her son was home and said he was banging on the door). Both are on paid administrative leave. The woman now says he rubs up against her at work, but she never thought anything of it until THE incident. Other co-workers say they've seen nothing odd. Does she separate them? Is it a work incident off-site? Should we suggest she get a restraining order? Is it a he-said, she said? I was stymied - advice anyone?
Comments
Was the man parallel parked or in a driveway when he supposedly commited the alleged act? That could be critical. And if he was in his own car, in private, scratching or doing whatever he pleased, is it his fault that someone walked up? Did she describe the scratching. Some people scratch oddly. Has your friend checked his medical file. Perhaps there is a disability that causes him to scratch in a contorted way.
Actually, I think your friend is batty for suspending them, unless there is evidence of a salsa or rhumba on company time and an extended dip was involved.
I do not understand why the woman is on leave. Keep him on leave and bring her back until the investigation is complete.
If a legitimate complaint exists, properly logged and investigated, deal with it. If not, don't assume from something that was said in a bizarre conversation that it does stand up to the definition of a complaint. I think we might be looking at the wrong 'wacko jacko' here.
He knew she would be back with the salsa. Only a man who sees an opportunity would expose (ahem) himself to this predicament.
With that in mind, I would ignore everything but the statement she made about him rubbing against her and follow company procedures to investigate.
rubbing incidences, you should try to determine if the woman ever said "No" or "stop it".
>rubbing incidences, you should try to determine
>if the woman ever said "No" or "stop it".
Why is that important?
If I can substantiate a supervisor inappropriately touching a direct report, they are gone. I don't care who said what.
a. After the first time, she turned to him and said, "don't ever do this again." or
b. After the first time, she turned her head, smiled at him and shook her tush. (Of course, she may have done this because she was afraid she'd lose her job.
In both cases, he is still guilty of the rubbing and is terminated. However, the investigator still needs to have a complete picture of what happened (what if either ee decides to sue in the future).
In the meantime, I do not understand why the female ee is on a leave (paid or not). Until proven otherwise, she has done nothing wrong.
>
>
The correct answer to question is "There is no point conducting an investigation unless you intend to get all facts." The purpose of an investigation is not support one side or another, it is not to get someone terminated, it is simply to try and find out what happened.
I think it is time to put the questions to him, such as the evidence of the phone calls and the other view of the "scratching." I would not take further action without interviewing him.
By the way, did she accept rides from him the next day?
The guy has 11 years with the company and no incidents of anything. Investigated the rubbing allegations and came up with nothing - just her statement that, at the time, she really didn't think anything of it, until she found him in the car.
The supervisor denied the rubbing, and as previously stated, said he was scratching himself during the car incident. It is strictly he said/she said. There is no substantiation of anything.
I was wrong about the time frame. This occurred last Friday, she called off on Monday, then went to HR on Tuesday.
So with nothing else to look at that actually occurred at the workplace, you say bring 'em both back?
What goes with the supervisor's territory is having to potentially deal with false accusations of harassment. Everyone has to deal with it, but in my organization supervisors are held to a higher standard. In he said, she said scenarios sometimes you have to do things that aren't "fair".
Your point about ee's thinking they can now get rid of supervisors is well taken. But if you don't separate them you are going to have issues to deal with between them. I guarantee it. Either way it's not an easy choice.
It may be a moot point for her anyway. I bet that if she presents the option of moving depts or shifts, one of them is going to jump at it.
"I did find case law that says if a company sponsors off the clock off work events or functions then the company must have a policy in place regarding sexual harassment at said functions.
I have thoroughly investigated the complaint about the rubbing up against her at work. I cannot substantiate any of it - no one saw anything.
Additionally my concern was that he called her at home as her supervisor and wanted to know why she was not at work and she did not want to talk to him. Then when he went over to the house it really scared her (according to her). She actually came in to quit and wanted to tell someone why.
So at this point my thought is to bring them both back and separate them and have the plant manager keep a really close eye on the male employee.
How does that sound?"
>commenting on your posts.
>
Ah, the real aluminum boy returns.