Bad Business Decision?

[Deleted]

Let's say you have an employee, we'll call him John. He's been a supervisor for your company for about 20 years. About 10 years ago, a female employee that worked for him, we'll call her Sara, accused John of sexually harrassing her by continually saying sexually graphic things to her. This was not the first (or the second) time that John was accused of sexual harrassment by one of his employees. Eventually Sara hired an attorney and the end result was that the company paid Sara a 5 figure amount and John was moved to another location, still supervising.

About a year ago, you move John back to the location where Sara works, but he's supervising in another department. Because of how the business is set up, Sara still has to interact with him and he's in a position of power over her even though he's not her official supervisor. Sara doesn't like it that she has to interact with John, but she's told that whatever time period that John had to stay away from her has passed. There was talk that John had to be moved from the other location because an employee there accused him of sexual harrassment, but that's just an unconfirmed rumor as far as Sara knows. Then about a month ago, you moved John again and he's now Sara's immediate supervisor again.

I don't know much about running a business (I'm a peon!), but first of all, I wouldn't keep a supervisor that has a history of sexual harrassment charges. I especially wouldn't have that person supervising an employee that has won a sexual harrassment case against him, regardless of how much time has passed. If I were John, I'd be afraid that the employee would make those accusations again, whether they're true or not, and do my best to stay away from her. As John's boss, I would be concerned about the same thing, and that it would cost the company a lot more if there was a second go-round with the same employee.

Is it just me, or is this company making bad decisions with this situation?

[swamp]

Any employee that makes me pay out a 5 figure settlement is gone.

[busymom]

Definitely it's bad to keep him on.  I'm thinking he knows something that could be potentially trouble for the company?!?  That's the only reason they keep him.

[haapai]

Which one would that be, Swamp?  John, Sara, or the idiot that set up this situation again?

[Abby Normal]

I would have made severance part of her settlement- not sure if that's legal, but sure would have tried.  And I probably would have fired John by now if they could prove that any harassment actually took place.  But I definitely would not put them together again.  

[swamp]

Sept 25, 2013 11:48:22 GMT -5 haapai said:

Which one would that be, Swamp?  John, Sara, or the idiot that set up this situation again?

The one who did the harassing.   and probably the one that set the situation up again.  but that second one is negotiable.

[Tennesseer]

Was John ever removed from his supervisory position after the company settled with Sara?  A five figure settlement amount could have been considered a nuisance lawsuit payment (say $10,000) or real concern for John's actions (say $95,000).

John should not in any way be connected to a supervising relationship (direct or indirect) with Sara.  

I assume HR has been made aware of the new allegation since the settlement with Sara and he is now back working in Sara's area?

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Sept 25, 2013 11:43:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

Any employee that makes me pay out a 5 figure settlement is gone.

There was a hint of mild sexual harrassment at a small company I worked for once, and the ownership jumped all over it to avoid a lawsuit.  I think every woman in the offices was privately met with to be assured that the company wouldn't stand for any further incidents.  I was told by ownership that if there was one more report of any incident of any nature or degree, the guy would be gone.  And he'd been their 2nd employee hired 20 years ago. 

ETA:  To answer the original question, yes, if they have put a potentially volatile situation back together again, they're asking for trouble.  And I've seen harrassments suits close companies down. 

[Tennesseer]

Sept 25, 2013 11:48:25 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

I would have made severance part of her settlement- ot sure if that's legal, but sure would have tried.  And I probably would have fired John by now if they could prove that any harassment actually took place.  But I definitely would not put them together again.  

Severence as part of the settlement would be considered retaliation for filing a complaint.  That ìs a legal no-no.

[Deleted]

Sept 25, 2013 11:51:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Was John ever removed from his supervisory position after the company settled with Sara?  A five figure settlement amount could have been considered a nuisance lawsuit payment (say $10,000) or real concern for John's actions (say $95,000).

John should not in any way be connected to a supervising relationship (direct or indirect) with Sara.  

I assume HR has been made aware of the new allegation since the settlement with Sara and he is now back working in Sara's area?

John retained his supervisory position the whole time, he was just moved around, away from Sara until recently. The settlement was more than $10k, less than $95k.

There hasn't been a new allegation from Sara.

[Deleted]

To answer the original question, yes, if they have put a potentially volatile situation back together again, they're asking for trouble. And I've seen harrassments suits close companies down.

That's what I was thinking, that it's an unnecessarily volatile situation.

[souldoubt]

Getting accused once would be a sit down with HR and making sure everyone knew what was going on and that it wouldn't be tolerated.  The second time John would have been out of a job.   

[Abby Normal]

Sept 25, 2013 11:53:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Sept 25, 2013 11:48:25 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

I would have made severance part of her settlement- ot sure if that's legal, but sure would have tried.  And I probably would have fired John by now if they could prove that any harassment actually took place.  But I definitely would not put them together again.  

Severence as part of the settlement would be considered retaliation for filing a complaint.  That ìs a legal no-no.

You can't fire them, but can't you offer extra dollars if they leave?  

[Tennesseer]

PC-it should always be the accused (if found the accusations are true) who should be moved though it is all right to ask the accuser if (in this case) she would like to move to a different location with no loss of job title or salary.  If the accuser declines, the accused should always be moved to a different area and out of any type of supervisory role with the accuser.

'Sara' should bring her concerns to her manager and HR she has concerns the accused could have direct or indirect interaction with her in his supervisory position.

[Deleted]

Sept 25, 2013 12:11:13 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Sept 25, 2013 11:53:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Severence as part of the settlement would be considered retaliation for filing a complaint.  That ìs a legal no-no.

You can't fire them, but can't you offer extra dollars if they leave?  

Just curious, why would Sara be the one you'd want to leave? She wasn't John's first accuser, nor has she made the same complaint (or any other kind of formal complaint) about anyone else in all the years she's worked there.

[Tennesseer]

Sept 25, 2013 12:11:13 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Sept 25, 2013 11:53:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Severence as part of the sttlement would be consideredaliation for filing a complaint.  That ìs a legal no-no.

You can't fire them, but can't you offer extra dollars if they leave?  

You could but shouldn't the company be offering the severance package to the manager who sexually harassed the employee?  Manager takes the severance or gets canned.

[milee]

I've seen things like this happen mainly at unionized or highly regulated environments.  Sometimes the union contract or representation is so tightly written that an employee can't be fired, even if that employee was proven guilty of sexual harassment.  We have a local case where a teacher admitted to assaulting a special needs student and was terminated; she and the union fought the termination since the union required process of 3 warnings and written documentation wasn't followed - and won the case so is teaching again.

My guess is that there's more to the story than is evident at first glance.

[Tennesseer]

Sept 25, 2013 12:09:26 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

Gettioncecused once would be a sit down with HR and making sure everyone knew what was going on and that it wouldn't be tolerated.  The second time John would have been out of a job.   

Depending on the severity of the sexual harassment, once may be more than enough to be shown the exit door.

[Deleted]

Sept 25, 2013 12:27:12 GMT -5 milee said:

I've seen things like this happen mainly at unionized or highly regulated environments.  Sometimes the union contract or representation is so tightly written that an employee can't be fired, even if that employee was proven guilty of sexual harassment.  We have a local case where a teacher admitted to assaulting a special needs student and was terminated; she and the union fought the termination since the union required process of 3 warnings and written documentation wasn't followed - and won the case so is teaching again.

My guess is that there's more to the story than is evident at first glance.

Ok, even if this teacher is teaching again (not that I agree she should be), would it not be a bad idea to have her teaching that same special needs student that she assaulted? That's all I was asking.

[milee]

Sept 25, 2013 12:31:05 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Sept 25, 2013 12:27:12 GMT -5 milee said:

I've seen things like this happen mainly at unionized or highly regulated environments.  Sometimes the union contract or representation is so tightly written that an employee can't be fired, even if that employee was proven guilty of sexual harassment.  We have a local case where a teacher admitted to assaulting a special needs student and was terminated; she and the union fought the termination since the union required process of 3 warnings and written documentation wasn't followed - and won the case so is teaching again.

My guess is that there's more to the story than is evident at first glance.

Ok, even if this teacher is teaching again (not that I agree she should be), would it not be a bad idea to have her teaching that same special needs student that she assaulted? That's all I was asking.

Here's where the union contracts can create some really horrific results.  Of course common sense tells you that a teacher who assaults a student shouldn't be teaching.  But if the contract forces you to reinstate that teacher, you have a limited budget and limited positions that teacher can fill.  Under the terms of the contract, you have to keep her at her current salary and in the same relative position, so what do you do with her?  For a while, they had her filing papers in the office (at $80k a year), but the budget didn't really provide $80k for a file clerk and a teacher to replace her.  If you only have so many special needs students and so many teachers certified and being paid to teach them and a contract that doesn't allow you to fire any of them, you can see how bad things can happen.

Is this a company with a union?  Because that may restrict what the employer is able to do.  They may not be allowed under the union contract to move him to a lesser position or position with different roles.

[Abby Normal]

Sept 25, 2013 12:14:24 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Sept 25, 2013 12:11:13 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

You can't fire them, but can't you offer extra dollars if they leave?  

Just curious, why would Sara be the one you'd want to leave? She wasn't John's first accuser, nor has she made the same complaint (or any other kind of formal complaint) about anyone else in all the years she's worked there.

I wouldn't necessarily. It would depends on the circumstances of what was being done.  Sometimes there is an issue with the manager, sometimes an employee is hyper sensative.

A settlement can be seen by the other employees as " yeah the company did the right thing" or " gee that was a good idea". So yeah, depending on the circumstances, I'd like the option of getting rid of both.

[Deleted]

Is this a company with a union? Because that may restrict what the employer is able to do. They may not be allowed under the union contract to move him to a lesser position or position with different roles.

This company does have unions. But that doesn't mean they can't fire their employees. Gross misconduct is still a fireable offense. Employees can also still be fired for more minor offenses. Managers have been moved to lesser positions or fired before. Employees have been fired. Since it's possible to do so, do managers (or HR or whoever is in charge of those decisions) not have a responsibility to know the contracts well enough to know how to make that happen when it's necessary?

[Deleted]

Sept 25, 2013 12:52:50 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Sept 25, 2013 12:14:24 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Just curious, why would Sara be the one you'd want to leave? She wasn't John's first accuser, nor has she made the same complaint (or any other kind of formal complaint) about anyone else in all the years she's worked there.

I wouldn't necessarily. It would depends on the circumstances of what was being done.  Sometimes there is an issue with the manager, sometimes an employee is hyper sensative.

A settlement can be seen by the other employees as " yeah the company did the right thing" or " gee that was a good idea". So yeah, depending on the circumstances, I'd like the option of getting rid of both.

I understand what you're saying, looking at it from both sides of the coin. It still makes me sad though, because the accuser that's telling the absolute truth can end up in the line of fire because they spoke up.

[Abby Normal]

Sept 25, 2013 13:02:12 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Sept 25, 2013 12:52:50 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

I wouldn't necessarily. It would depends on the circumstances of what was being done.  Sometimes there is an issue with the manager, sometimes an employee is hyper sensative.

A settlement can be seen by the other employees as " yeah the company did the right thing" or " gee that was a good idea". So yeah, depending on the circumstances, I'd like the option of getting rid of both.

I understand what you're saying, looking at it from both sides of the coin. It still makes me sad though, because the accuser that's telling the absolute truth can end up in the line of fire because they spoke up.

Like I said it would depend on the circumstances.  The only details here are that he said "sexually graphic things".  That can mean a lot of things, to of different people.  She may be easily offended, or he may be an unequivocal douchecanoe. (I'd lean towards the latter since you said it's not his first issue) Regardless, the company is taking a huge risk putting them together again and it's a disaster waiting to happen.

[haapai]

Isn't it amazing how quickly a company that has screwed up like this can find a lawyer to put a dollar cost on their screw-up while simultaneously refusing to quantify what screw-ups like this do to turnover?  I can't imagine what people looking at this situation think of HR right now. 

[souldoubt]

Sept 25, 2013 12:27:42 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Sept 25, 2013 12:09:26 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

Gettioncecused once would be a sit down with HR and making sure everyone knew what was going on and that it wouldn't be tolerated.  The second time John would have been out of a job.   

Depending on the severity of the sexual harassment, once may be more than enough to be shown the exit door.

Definitely agree.  Another point brought up is that the accuser didn't have a history of filing claims (wouldn't assume frivolous or BS) and that claims came in from more than 1 person over the years which should have given John his walking papers then and there.   

[Deleted]

agilemom, I knew Sara when all of this was happening, but I can't remember what she said his exact words would be. When I said "sexually graphic", I meant that he didn't just say "Oooh, I love sex". He talked about threesomes, oral sex and anal sex as if she was interested in discussing those things with him. I don't know if any of it was requests to engage with him. Sara isn't easily offended and talks about sex in conversations with her friends, but that doesn't mean she wants to talk about sex at work with her supervisor.

[Peace Of Mind]

Unless he was threatening her job if she didn't exchange sexual favors I don't get how they paid out six figures for words.  I get that it was sexual harassment and she found it offensive but I don't get the payout.  But I think the person that made the decision to risk that happening again is either really stupid or a genius because he's trying to get rid of one of them and is hoping it will happen again. 

For the record:  You can sexually harass me with words and pay me that kind of money while doing it and I won't say a word! 

[Deleted]

It was 5 figures. Pay attention POM!

[Peace Of Mind]

Sept 25, 2013 14:25:52 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

It was 5 figures. Pay attention POM!

LMAO!!!  And bummer!  I was hoping I'd be rich!