Making a sexual harassment claim: Bad for the woman?

[HardDrive]

We have a professional friend who is a leader in her field. Unfortunately, her boss for the past 3 years is a horrible jerk. His first order of business after arriving was starting up a sexual relationship with a subordinate, then giving this subordinate power over higher ranking (and much more experienced) employees. The female employees have been outraged by it. It has created a horrible toxic environment. Twice now this jerk in question has hired consultants to come in and study the situation, and both times, the consultants have produced utter BS reports that 100% blame the employees.

Our friend is now facing disciplinary action based on the second consultants report. She is exhausted, scared, and simply wants to do her job in peace. She is considering filing a sexual harassment claim against the guy. This is the within the University of Washington system, so regardless of how it went down, it would create quite the blow up.

She is actively looking for work elsewhere, and there have been some very positive prospects.

Does she:

A) Take whatever horrible schit comes from this disciplinary action and simply continue to look for work elsewhere, and move on.

B) File the claim against this person, and try and stay

C) File the claim and use the claim as a basis for getting a decent severance package.

She is basically ready to say 'damn the torpedoes' and file the claim, but she is very concerned that she will be marked in her field as a trouble maker. On the flip side, it makes her very angry that she will have to leave a job she loves, in a city she loves, completely because of the actions of on jerk.

What do you think?

[mikester]

She should talk to a lawyer.

[Seahawk]

Was she sexually harassed in any way?

Serious question.

Originally Posted by HardDrive

We have a professional friend who is a leader in her field. Unfortunately, her boss for the past 3 years is a horrible jerk. His first order of business after arriving was starting up a sexual relationship with a subordinate, then giving this subordinate power over higher ranking (and much more experienced) employees. The female employees have been outraged by it. It has created a horrible toxic environment. Twice now this jerk in question has hired consultants to come in and study the situation, and both times, the consultants have produced utter BS reports that 100% blame the employees.

Our friend is now facing disciplinary action based on the second consultants report. She is exhausted, scared, and simply wants to do her job in peace. She is considering filing a sexual harassment claim against the guy. This is the within the University of Washington system, so regardless of how it went down, it would create quite the blow up.

She is actively looking for work elsewhere, and there have been some very positive prospects.

Does she:

A) Take whatever horrible schit comes from this disciplinary action and simply continue to look for work elsewhere, and move on.

B) File the claim against this person, and try and stay

C) File the claim and use the claim as a basis for getting a decent severance package.

She is basically ready to say 'damn the torpedoes' and file the claim, but she is very concerned that she will be marked in her field as a trouble maker. On the flip side, it makes her very angry that she will have to leave a job she loves, in a city she loves, completely because of the actions of on jerk.

What do you think?

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by mikester

She should talk to a lawyer.

She has retained a lawyer, and the complaint letter is already written. She's locked and loaded, but wary of pulling the trigger.

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Was she sexually harassed in any way?

Serious question.

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Her lawyer seem to think so. The female subordinate being elevated over other employees based on her sexual affair with the boss (supposedly) constitutes harassment.

But I don't think the guy has made any overt sexual advances, told dirty jokes, etc....

[RWebb]

c.

[Flieger]

c sounds like the best.

[bivenator]

I'm with seahawk in questioning the harassment status. If she was not directly harassed then the charge seems kinda shakey.

[carambola]

sorry but it sounds like junk to me

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Her lawyer seem to think so. The female subordinate being elevated over other employees based on her sexual affair with the boss (supposedly) constitutes harassment.

But I don't think the guy has made any overt sexual advances, told dirty jokes, etc....

That is a tough one...RW may be right, but the severance package may be her last remuneration in her field of work if she doesn't have vibrant opportunities in the city/area she lives in.

Make sure this is not just sour grapes...her opinion of the female subordinate may be wrong, but even if she is right it will be hard to prove.

Whining is not a crime but it can be a character flaw.

Edit: A.

[gtc]

d) File the claim or complaint with his superior as she is giving her notice.

[MRM]

Yes she was sexually harassed. Preferential treatment to someone who has a sexual relationship with the person who has the authority is sexual harassment and discrimination against all those who did not receive the preferential treatment.

She should run, not walk to a lawyer who specializes in representing emplyees in public sector employment litigation. She should not use just any lawyer, and not even just an employment lawyer. She needs an employmennt specialist who has particular expertise representing public sector professional employees. There are special rights for public employees, especially university employees. She will be surprised to fun out how many rights she has.

Yes, the process will be uneasant but she will find the vindication she receives in the end to be worth the effort.

By the way, it's not even a close call whether this is sexual harassment to the others in the department who did not get preferential treatment. That's been a settled legal issue since Title VII was passed. But it sounds like she needs a more highly specialized attorney.

[azasadny]

A.

[Seahawk]

How do you prove it?

...love's arrow may have found purchase and the arrow recipient may be more qualified than HD's friend

Honestly, how does the law take this forward without collateral damage?

Why are you, and I very much respect your opinion, so sure?

I find this very interesting mainly because I think that valid sexual harassment claims should be pursued to the maximum extent possible...this seems specious.

Originally Posted by MRM

Yes she was sexually harassed. Preferential treatment to someone who has a sexual relationship with the person who has the authority is sexual harassment and discrimination against all those who did not receive the preferential treatment.

She should run, not walk to a lawyer who specializes in representing emplyees in public sector employment litigation. She should not use just any lawyer, and not even just an employment lawyer. She needs an employmennt specialist who has particular expertise representing public sector professional employees. There are special rights for public employees, especially university employees. She will be surprised to fun out how many rights she has.

Yes, the process will be uneasant but she will find the vindication she receives in the end to be worth the effort.

By the way, it's not even a close call whether this is sexual harassment to the others in the department who did not get preferential treatment. That's been a settled legal issue since Title VII was passed. But it sounds like she needs a more highly specialized attorney.

[LWJ]

I am not a lawyer. But I do sell Employment Practices Insurance.

Question: Can she prove anything?

I agree that she has a claim. She will get some level of settlement. It may not compensate her for the loss to her career however.

I think MRM knows what he is talking about.

Best,
Larry

[RANDY P]

she would be doing everyone a favor.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by MRM

Yes she was sexually harassed. Preferential treatment to someone who has a sexual relationship with the person who has the authority is sexual harassment and discrimination against all those who did not receive the preferential treatment.

Is this a federal law or a state law in every state? My company has several married couples working for it and a few of the folks have significant influence over their spouses' commission checks or bonuses. None of it is a secret and I can't point to any shenanigans, suspected or real. But how is it illegal to promote someone or pay them more IF it can in any way be documented they can do the job or deserve it?

I have several clients, where the boss is a man who (quite obviously) only ever hires super hot women. It's not even a guess. It's just blatant. As long as they're remotely qualified, how would a turned down applicant be able to make a case?

[genrex]

> Our friend is facing disciplinary action based on the second consultants report.


Exactly what kind of disciplinary action is she facing?

Demotion, reassignment, termination...?

The UW has a long history of backing supervisors 100% all the way, even when supervisors are 100% in the wrong. This is well-known. In my opinion as an ex-UW employee, she should accept demotion or re-assignment without complaint, and should only fight termination. She *should* have been actively looking for re-assignment herself, as soon as she saw this happening, even if the new position represents a demotion or a change in work location. That is what many people at the UW have done to get away from toxic supervisors. As long as she can stay in the state system, it's all credited toward her retirement.

_

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

...love's arrow may have found purchase and the arrow recipient may be more qualified than HD's friend

Honestly, how does the law take this forward without collateral damage?

Arrows recipient (after much wine, we concluded that it must be a very tiny arrow) is not remotely as qualified. She's 2 tiers below our friend, yet making decisions that effect her practice.

There WILL be collateral damage, a lot of it well deserved. People have protected this jerk, and our friend is ok if they get burned. She's honestly more concerned about the 'old boys network' black listing her in her field.

[MRM]

First of all, all cases boil down to a question of proof, so this is no different. Proving the affair and preferential treatment will be proven the usual way - through depositions, interviews, phone records, credit card slips, expense accounts, etc. From a question of proof perspective, this is an easy case to prove. Messy and unpleasant, but easy. They'll probably admit the affair if the administration asks. How can they hide it I'd it really is taking place? Preferential treatment is shown through employment evaluations, comparing pre-affair to post-affair assignments and evaluations of everyone in the department followed by an independent audit of the HR records and employment practices of the department. If what she says is real, it won't be hard to prove.

From a legal perspective, what she complains of is a variation on what the EEOC calls quid pro quo sexual harassment. This is when a superior receives sexual favors from a subordinate in exchange for preferential treatment - quid pro quo. In essence, the people who aren't providing sexual favors to the boss are in the same legal position as someone who the boss hits on, turns him down, and gets retaliated against. If that person gave the boss sexual favors, she could expect to receive favorable work treatment - the quid pro quo. Also, since work favors are somewhat a sum zero game, the person exchanging sex for favors is taking opportunities away from everyone in the office who isn't sleeping with the boss. So it's a form of sex discrimination that gives everyone in that departmwnt, male and female, a cause of action.

This is part of Title VII, a federal law, and has been adopted by every state; it is a universal rule of US employment law. It is not per se illegal for supervisors and subordinates to have sexual relationships, and it is certainly permissible for them to get married, but all of that has to be disclosed to the big boss and the company has to take special care to have safeguards in place to make sure the supervisor isn't giving his wife special treatment.

She will certainly experience some degree of blackball from the old boys network. That is what the old boy network does. She will have to prepare for that retaliation as the investigation goes on an anticipate some behind the back stuff wherever she works in the future. That's why a public sector employment specialist is so important. He can help gameplan the entire process, both legal and practical.