claims of hostile work environment

I am posing this question for a friend since I have no experience with this situation. Sorry for the long post, but I thought more information would solicit some helpful advice.
The Company is headquartered in CA with branch offices in 6 states including IN where my friend is located. He is the director -- boss of this office, and has one in-office employee, the office manager. He hired her. After 4 months, the HQ office required a sexual harassment training per CA law, via phone and PowerPoint presentation. Soon after that (within a week or so) she began complaining to HQ about the "hostile work environment" he created for her, and how uncomfortable he made her with comments and personal remarks. She said she was asked to do things not within her written job description. She gave an example of comments: that he complimented her on the way she looked, and that he prefaced it by saying, "I know I'm not supposed to say this, and I'll probably get in trouble but you look particularly nice today." He told me he told her that because he knew she was going through a bad time with her divorce, her sick kids, her boyfriend -- all information unsolicited, but shared with him -- and she had been dragging and looking sad recently. So much for trying to be nice. I kept telling him he should not be casually giving her "free" days off all the time -- a benefit she took great advantage of up until this accusation. HR at HQ called a conference with the two of them, via telephone where she, for the first time disclosed to him that she felt she was in a hostile work environment.
He said he racked his brain trying to think of anything untoward, inappropriate, hostile, or otherwise, that would make her react in this way. I think his only fault is being too kind and lenient in the small office environment. Most recently he learned that she has complained to colleagues in other states that he yells at her alot and she has overheard him and his wife having screaming matches on the phone -- patently untrue in 100% of her claims. I have worked with him before for more than 5 years and have never heard him even raise his voice (even when angered). It was also reported to him from one other state director that this woman told the other office manager that she was going to get him fired before long. No one knows why she feels so negatively about him.
HR has told him he cannot fire her. Anything prior to the complaint cannot be used against her -- all the unofficial days off -- absenteeism, for example. (NOW he finds out that her days off have to be approved through HR in CA, not through him. She began following that process "out of the blue" one day -- probably because HR told her to.) Any attempt would be seen as retaliation and make the company open to a law suit. He no longer has "control" of her work because every time he asks her to do something she does not want to do, she calls HR and says, this is not in my job description, do I have to do it?
He said he is going to quit the company ("fire himself") because the work environment has become intolerable for the past 3 weeks and he feels powerless to do anything.
Is there any recourse for him other than leaving the company? If he does fire her is there a case for retaliation after her complaints, even though the accusations are not true.

Comments

  • 18 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Welcome to the other side of harassment. In some ways it has become the new witchcraft. Men accused are deemed guilty because what they have done has made somebody uncomfortable, thus there is no real defense. That being said, look at your options. Can you separate these people? A transfer of some sort for the man may keep his skill and ability for the company and remove him from the situation. Further, do not let the employee define harassment as any attempt to make her work. Work is just that and if we define harassment as any further work load, coaching, or discipline for not working, we have just relieved half of our workforce from ever having to work again. I have dealt with this definition of harassment from an employee and without question the motive was no pressure ever to work. Make it clear to the employee that a general job description is just that, but she has to work. HR should not become her ally in fighting over her work or work load. Further, a few comments about looking nice generally would not rise to the level of a hostile work place. You are lucky in this case as you have personal knowledge of the man and his work habits as it gives you insight as to who is telling the truth. Of course, the man needs to be all business now with no personal comments of any kind. He needs to tighten up and run defense at all times. It is a risk when any higher level male manager opens up and starts a personal dialog of any kind with a subordinate female. Everybody needs to talk to somebody and it is hard to be all business all the time. However, there is risk to letting somebody in and he has learned the risk.
  • As long as the job description has the line, and other duties as assigned, if he asks or tells her to do it, she had better.

    That being said, you better get him to start documenting any time she objects. Myself if I were him, would contact HR and ask for assistance with this situation. He needs HR to step up when she calls with a bogus complaint, and ask her if she has addressed the question to him.

    I would also get the other state directors to put in writing what they have told her, and ask HR to examine how many times she has contacted them to see how dispoportionally she is to the rest in her position. Just some thoughts.

    My $0.02 worth,
    The Balloonman
  • Is his HR even coming to him to ask the other side of this? If she is saying things that are false and possibly defaming his character with the company, she needs to be dealt with as well. If I were him, I would get HR on the phone and request that his side be represented too. It wouldn't hurt for him to ask HR that she put her complaints in writing so she can't come back later on the company or him and state that something did not get addressed or continued after she complained. Did his HR investigate her complaints in any manner? If he leaves for this reason he might very well have a case himself.
    Our harassment policy states that false statements from either party will be dealt with accordingly inclusive of termination. Does his company have anything like this?
  • He has addressed this with HR and they are trying to help him document appropriate things. They don't seem to be on her "side" but they take the possibility of a law suit very seriously and have told him he can not fire her. That's why the work environment is now intolerable. It's as if she knows this. All her false accusations have been through same-level colleagues in other state offices, not through HR. Inuendo is affecting his reputation now that he is aware from one director of the "gossip" in the background.

    As far as not doing what he asks of her, despite the statment in the job description "and other duties as assigned" -- she first goes to HR and questions the reason why something should be done a "certain way" because it's his desire, or is it HQ's policy. Then HR said, that's not necessarily the way we do it here...so she gets the green light to not do something the way he has asked her to do it. (A simple example: he wants her to put "sign here" flags within documents for clients -- she doesn't think it's necessary becasue it has signature lines, and she doesn't like the way it looks. So she went to HR- instead of talking with him about it- made a big deal about it and had them tell him that it was not necessary to do that. There on she refused to put flags in documents.)
  • Is IN an at-will state? What's kept her there this long if she's so unhappy. I agree with the others that he'd better start documenting every time she isn't performing her job up to snuff.

    It could be that her ultimate desire is to take over HIS job. It sounds like this whole thing is keeping him from doing his own job as well.

    Cheryl C.
  • IN is an at-will state, but how does that apply with a CA company? THere is still the retaliation claim for a law suit if she is fired. She may be unhappy, but she is making a good salary, is in the middle of a divorce and has 3 kids -- I don't think she wants to give up the cushy spot now. She is not qualified to take over his job so there is no rhyme or reason for why she is doing this. I think she decided she just doesn't like him, for whatever reason.
  • Next time she goes over his head he should bring her in, and in writing note she was given direction to do X. Instead of doing X she called HR to inquire if she has to do it that way. This have become a continued pattern where you fail to do work assigned by myself and instead go outside of the office to question the work being done or the way in which it is being done. As manager of this office I have the authority to decide how work will be completed. Your continued failure to do work, as instructed in a timely matter will not be tolerated. If this continues it will lead to discipline up to and including termination.
    Screw her........dot the i's cross the t's. It is at will, cc all discipline to HR inform them that inadequate job performance will not be tolerated, nor will the hostile work environment she created. Let HR know they better get on board helping him or he may file the hostile work environment claim.

    My $0.02 worth,
    The Balloonman
  • There seem to be problems all around, and HR is part of the problem IF it is going as he says. You only have his side of the story. In any event, there should not be a prohibition against discipline or termination if the person is not doing her job. Again, IF this is as you think, HR should be counseling him regarding how to deal with issues, advising her that he is her boss and she has to do what he says (legitimate work orders, of course)and cease countermanding his orders. On the hand, how do you know that they are countermanding his orders, other than she is saying that that is what HR says. HR looks pretty bad as described, but you only have a partial story. There is no difference between how this should be dealt with between Ca. and other states.
  • Since the initial claim of hostile work environment and the conference call between HR, him and her, she has "towed the line" and been accommodating to all his requests, he said, to a fault. The situation seems to be that since she complained to HR *first*, all her stories of him yelling at her and others, as well as asking "unreasonable requests" of her at work, were believed. They in CA don't know him other than he's been to their offices for a couple meetings, so his character, reputation is now 'tarnished'and HR believes the complaint.

    HR says to document, document, document -- which he has been doing for 3 wks since the conference. Her work is "satisfactory, polite and professional" now, but there is no "working together" which is difficult for him at this point since they "worked well together" for 4 months prior to this. There is no specific incident to indicate why the change in her attitude. While I know that if every ee were profesional, polite and did satisfactory work, we'd all be much happier, but in the situation of a two person office when you know the other person has filed 'false' claims against you and is claimng hostility at work, it's not a good situation. I suggested he just fire her (at-will) and see if she sues the company, but he's not willing to put the company in that position.
  • Just firing her would not be a good idea in Ca.and is probably the reason that HR advised that way. Firing her would probably be cast as a retaliation issue and the courts in Ca. are not very sympathetic. Further, the case would cast her as someone who, when it became an issue, toed the line, did what the boss said and she still got fired. Even though the company may be in the right and even if it won, the $$ spent in legal fees would be horrendous.
  • Thanks, that's what I thought.
  • After having experienced a similar incident personally which we won, removing him as supervisor makes total sense. My point: since she made a verbal complaint, I believe the situation needs to be investigated and resolved by HR. She should be given the opportunity to file a formal written complaint. Her response should be documented. Is this happening and did I miss it? The situation cannot be left to fester because it will disrupt the work environment.
  • I think a lot of this has been said with other responses, but thought I would give my opinion as well. (Have worked in a very hosital work environment, but not sexual.)
    First, He and HR need to talk. They need to "coach him" on what he should and shouldn't do. He needs to get their support that they don't run an office and don't tell an employee what work they do and don't do (especially in a 2 person office.)
    If she calls HR with anymore work related complaints, HR needs to ask her if she has discussed her complaint with her supv. If she said no, then they need to tell her that this is her direct report and if it is a reasonable request she should address with him and resolve it. If she said she has talked with Supv., HR then takes a "refree role" and should say, ok, let's get your supv. on the phone at the same time and discuss. (She may stop right there, because she probably hasn't gone to supv.) If the 3 have a discussion, and it is a reasonable work request, they should support the supv. and basically say they see no reason why she shouldn't do as supv. asked. (If supv. asking her to pick up his laundry, that is another issue.) HR shouldn't get involved in the process of how employee's do their jobs as long as legal and ethical and within company policy.
    If she continues to call and complain (harrassment), HR should ask her to put her complaint in writing and sign and date it. She should be very specific about what happened and it will be looked into. However, they should also advise her that she needs to make sure that whatever she writes is true and exact and not assumptions or hearsay. She should also be advised that once this is written and handed in, that it is in her best interest (so that a thorough and fair investigation can be done) that she not not be discussing this complaint with anyone else. HR will make every effort to keep confidential, but HR may have to talk with/interview others to investigate. Also, I don't know how anyone can warn her that she could have a deffimation of character lawsuit filed against her if she isn't true and honest. (HR shouldn't do this, but someone should.)
    It is hard for supv. because he can't do his job without looking over his shoulder. Spends more time in documenation than doing his job.
    One other item would be if when he talked with her he could record their conversation to protect himself. (He could even tell her that he was doing this. Could also have someone on speaker phone when he deals with her and have somone listening to conversation as witness. If he ever addresses anything performance wise with her, I would definitely have witness and tell her that someone was on line or whatever.
    Sounds as if she knows she has a problem of some kind and is trying to get job insurance by making his life miserable. I hate to say it, but I hope he won't let her run him off.
    Even though she has complained, he shouldn't try to "build a case", but if one occurs, he should document and discipline appropriately.
    By the way, was there someone else prior to this employee working with the supv/friend. If so, would/could they be a viable witness as to the professional performance of this supv. Also, how would both parties stand up in court (who would be believeable.) This is a truly he said she said case and it would be hard for her to win, but she could make everyone's life miserable.
    One other thought, if Supv. Supv was in town or HR, to even have the three sit down and try to hash it out (however this could backfire and might want to think twice about it... however, could get things out in open.)
    E Wart
  • I would be interested in what HR is telling this Manager. Is HR communicating with the Manager at all? I, personally, would have talked with the Manager immediately and laid some ground rules with the ee. I agree with everyone else-if the ee called me, as HR, I would have referred her back to her supervisor. I feel like something is missing if HR is actually telling her what she can and cannot do within job duties. Either that or they need new employees in HR! :)
  • HR and Manager have been communicating. HR staff has, without knowing it, created the perception for her that she is not his assistant by giving her the title of "Office Manager" -- which would apply when the state office grows to the point of more ees, but it's only 6 months old now and only the 2 of them at this point. He hired her with the expectation, understanding and agreement from her that she was his assistant and they would be working closely together. She decided she didn't like being his assistant and has relied on her title as evidence she didn't need to do something she didn't want to do -- mostly those things clerical in nature.

    Interestingly, today he told me that they had a disagreement and he wrote her up for insubordination. She raised her voice to him, told him it was not her job to do something, that it was his job to do and they should call HR. HR is 3 hrs later and not open when this took place and he had out of town meetings to attend today and next 2 days. He will again talk to HR while on the road. They are being more supportive now.

    Thanks for all the good advice you all have given on this. It's difficult to deal with "he said-she said" situations, and false accusations in any case, and you all have brought more clarity to this.
  • From a CA employer: your friend has a problem--both with his employee and with his HR Dept.
    1). Requiring an employee to do his or her job is not harassment and does not constitute a hostile work environment.
    2). Any claim of a hostile work environment should be investigated by the company using their internal investigation procedure. This MUST be done to protect the company, the manager and the employee.
    3). Any employee who fails to do his or her job can and should be disciplined. Somebody in the long chain of responses mentioned 'documentation'. Documentation would be a good idea and it should have been started as soon as the performance suffered. Not too late to start now.
    Good luck on this mess.
  • The office christmas party must have been fun. From where I sit, HR has let this supervisor down. HR should support not hinder supervisors from doing their jobs. This is how the "Human Roadblock" comments get started.

    This HR department seems to be motivated by fear and has lost sight of the big picture. Yes, lawsuits are expensive but so is losing valuable, productive employees who grow tired of this kind of nonsense.

    Thats often the tragedy. The good employee leaves and the bad employee stays and feels vindicated.
  • I have to agree with you Paul. Those were my thoughts exactly. I hope the HR office is going to support his management of this employee in the future. Have a good day!
Sign In or Register to comment.