Of course, after the lap thing... I don't even have words... How can you treat other people like that.. you are put in a position of power/responsibility and they use it to degrade others..
Because here we're used to the symbolic ones for close friends and reserve those smooches for intimate or romantic relationships.
> During the HR investigation that ensued, I remember being shamed by a female colleague who thought I was blowing the situation out of proportion. She thought I was being overly sensitive, and that it was wrong of me to report my manager. That hurt. I thought she would’ve naturally supported me.
Maybe you think she should have gone to HR earlier? Hard to say, but there is no hard and fast rule on this... I mean not just that people disagree on what sexual harassment entails, but it's also not easy to see the signs of sexual harassment. For example, let's say on my first day of work, a co-worker asks if I know of any good pho joints. Am I being asked that because I'm Vietnamese? Or is it because this new co-worker has seen me tweet about how much I like pho (and it's just a coincidence that I'm vietnamese)? Or is it because we're in Northern California where there is known to be a decent quantity of pho joints (for America), and asking about pho is not much different than asking about BBQ if you were in the South?
It's possible that such a question is a symptom of deep-seated racism/stereotypes, and that in a hindsight report, I'd be sure to include it as an anecdote to illustrate what was going on even from the first day. But I'd have to admit that I'd be very reluctant to turn this kind of incident into an HR thing -- at that very moment.
In the OP's case...yeah, if she were getting kissed/propositioned on the first day, that would be an HR thing. But if someone were to note how young she was, or what a cute dress she had on...comments that often but not always signify non-professional behavior...I can see why she wouldn't go to HR on the very first day.
However, the laws are written to protect employees from abuse, and if they're decent laws, the company should have a strong incentive to do the right thing, and then never give a bad reference when another company asks if they should hire the offender.
You should go to HR anyway as a way to strengthen your case and have a documented precedent, but it should never be your plan A. They cannot be counted on to help you directly, because that's not their actual job.
On the other hand, from an outcomes standpoint, this gets a lot more murky. "I see you recently graduated and worked for Google for a month?" "Yes, I had to leave under difficult circumstances" isn't a great conversation to be having career-wise, right out of college, interviewing for a replacement job. So I empathize with the blogger's confusion as to the right course.
Same problem as whistle-blowing.
This is what I told a family friend who also got the sit on my lap request. Well lets say her husband got laid off for a few years and they weren't in any trouble.
If they believe kicking you out instead of your harasser is less risky they won't hesitate twice to do so. I can confirm that from personal experience.
If you can afford it get legal advice first ... and then go to HR.
Also I believe most employment discrimination employees will work on a contingency basis, so you should consider reaching out to them regardless of your financial situation.
I understand the constant refrain from HN of never trust hr, but I think reporting to hr could form a better foundation for a lawsuit. Feel free to contact an attorney first. That is what I would do.
As the initial point of contact for a sexual harassment complaint, beginning to construct a paper trail that explains the superior's behavior and puts blame for the incident on the employee?
I'm not saying this as pro- or anti-HR, just that as the document-keeper of record they have a lot of latitude to influence the narrative if they choose to. Remember: performance reviews tend to go through them at some point as well.
I think the point should be not to trust HR with the only copies of any documents or evidence. Again, I would argue that if HR does the steps you suggest, they are exposing themselves to much more risk than if they did pretty much anything else. Not to say they wouldn't do it, but that it would be a foolish thing to do.
In the UK, for instance, terminating someone for reporting sexual harassment is a very good way of losing a lot of money at a subsequent Employee Tribunal and getting your company fined. There's a lot of great precedent for siding with the reporter, even if other flimsy reasons are given for their termination.
However, the point made is a correct one. An HR person has a duty not to you but to the company, so never assume they have your best interests at heart.
If your case is as clear-cut as the one in this article you might indeed not need a lawyer but if there's any wiggle room; if it's discrimination and not harassment and the accused is sufficiently important to the company and HR judges that you might not have the energy to file a lawsuit etc. etc. etc. then it's still very easy to end up getting kicked out of the company.
And if you can't, join a union (or form one if they don't exist), they can help pay for legal advice and/or have their own lawyers.