Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Ask HN: How do I deal with the first sexual harassment complaint at my startup?
401 points by milfseriously on May 10, 2016 | hide | past | favorite | 580 comments
Just hired a new biz dev person. Over the weekend, he sent some messages that were inappropriate to one of my existing employees.

He asked to take the conversation off Slack (moved to Whatsapp) and asked if they could hang out (she said, "sure as friends in work context"), referred to her as a milf (ugh...), and asked if he could tell her a secret (she refused)

My employee handled it well and didn't let it get out of hand. I've seen the evidence of the texts in question.

The employee came to me in confidence (I'm one of the founders) and told me she really doesn't want to cause problems with the team. I'm really upset by this guy's behaviour and I want to fire him immediately. If I do, she'll know and it will be a violation of the trust she placed in me.

So what do I do HN? Do I fire him? Kick his ass? Get them in a room with a HR rep and talk it out? Hold a "how to recognize sexual harassment seminar"?

The employee in question has made it clear that it's not a big deal and she knows how to deal with it, but fact is she shouldn't have to deal with it and I want to make it clear that these things aren't acceptable in the company we're building.




Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER.

I think the consensus in the grown-up business world is "fire immediately for cause." I would bet substantial money that when you lawyer lawyer lawyer they will advise you to do that and document the heck out of it. The calculus is really, really simple: if you don't, then you will with probability approaching one get this incident or a similar incident cited during a threatened employment practices lawsuit, and your lawyers will sigh and say "OK, settle for $250,000. You can choose to fight it but the odds are not in your favor."

I get that you feel this may cause problems for your innocent employee. If it helps you contextualize this, maybe think of it less in terms of "Our departing employee has transgressed against our innocent employee, who let me into her confidence about that" and more in terms of "Our departing employee demonstrated judgement flagrantly incompatible with professional employment."

Would you be worried about this if he had been embezzling? "I'm just telling you on an FYI basis boss but I don't want to cause social issues." That's not really how we deal with embezzlement, right. You embezzle, you get fired. Immediately. The embezzlement is not a crime against the person who discovers the embezzlement. They're welcome to an opinion on what the best course of action is, but regardless of what that opinion is, the course of action will be a swift firing.

As to messaging to the rest of the company, again lawyer lawyer lawyer, but "X made comments of a sexual nature to another employee. As a consequence, we fired him. If you have questions or concerns, speak to me later. Moving on."


Oh God, yes, lawyer. And yes, fire him. In regards to OPs confusion about the innocent employees trepidation -- there is a reasonable fear of reprisals here. From you, from others on the team, and from the sexual harasser.

Reprisals are often not easily identified -- they can be subtle and social in nature. What often happens is that the person who reports harassment is then punished because people no longer want to talk to her. They keep her out of the loop on casual stuff, but lots of professional discussions happen in casual contexts. Over time, she gets iced out for reporting illegal behavior.

And then there is the fact that this person who has already shown a marked disrespect for women and a willingness to cross appropriate boundaries will know exactly why he has been fired. If you've ever been on the receiving end of a sustained campaign of abuse and harassment, that is not something to take lightly.

You should do everything you can to make sure she doesn't suffer for having reported illegal behavior, and you should reassure her that you'll have her back in whatever way you can. That might mean working out with her and HR what the best way to move forward is, keeping in mind that she has every reason to think she's going to get screwed over in this process, because that's what happens the vast majority of the time.

I'd say it's actually a huge vote of confidence in you that she brought this to you immediately.


> What often happens is that the person who reports harassment is then punished because people no longer want to talk to her. They keep her out of the loop on casual stuff, but lots of professional discussions happen in casual contexts. Over time, she gets iced out for reporting illegal behavior.

I think this really depends on your team dynamic, and I wouldn't necessarily be concerned about this point (as valid as it is.)

On my team, I know if this happened, the person who reported the harassment would be totally supported. Inappropriate advances like that are just totally not tolerated, and if anything, the team would feel MORE comfortable knowing that their teammate doesn't stand for that crap. There'd be no shunning here. But of course YMMV.


The thing is, the world is full of people who are abusive or terrible when in private or one-on-one, yet adhere to social norms when in a group. Every woman I know who has reported her rapist or her harasser has had this said to her in some variation--it couldn't happen here, because we're not like that. It doesn't work that way.

I've had conversations with male friends about this that eventually boiled down to, "well, I just don't want to think the people I know and like could be capable of that." Yeah, imagine how much we hate it.


[flagged]


Obviously not, and that is a reading in such bad faith that it veers into trolling. For anyone reading who is not trolling: the point is that like most other people who break the social rules in some way, abusers, harassers, and yes, rapists, are often very good at publicly performing adherence to social norms while deviating from them in private. Nor do they personally identify as abusers, harassers, rapists--even if they might acknowledge the behavior that defines them as such. This isn't a new phenomenon.


Would you grant us access to all your personal email, social networks, and websearch history so that we may verify that you have not broken any social rules?

That is, most of us, in some way, behave differently in our private lives vs our professional lives.


Alas, you don't know what will happen until it does happen.

It could be as simple as "Wow, Joe reported Bob for sexual harassment, but Bob didn't do anything wrong - I was there. Now I have to be extra-careful around Joe to avoid getting reported myself!"

And there you go - Joe is now suffering from "retaliation" and being treated special for speaking up.


That is already happening in many professional contexts though - and without Joe ever having to speak up about anything.

Male professors avoid being alone with female students. Male colleagues refuse to work with or to a lesser extent, refuse to be friendly on any sort of casual level with female colleagues entirely just because of the small risk that an accusation could cost them their job/career. This fear actively harms both genders.


It is. I even did it briefly a few times when claims were brought against me until things were sorted out. In one example, an attractive and persuasive woman sent a shit-storm of rumors and claims my way through various parties that I quickly traced to her. Fortunately, the people (including women) who knew me were able to spot that they were bogus since the good and bad of my style is well-known. Genuineness occasionally pays off I guess. And the claims didn't fit it.

Further investigation confirmed my counter-claims that she wanted my job and the next promotion after it. Instead of outperforming me, she decided to simultaneously create situations where I looked unfit and sexist with rumors and a clique of buddies backing it up. They'd benefit if she was promoted. She never got fired like the guys do in similar situations in that company but did back-off and quit after upward-movement was cut off.

I agree it harms both genders. Work was never fun during any of these situations as people started practicing self-censorship. Not just me or the men. It's why I fight such non-sense and Codes of Conduct that facilitate it, too. Fortunately, each event was taken care of, people became themselves again, and work went back to productive and fun. Cuz real people are more interesting than fake ones. :)


As a professional educator (at many different levels -- a college TA, a museum educator with K-12 programs, and working in an elementary school) the expectation I was given was to never be alone in a place that isn't publicly visible with any student under the age of 18, of any gender, ever. With students over the age of 18, there was still a strong expectation to keep student-teacher interactions semi-public. (I am male, but female instructors were given the same expectation at every stage.)


It's a smart move given what I've seen. The sad thing is that some of the best innovators started with one-on-one instruction from teachers that recognized their potential. Many people are also private or in a situation where their social circumstances might make them be more private about the research/project than usual.

So, such policies reduce liability but probably have a cost to society. I thought about surveillance cameras as a solution. Then, a headline popped into mind: "voyeuristic professor discovered to have..." Just can't win when the threat is peoples' imagination and desire to find a negative. :)


and you know why that is? nothing on the OPs post reveals a clear infringement or harassment IMO.

MILF is borderline a bad way to talk to someone, yet, everyone here is saying: FIRE HIM or FIRE THEM.

It would be harassment if he continued after she said stop, it would be harassment if he groped her, it would be harassment if he talked clearly obscenely about her, MILF is borderline, and yet, everyone is saying, FIRE HIM.

Guys, just give the benefit of the doubt, make it a clear statement that you on the workplace are clearly against any kind of advance that might happen between employees, and that's it.


Asking someone on a date that isn't interested in you is harassment. Calling someone a MILF is definitely harassment. Do you seriously think telling someone in a professional setting that they're a mother you'd like to f--- is not harassment? When asking someone on a date that isn't interested in you is?

Read your HR policies - if you don't, I suspect you'll be in trouble like this someday, based on your attitude towards this.


> Asking someone on a date that isn't interested in you is harassment.

Asking someone on a date when it is apparent that they aren't interested is harassment.


"Asking someone on a date when it is apparent that they aren't interested is harassment."

> Having autism is harassment.


Well, yeah. If you don't fit the standard of "reasonable person", you're going to violate normal standards, and going to be judged harshly for it unless you put a lot of effort in.


> Asking someone on a date that isn't interested in you is harassment.

How would you know if you don't ask?


>Asking someone on a date that isn't interested in you is harassment.

Wow. No, it's not. Not for normal people, anyway.

Normal person A: "Hey, what do you say you and I have dinner one of these nights."

Normal person B: "Thanks, but no." [TOTALLY OPTIONAL: "I don't think my girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/... would like that."/"I have a strict no-relationships-with-coworkers/vendors/customers/people-I-meet-in-the-gym/... policy."/"That's very kind of you but I'm afraid I'm not interested."/"Please don't ask again and we shall never speak of this."]

Normal person A: "No problem! So, about that [situation-appropriate topic of discussion..]"

A asked B on a date. B was not interested. No harassment was involved.

To be very clear, the above dialogue could have gone (and unfortunately all too often does go) differently. Had A persisted after a clear refusal, that could very easily veer into the territory of harassment. Furthermore (and I know this will be more controversial), B could have messed the above dialogue up too, for example by failing to give a clear and unambiguous "no." Does this place a certain burden on B merely as a consequence of A's unrequited interest? Yes, but part of being an adult is being able to say "no" to reasonable requests from other adults.

Strive be a normal person like A and B and it should be possible to ask someone on a date, or be asked on a date, regardless of context without fear or discomfiture. (Note: situations of extreme power imbalance, e.g. professor/student, boss/subordinate, need to be navigated with extreme care. Normal people refrain entirely, in such situations, from romantic overtures unless and until the mutual interest (it does happen sometimes) is blindingly obvious, and they then scrupulously avoid even the appearance of impropriety, e.g. by waiting until the end of the term, or transferring to a different department, or something.)

>Calling someone a MILF is definitely harassment.

I'm not going to argue there. It's extremely offensive, at the very least. Normal people don't address other normal people, with whom they don't have an intimate relationship, using sexual terms.

For what it's worth, it sounds to me like the female employee in this case was a model Normal Person ("sure as friends in work context" is about as unambiguous as you can get!). If the sum total of the communication had been

A: Could we hang out? B: Sure, as friends in a work context A: May I tell you a secret? B: No, sorry.

I would regard A as a Normal Person as well, and the dialogue as innocuous. But I'm assuming A was inappropriately persistent/insistent (not to mention the MILF part, which is inappropriate in itself) and the dialogue, no doubt, goes on from there. So, yes, fire his ass.


Finally somebody has said it.


I already don't talk to women in tech conferences. Ok I'll use a different axis. The side effect of working hard on promoting women in tech and tracking harassement is prejudices on the innocent men. As a bystander I want to be given the confidence that men who are fired are guilty. I have seen 2 cases of termination of males, I'm the opposite of convinced. I've also seen more women being promoted than men. I've also seen the upgrade of codes of conduct in conferences from "the law" to "the law + we'll beat harassement". There is a lot of prejudice that men are violent, less smart and worse at communication than women. So of course companies and conferences must act on both harassement and increasing women-in-tech; but as a society we must also find a way to prove to males that innocent good-will ones are safe.

As for me, for the moment I'm bitter against the promotion game, I've founded my own company and I'm voting against any progress of women.


> I've founded my own company and I'm voting against any progress of women.

I'm not sure you're going to establish a moral high ground by explicitly opposing the progress of equality... I understand you have concerns and you may feel you've been wronged by "gender aware" policies/attitudes, but I don't think it's very controversial to say that women are historically disadvantaged and we need to work that out in some way, however that may be.


That's the opposite of what we want to happen? It's important to prove males that they aren't discriminated when we act on women's problems.


why do you think that it is an inappropriate advance? what is a proper one? I have no info to sustain it being inappropriate other than the OP saying that he was upset by it. And he could be upset by a number of reasons.

Inappropriate would be groping, or very obscene talk, and especially those or continue hitting on someone after she said stop. MILF is borderline.

OP might be upset for other reasons as well.. OP, just consider that.


By calling her a MILF he just said he wanted to have sex with her.

That's obscene and thats's harrassment.


In addition to patio11's excellent advice it's time to get some training on this. Possibly the lawyer you're going to hire can do this. Possibly they can refer you to someone appropriate.

There are very well established procedures for how to deal with this sort of thing. You need to know them. Depending on the size of your company your managers might need to know them too. Hacker News is not the best place to learn them as most people here aren't experts in the field. There are experts that will teach you for a very reasonable fee.


I can't upvote this enough.

Patrick's advice is very sound. (Except, perhaps, for that last bit about what to say in an email to employees -- before sending any such email, please refer to Patrick's earlier, superseding advice to "Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer." Let your lawyer basically dictate what your email will say.)

There are ways of handling this that have been worked out through decades of practice and litigation. This is most certainly not an area to be winging it. And, with all due respect to the thoughtful posts on HN you'll encounter, you should always keep in mind that HN is not a free source of legal advice.

Since this has now happened, you'll want to a) lawyer up; b) terminate the offending employee for cause; c) work with the lawyer to set up some sort of HR training for managers in how to appropriately handle these situations.

It might also be time to reemphasize the employee handbook and make known your zero-tolerance policy towards harassment. (But again, consult a lawyer before doing so.)


Just to add on a bit more you are probably right about "b) terminate the offending employee for cause" but before you do that you almost certainly have to give the employee a chance to respond to the accusations. If you just fire him before doing that you are likely opening yourself up to a lawsuit for wrongful termination.

Yet again, this is something that a lawyer will help you handle correctly.


This is the second comment on the thread I've seen invoking "wrongful termination".

By all means, get your lawyer to confirm this fact for you, but: assuming you had the bare minimum competent legal assistance in setting up your company and its hiring documents, there is practically no such thing as wrongful termination in the US. In particular: if it is lawful for you to fire someone at all, it is probably no less lawful to fire them over a good-faith mistake.

Obviously, there are any number of things you can blunder into with your employment documents that can create a colorable claim for wrongful termination. But the reason everyone uses the same boilerplate legalese employment documents is precisely to avoid these kinds of claims, and to firmly establish at-will employment with no implied contracts of job security.

If you think you have an argument that firing this bizdev guy is legally tenuous, I have bad news for you: in your company, it is also legally tenuous to fire a developer who has only ever managed to push code that rm'd your prod environment.


I didn't take any employment law classes in law school, and never practiced in that area, so take it for what it's worth.

The thing that would set my potential liability antenna up is the "just hired" part. I have the vague recollection that there are some cases where courts have awarded damages in situations where someone is offered a job, quits current his job, moves across the country, etc., and then has the offer rescinded or is almost immediately let go. Good faith might well cure any potential problems, but if it were me I wouldn't be 100% confident just because I knew I was in a generally at-will state.

Also, in response to something that came up further down the chain: at issue in a for cause / not for cause firing decision is eligibility for unemployment. When an employee collects unemployment it impacts the rates the employer pays going forward.


Oh, good point, re unemployment.

(Again: I think "for cause" is taking the drama a step too far).


Are you thinking of promissory estoppel? I'm not a lawyer by the way.


There are actually some legal gradients here. You are right that the OP almost certainly employs the BizDev guy as an at-will employee and can hence fire him at any time for no reason at all.

However, if he is fired for cause ("Mr BizDev guy. You are being fired because you sexually harassed Jane Smith.") instead of just fired without a reason ("Mr BizDev guy. Your services are no longer needed here. Thank you for your service.") then that cause can definitely be questioned if proper procedures were not followed.


I'm going to keep prodding. I, too, think the "with cause" thing doesn't add much to the solution to the problem --- if only because it just adds drama. But you can fire someone for cause, be wrong about the cause, and that termination can still be lawful.

Can you be more specific about the recourse the terminated person would have in this situation?


OK first off I will 100% admit that I am not an expert in this area and hence could be wrong (going back to the previously agreed upon advice that "Lawyer up" is clearly the right thing to do).

That having been said, I have received training, by a lawyer, about how to manage situations in which a sexual harassment claim has been made. In that training I was told that the accused employee has a right to hear and respond to the claims. Further if you punish them before giving them that chance you could be opening the company up to liability. Especially if you specifically fire them for harassment.


I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe that with the exception of defamation --- getting back to "be careful about the words 'for cause'" --- it's not true that you legally owe an accused employee process before terminating them. I think what you were told was false, or that you misunderstood it. I don't think that the victims of a false harassment claim are entitled to damages for their termination.

I would welcome expert correction here.

The slight research I've done here suggests that from a legal perspective, it's safer to terminate than not, even if you're concerned about the veracity of the accusation.

I'm going to repeat that we're in firm agreement about not firing "for cause". You don't need cause to fire employees you've competently hired. It is definitely legally risky to provide negative references that include accusations of tortious behavior! Minimize drama, by all means.


I think we're pretty much on the same page here tbh. As I also was told, and believe, that being careful about the words "for cause" is almost always the right thing to do. I think it's pretty much only this series of steps that can get you into trouble:

1) Employee A claims that Employee B harassed them

2) Company doesn't put in any effort to hear Employee B's side of the story

3) Employee B is fired "for cause" for sexual harassment. Generally it's also not just the words here. It also comes with things like "no severance pay even though severance pay was typical for other fired employees."

4) It turns out that the original claim was bogus

In this specific scenario, the company could have problems.


I know we're going on and on here, and I want to say that I generally enjoy your comments and am not just trying to be the picky message board jerk I normally am. However:

It is very unlikely that a competent hiring practice will generate implied contracts for severance pay. Employees are not generally entitled to severance. Awarding severance to one employee probably doesn't create an implied contract with other employees.

I keep coming back to this (elsewhere on the thread, too): the reason legalese employment agreements always tend to look the same is that they are designed to settle all these issues up front. I learned this when I had briefly hoped to create a more humane employment contract and employment handbook at a previous job, only to find out that pretty much only a lawyer can write either of those two things.

I think(?) the only thing at stake in a firing "for cause" is a later claim for defamation --- unless the terminated employee has a special contract which entitles them to things like severance unless terminated for cause.


> Awarding severance to one employee probably doesn't create an implied contract with other employees.

I believe that this is incorrect. If you fire 10 employees in a row and they all get severance but then the 11th doesn't they absolutely can hire a lawyer and ask why and start digging into events that lead up to the firing. If it turns out that they were fired for sexual harassment without being given a chance to refute the claims and then it turns out that the claim might have been bogus the company is going to be in a bad spot. And it's probably going to end up paying out a 5 (or maybe 6) figure check to make the problem go away.

(PS: totally understand that you aren't being a picky message board jerk. No worries at all)


I am very, very interested in seeing documentation or expert opinion to back this up, because it implies that you can easily and accidentally create an implied contract for severance simply by offering one-off severance.

That would imply that there's a legal disincentive to offer one-off severance (for instance, for a no-harm no-foul sorry-to-waste-your-time bad hire).


Unfortunately I have no expert opinion to give here. Merely somewhat educated amateur. Certainly at this point we are well into "go talk to an employment lawyer" territory. They could very well contradict what I have said. If that happens I will stand corrected.


I think we agree on the most important points here.


:thumbsup:


I'm curious about a later lawsuit from the harassed employee. Does firing "for cause" provide documentation that you did indeed address the harassment problem, whereas firing because "at will" could be unrelated?


Your last point is something that I've stumbled across before, and something that it seems many folks (especially engineers) don't fully grasp.

As I understand it, even "getting drunk and trash talking a previous employee" in front of the wrong people can be seen as impacting someone's employ-ability, and can land you in some difficult legal situations if you're high up enough. Essentially the only safe thing to say about past employees is nothing.


> Essentially the only safe thing to say about past employees is nothing.

Yes. Also, even from a non-legal standpoint, such as future interaction with that employee or their contacts, whether that may be social, commercial or legal.

Negative commments can't be unsaid and have a funny way of spreading to unintended parties.


> there is practically no such thing as wrongful termination in the US.

This is true.

However, there is nothing also that stops individuals from filing costly "wrongful termination suits" against a company.

In my little slice of the managerial world, we spend time with HR to fully document performance lapses, ensuring we have written statements clearly indicating expectations and whether they are met, solely because if we were to be sued, we could show enough evidence that this individual was terminated because of a lack of performance, despite being given reasonable time to take corrective measures.


If you believe this, it's not safe to fire anyone --- all of them could "file costly wrongful termination suits".

In fact, "wrongful termination" doesn't mean "terminated unfairly". It means "terminated unlawfully".

In the US, unlawful termination occurs:

* When it contravenes an explicit clause in your employment contract or an implied contract you accidentally created.

* When it has the effect of discriminating against a protected class.

* When it violates the ADA.

Employers in the US generally have no obligation whatsoever to provide "reasonable time to take corrective measures". Things like PIPs have two purposes:

* As an attempt to bulletproof firings that target ostensible members of a protected class

* As a humane / bloodless way of notifying employees that they're about to be fired and should start looking for a new job.


> Employers in the US generally have no [legal] obligation whatsoever to provide "reasonable time to take corrective measures".

They do, however, want to CYA.

> In fact, "wrongful termination" doesn't mean "terminated unfairly". It means "terminated unlawfully".

And "unlawfully" is determined by the US Courts.

> If you believe this, it's not safe to fire anyone --- all of them could "file costly wrongful termination suits".

If by "safe" you mean "safe from litigation" then yes, that is a risk you take when terminating an employee. I'm certainly not advocating against firing people. I am saying that in my experience, I have to work with HR to have sufficient documentation.


Can you point to the law you're concerned might be violated in this scenario?


We're assuming the business dev person is not a protected class (basically your run-of-the-mill white bro).

He could be a veteran, or a minority, or disabled.


No law that I can think of.

Maybe some sort of edge gender discrimination, or perhaps in case this guy is some nymphomaniac and has a documented mental condition. Speculating wildly.


> As an attempt to bulletproof firings that target ostensible members of a protected class

This is phrased poorly -- everyone is a member of (several) protected class, since a protected class is an axis on which discrimination is illegal. Race is a protected class (not just particular races), color is a protected class (not just particular colors, and distinctly from race), religion is a protected class, sex (not just one sex) is a protected class, and so on.

And, in addition to anti-discrimination protected classes, there are all kinds of other prohibited bases for firing (e.g., retaliation for invoking various legally-protected workplace rights such as family/medical leave, etc., or reporting violations of workplace protection, such as wage/hour rules and occupational safety rules.)

PIPs are a tool for documenting reasons for firing to support that they were not for any unlawful reasons would be a more accurate phrasing than saying that they are a means of protecting firings that target "ostensible members of a protected class".


Sure. You're right, this isn't worded well (I wrote it in several successive edits). I'd write it differently now:

PIPs have just two purposes:

1. As a CYA mechanism to avoid discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims.

2. As a socially acceptable means of informing employees that they should begin a new job search.


Many large companies use PIPs as a default for poor performance prior to firing. The frustrating thing about it is that a poor performing worker, who shows up at the office, but does zero work, is likely to bounce around in the PIP system for 12-18 months, collecting a paycheck, before you can terminate them. If they're smart enough to do the bare minimum to satisfy the PIP, they can go back to doing nothing once the PIP is over and repeat this cycle for a few years before they eventually get terminated.

The reason large companies do this for everyone is that over 50% of the population is a protected class (female, minority, veteran, etc), and large companies want to reduce all risk as much as possible, so therefore, you get mandatory PIPs.

Something egregious like this (sexual harassment) definitely warrants an immediate termination. Unfortunately, I've worked on teams with members that did zero work and had an 18 month PIP. It kills morale in unique and incredible ways for the rest of the team.


> Something egregious like this (sexual harassment) definitely warrants an immediate termination.

Why should one incident that occurred outside of work, warrant termination?

Are our private lives subject to the scrutiny of our employer?

Is it sexual harassment if the victim doesn't actually feel harassed?


Yes, if your private life involves making unwelcome and rude sexual advances to other employees, it warrants immediate termination. Employees who do this present a grave risk to the company in terms of legal expense, PR, and recruiting.


Generally, I agree with what your statement. If you sexually harass others in your personal life, and your employer finds out about it, it's prudent to manage them out.

In this case, the employee handled the unwanted advances herself, and later told the OP about it. It's not clear if the female employee felt that it was "rude sexual advance" since to her it was "no big deal."

From the EEOC:

> Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).


It's not about how this employee feels about the advance. It's about how the next one will.


That's a pretty broad assumption your making.

If there is a next employee who is harassed, he/she can file the complaint, and the company can deal with it then. As it stands, no company policy was violated, and the female employee doesn't think this is an issue.

This is a single incident, that again occurred during the weekend, and over Whatsapp (both parties consenting to share numbers).


Yep. You can read more about these things at Ask A Manager (askamanager.com) and a continuous theme is that everyone is scared of wrongful termination, but that's really quite rare in the US. It involves breach of employment contract. (Lots of similar misconceptions about "protected class" as well.)


Why can't this person simply get fired. No cause.

Even if you want to give them the benefit of doubt (which seems extremely unmerited, given the presented evidence) why would you want to employ someone who shows such poor judgement? This is not a college dorm room. This is a professional setting, and while it is natural for romances to take place, this is in very poor taste to say the least, and even if it had been in more accepted terms, poor timing -you don't just go up to coworkers like you do patrons in a bar/pub and start chatting them up.

Why not fire without cause?


I'm wondering this too, mainly because the OP said "just hired".

Most employment agreements have a probationary period (e.g., 3 months) where the employer can terminate the new hire without cause.


Most employment agreements (in the US) absolutely do not have a probationary period of that kind. That would be quite unusual.


Ok. Where I live - Canada - it's very commonplace.


Yes; most employment agreements in the US are at-will so you can fire an employee at any time without cause no matter what your seniority :)


Absolutely correct. Most employment agreements in the US have an indefinite probationary period. Consider today your last day every day (speaking mostly in the financial sense).


> you almost certainly have to give the employee a chance to respond to the accusations

If all the OP had was the claims of the harassed employee, you might have a point. But the OP claims to have seen the actual texts sent.

IANAL, and of course a lawyer should be consulted, but I would be very surprised if there were any danger in firing the employee without further ado.


You can be extremely selective in the evidence you present. For all you know, they previously could have had "dirty talk" moments earlier. Fell out, and now retaliating.

If you want to be properly moral and just about this? Then you need get his side of the argument and all the information.

If you just want to reduce hassle, then yes just fire him.


It turns out that trying to reason things out from what seems right and/or fair can get you in a lot of trouble. If you haven't received specific training on how to handle this sort of thing your instincts can absolutely lead you (and the company) in a bad direction.


Also to add to this great advice when you do have workplace harassment prevention, response training one of the things that will emphasize is that the response can't be purely up to the victim. A good training on this will help you explain this necessity to an employee in this circumstance.

Basically

1. You've got the victim's back and will be carefully watching for any form of reprisals which won't be tolerated. Further you will not share any information about the specifics with the rest of the group even though you may have to address the issue generally with them.

2. But... You also have to take action as a responsible manager even if they don't want you to because you have to protect other employees from harassment by the same person. You also have a responsibility to the company to take action because not doing so can open the business up to serious liability if it happens again and you didn't do something.

I think hitting a first serious hr issue like this is a part of the regular part of growing up for many startups. If you don't yet have a clear harassment policy in place, or don't have a lawyer advising you on these kind of issues, or haven't enacted any kind of regular training on harassment prevention and response there's no time like the present to get that done.

ps. My company uses an online course from this company for yearly harassment prevention training. The production value is a bit cheesy, but very informative your first time through: http://www.navexglobal.com/en-us/issues/harrassment-discrimi... I'm sure there are tons of other options.


The only thing I would add to patio11's advice is to go back to the employee and let her know what's about to happen. If you do it without any warning, then yes she might feel that it was a breach of trust. But, if you tell her before you fire the guy you can maintain trust.


A valid reason to give to the victim is that you're not just protecting her but any other current or potential victims (using nicer language than this). That will help her feel good about coming forth with the information; she's not causing trouble for the company but actually saving someone else from harassment.


Yes, I really liked patio11's likening it to embezzlement, being a crime against the company (although in the case of harassment, it is a crime against both the company and the individual recipients).


Speak to a lawyer ASAP and then absolutely before you act speak with the victim. Both parties could potentially sue, it's not unusual to try and ignore something during the shock phase and then have a change of feelings later. Her simply wanting it to not happen again isn't quite enough. you know about it now too.. Lawyer up, you'll likely terminate the jerk and have some documents for the victim to sign


This. Do not make this person feel as if you did the one thing they precisely didn't want you to do. Doing so means future incidents (of any sort - people don't like to talk to betrayers) are unlikely to be reported at best.

Earlier advice regarding lawyer up, for gods sakes still applies, but you now have a human obligation to the person who reported this in confidence.


While there's no question he needs to leave, the way you handle this is an opportunity. If you act skillfully, employees in general will be more willing to share problems with you in the future. You can reach the end result without making the wronged employee feel even one bit guilty.

Have the lawyer spend time walking you through the various ways this can play out, rather than just give you a cookie-cutter procedure.

With this knowledge you will feel confident about the way you communicate his departure to him, to the employee who has been wronged, and to the company in general. The human subtleties here matter as much as the legalities. Rely on the lawyer for the latter, and yourself for the former.


One of the first things I learned in management training was: "as soon as a manager knows about an incident, the company knows about the incident." You can't promise confidentiality because the company _must_ act on information it has. (If it does not, it opens itself up to later lawsuits for _failing_ to handle discrimination and harassment.)

All of this is to say: patio11 is right.


> I think the consensus in the grown-up business world is "fire immediately for cause."

I think the normal business advice would be to 'suspend pending investigation', and then wait for a neutral third party to recommend firing.


That is not the consensus. The consensus in the grown-up business world is to protect the company. Protect the company from the sexual harassment suit, and protect the company from the wrongful termination suit.

As such, no one will ever fire for cause on the basis of one incident report on a single interaction that occurred away from the workplace. But you can be certain that everyone in the building gets additional harassment training, and management/HR keeps a closer eye on all employees involved: complainants, suspects, and their direct supervisors.

The company then accumulates sufficient pretext on all the involved employees to justify termination of "at will" employment for any one of them, and then waits to see if anyone will end up costing the company money before pulling the trigger.

That is the consensus. It is not fair. It just saves money. As such, I would caution against looking to the consensus when deliberating on the morality or ethics.


What "wrongful termination" suit are you referring to? Please be as specific as you can.


http://www.schwartzandperry.com/Blog/2014/October/Microsoft-...

Company fired an employee without verifying harassment. Turned out harassment was fabricated.


Did you read the actual filing? Mercieca sued for discrimination and defamation. He was not simply fired after a false sexual harassment claim.


That's the lawsuit brought by the person who gets fired, which requires the corporate lawyer to submit at least a brief and motion for dismissal, if not an actual answer to the claims.

People occasionally do sue their former employers when they believe they have been wronged in some way. If you fire someone for sexual harassment when no such thing occurred, the ex-employee might sue for no other reason than to get a declaratory judgment asserting the facts of the case, as subsequent employers may be reluctant to hire, otherwise.

Conflicts that cannot be resolved amicably often end up in civil court. Losing your job is an emotional experience which may result in loss of amity. That is all.

I did not intend to imply that such cases had inherent merit or support of statute. You can sue anyone for any reason in civil court, and appeal to equity, which is basically complaining that something isn't fair, and that the court should do a specific thing within its power to make it less unfair. If you are ever fired, for cause or not, it would be prudent to consult with an employment law specialist so as to not waste everyone's time with a frivolous suit.


If you believe this, it seems like you might also believe that it's legally risky to fire a developer who rm's the production environment. After all, they might bring a frivolous lawsuit for no purpose other than to "get a declaratory judgement asserting the facts of the case".

(Incidentally: I don't think you can just "sue for declaratory judgement" to enlist judges to settle arbitrary disputes; the judgement has to apply to a justiciable controversy. If the employer threatened to sue the accused for damages, for instance.)


I can't tell whether I am explaining myself poorly or whether you are intentionally misinterpreting.

I am not a lawyer, and to my knowledge, neither are you. And that's why I won't go further than this post on this branch of the conversation. As I have noted before, you can apparently post far more often than I can, and I can't keep up with you even when I have any credible knowledge on the topic.

I have a somewhat jaded view of the US civil court system. Others, not quite so jaded, believe in the Hollywood stories where Joe Average can take on Blatantly Unethical, Inc. and win. Those are the people foolish enough to sue their former employers. Just don't do it. Take your licks and move on.

In your hypothetical, the ex-employee sues for injunctive relief against the former employer disclosing to anyone the reason why he was fired, as it is damaging to his professional reputation and therefore materially impacts earning potential. The employer has an affirmative defense that truth cannot be slander. So the judge now has legitimate reason to decide the facts of whether the employee was, in fact, fired for gross negligence. The employer submits log files with a motion brief, the judge pretends to read them, and then renders summary judgment in favor of the defendant. It is now public record forever that the employee was fired for rm'ing production. Any good lawyer could have informed the employee that this would not end well for him.

Edit:

Injunctive relief = the plaintiff seeks an order from the court for the defendant to either do or not do something. In this context, it would be to not tell anyone why they fired the plaintiff. This is my understanding of the concept. If you need additional explanation, talk to a lawyer, or a paralegal, or a law student, as I am none of these. This is just my layman's perception of a thing that courts can do. If the defendant disobeys the order, the plaintiff has to first find out about it and also actively petition the court to do something about it.


"Injunctive relief"? Help me understand what you mean by this.


You are arguing with someone whose limited exposure comes from observing secondhand issues. People don't know the difference between what feels right and is legally safe.


Legally safe is to have lots of cash in your war chest, and enough time to be very patient.

The law doesn't need to be on your side if the judge is.

Perhaps I'm only pessimistic because I have been metaphorically kicked in the teeth by too many kinds of grown-up bullies, and have seen too many all-too-familiar stories about it happening to other people like me.


Couldn't the company fire without cause to avoid the potential wrongful termination lawsuits? Or would the company remain exposed to a sexual harassment suit as they couldn't prove they did something as a direct result of the incident.


Most of the companies I have worked for would likely do exactly that. The problem employee would be terminated as an ordinary cost-cutting layoff, and no one would be the wiser.

The expedient solution is to be spineless and cover your own ass. It does not produce the desired behavior at higher levels, but the Nash equilibrium is to do it quietly and kick the can down the road for the next employer to deal with. This is exactly how the Catholic church and the Boy Scouts handled its pedophiles--cover it up and delay accountability indefinitely.

If there may be a threat to sue, offer a severance package that precludes civil lawsuits.

I was once laid off, and I suspect the reason for it was that the company did not want to pay off on my as-yet-unvested options at a time when the public stock was at an all-time high. I didn't sue, because the severance package was worth more to me than the potentially years-long litigation hassle. They, in turn, never admitted to any particular reason for laying me off. If I'm going to end up screwed either way, I'd prefer the method that allows me to get it over with and get on with my life the next day.

The impetus to throw just enough money at the problem to make it disappear fuels some of the scams that prey on very large companies. This is closely related to the business model for patent trolls. If you ask for slightly less money than litigation would cost, you get quietly paid.

Edit:

Most civil cases don't go to trial, and I don't care enough about my own disposable post on the Internet to go look up legal citations as a tangentially interested non-lawyer just because some other disposable post on the Internet asked for them. My point was that corporate employers are amoral, and would prefer to handle a potentially hairy situation cheaply rather than ethically. The only points required are as follows. 1. It is possible that a recently terminated employee could sue the former employer; it even happens occasionally in real life. 2. Such a lawsuit has a nonzero cost to the employer (and also the ex-employee). 3. Therefore, the employer can theoretically save money by bribing the ex-employee with a lesser amount than in #2 to not sue. 4. This could potentially allow the ex-employee to escape the consequences of actions that may or may not have led to the termination.

The general consensus among companies is to do the easy thing, not the right thing.


I believe the threat you're invoking --- from the accused harasser to the employee terminating using their privilege as an at-will employer, to sue for damages stemming from that termination --- is fictitious.

Could you clarify by citing a case with this fact pattern which actually made it to trial?

* At-will employee

* No special contract terms tied to for-cause termination

* Disputed or false accusation of harassment (or, if you like, any claim of harassment whatsoever --- or, really, any "cause" whatsoever)

* Terminated, either formally for cause or for no cause

* Claim of damages stemming from the termination itself


I'm not sure what you're saying, but if you're asking about how an at-will harasser could win a wrongful termination case, it's worth noting that "at-will" does not actually mean you can "fire whenever for no reason". There are various exceptions; the most open-ended is probably an implied contract or an implied covenant of good faith. You might look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Covenant_of...

Regardless of whether the state recognizes an implied covenant of good faith, most states recognize that people can be fired illegally. It can easily come down to a "he said, she said" situation. And if your employee has a long history with the company or did important work, there is a decent chance they can pull together a story for why their firing was improper. Even if no damages are awarded, the attorney fees and time can be quite expensive.

I do recall a specific case not to long ago in Alaska where a police officer sexually harassed a couple coworkers and then was reinstated by an arbitrator. You can read about it here: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20AKCO%2020150417013.xml/A...

I doubt cases like the Alaska one above are all that uncommon, altho admittedly the collective bargaining agreement has a major impact. California, in particular, is a notoriously friendly place for employment litigation, moreso than Alaska.


Unless you're in Montana, as a practical matter, yes, "at will" means "you can fire whenever for no reason".


What, you didn't know that people who like to sexually harass their coworkers were a protected class?


Really? If he's _just_ hired him, I presume any probationary period would be ongoing and you can let the guy go consequence free? Thus, the most obvious least path of resistance is just to let him go and not really give him cause. I'm not from the US, thus I'm genuinely asking the question.

With that said, aren't we potentially overreacting here? Quite a lot of romances spark in the office. The guys tried it on, he's been rubuked, hopefully he got the point and will settle down. If he doesn't, then I you do have a problem, but the reaction here seems to be like he's just ran over your dog.


In the US, almost all employment is at-will. There's no probationary period and any one can be let go at any time without notice for any reason (or no reason) except for a certain list of protected things (gender, race, marital status, and the like).

Also, from the description, it seems like the conversation was way more than just "would you like to get a drink" and the guy already didn't back down.


> from the description, it seems like

Exactly, nothing that any HN observer can come to any conclusion with.


> With that said, aren't we potentially overreacting here? Quite a lot of romances spark in the office. The guys tried it on, he's been rubuked, hopefully he got the point and will settle down.

I see your point, but if you're an employee and you're sharing that "so and so texted me this <shows phone>", what's the motivation behind that? She said she doesn't want to cause problems, but if it's something between two adults and not involving work, I would imagine she would just not say anything, particularly to management.

OP needs to read into their conversation, it's hard to armchair quarterback this over the internet. At the end of the day it's ultimately easier for us to say fire for a multitude of reasons, many of which are likely valid.


> I see your point, but if you're an employee and you're sharing that "so and so texted me this <shows phone>", what's the motivation behind that? She said she doesn't want to cause problems, but if it's something between two adults and not involving work, I would imagine she would just not say anything, particularly to management.

I think you're dangerously into all women are always resonable logic there. It's entirely possible, that the female employee, as an employee of a startup, is inflected by the same hyper-sensitivity that plagues communities such as ourselves. Conversely it's also entirely possible that male employee is a complete and utter dickhead. I wouldn't bet my life on either one being the truth.

> OP needs to read into their conversation, it's hard to armchair quarterback this over the internet. At the end of the day it's ultimately easier for us to say fire for a multitude of reasons, many of which are likely valid.

Well yeah, the OP hasn't given us enough info to really comment and he'll need to use his own personal judgement on whether the messages were over the line or whether he was just being a guy. I'm just trying to remind people that whilst we should be professional at work, we aren't automatons and normal people are going to continue dating and bonking their colleagues or attempting to do so and whilst that's sexual, it doesn't necessarily constitute harassment.


> I think you're dangerously into all women are always resonable logic there.

Uhh... seriously? I hope I'm misreading what you wrote here.


Why? Your no smoke without fire argument relies on the lady in question not being touchy or unresonable. I'd argue donglegate shows that, despite having an army of men willing to defend them, sometimes this is the case.

It's also poor form to skip the context like that.


Dunno, I'd kinda assume people are being reasonable by default. That's how societies are built by the majority so that a minority of cynics can find the luxury to make sexist remarks within that established framework.


You're focusing on one bad outcome, while ignoring another.


I am trying to convey the notion that with this line of thought, anyone could be doing anything because they are unreasonable or selfish. The original poster could be experimenting on us to mine text and find differing levels of consensus per time when HN faces controversy. I could be a bot trying to be more human. Without taking evidence into account, most of society is garbage.


Self-interest/motivation has its own MO. Also, sometimes motive isn't so important - physical behavior is. This is the evidence which can be collected. Otherwise you can't really assume much. Your original comment seemed to imply a conspiracy though through "built by".

This is a little detached from the original context though, and there's another issue there; People are not random processes, they may choose to pursue selfish strategies conditional on being in a system where it is uncritically "assume[d] people are being reasonable by default".


Well, no. You're assuming the woman is reasonble by default and thus the man must be at fault. This is actually a sexist point of view.


Except I wouldn't ignore textual evidence "because women can be unreasonable" or "men can be assholes".


Straw-man. Or possibly framing the original argument stereotypically/in bad-faith.

Concluding you only have one side of the story, is not the same as, nor necessitates ignoring it. One alternative is getting the other side of the story.

I also find the phrasing "because women can be unreasonable" to be suspicious - there is no reason to put it this way rather than "people can be unreasonable"; OP made no claim that only women should be treated with skepticism.

- are you trying to invoke the historical meme of women being dismissed as irrational?


I did not make up the phrase, just read the comments and the memes and the rhetoric by the OP. They are exactly what you disagree with. OP didn't just say "listen to his side" which is reasonable (albeit dangerous and should be handled by legal rather than personal means)


Actually the only point I've really made is you shouldn't automatically assume the woman is being resonable whilst also assuming the man is unresonable. I'll happily admit that the converse is also true, but since 90% of the thread has jumped to the conclusion the guy should be fired, it hardly needs to be said.

Where you're going wrong, is that you're attributing more to whats actually been said, which is sadly the problem I have with this entire thread.


Ambiguity and rhetoric does that.


You forgot "actually" after your "Well"


Referring to someone as a MILF at work is inappropriate at work, even if you are trying to 'spark a romance'. You don't get a free pass to try anything once. If you are trying to spark a romance, you have to do it in a professional way that leaves the other person an out before you take it to an inappropriate level.


See I think this is a culutre thing, but I imagine it doesn't work for the entire USA but is locked down to the left politically correct spectrum, because to me it's not all that bad a word.

Point being, I could quite happily call someone from work a MILF in a semi-serious / semi-jokey way and get away with it. In fact, I've said worse and had success because if the woman likes you, she'll like the fact you said it.

Now where the problem lies in this example is the guy should have read the signals that she wasn't interested and not just try it on anyways. Then again, I'm not sure why she'd move over to a private medium if she wasn't acting interested.

But I get it, you're outraged at a couple of tidbits of information that aren't guaranteed to be in order and are largely without context of the conversation. I can't really argue with that.


> had success

That's a really gross way of describing your overbearing behavior in a work setting. As if spitting out sexually-charged comments is some sort of win/not-quite-lose scenario.

Yeah, let's just keep calling women MILFs, or calling guys DILFs, or whatever the pickup line du jour is, until it "succeeds", and until then, well, just keep trying. That doesn't sound like a creepy, overbearing trait to exhibit at all. /sarcasm


There's a difference between me calling you a DILF either in jest, as an actual compliment or because I want to see how you react than repeating it ad nauseam.

Also you seem to be imagining that everyone's doing this during working hours and that there's no context to the comments. If I just walked into work and started yelling such things at people, I imagine folks would quite rightly pause, but the "had success" point was that there is obviously situations where this is appreciated.


Why do you keep harping on someone "appreciating" or "liking" the comments? It comes off as you equivocating your sexual advances towards coworkers as being something worth giving, that the existence of one time where you made a comment that wasn't rebuked is now the case law for it being OK that these things are said to people who might very well be totally disgusted by the person who says it, because one person, at one point in time, wasn't disgusted.


Sigh. You seem to be missing the point which is that a not insignificant percentage of relationships spawn from the work place. You may want no part in that, and that's fine, but the idea that we should never act human to each other because professionalism is something that a significant percentage of people dont appear to agree with.

So whilst I'm not suggesting you go in tomorrow and tell your nearest female colleague they have nice tits, I'm arguing that at some place at some point in some context it's entirely possible to compliment and make appreciated advancements on a colleague, otherwise office relationships wouldn't happen.

Now if you accept that sometimes it may be okay, under certain circumstances, to do such things, you also need to accept it's possible to make an unwanted pass at someone. You may find that disgusting but most people would just find it slightly awkward and am slightly bemused at the reaction of some of you.

The other point I was generally making, is that whilst some woman will never appreciate such a comment and some will, some of the time some will appreciate you making the comment whilst being quite annoyed if I did. But all I'm really saying is the matter may be more complex that the "he needs to be fired" comments.

Of course you're free to draw the line before calling someone a MILF, and again this is without context, but if you really find saying such a thing under any circumstances abhorrent, I'm going to go out in a limb here and suggest you're just no fun.


Look, I know all about workplace romances - I am married to a woman I met at work.

I think YOU are missing the point. There is no word (MILF included) that I will categorically say should NEVER be uttered at work.

I will say, however, that you better be VERY close with your coworkers before you start saying it. The kind of close that is IMPOSSIBLE to get to in the first few weeks of employment at a place. The fact that this guy just started working at the company and already called someone a MILF (and who clearly didn't like it, since she complained to the CEO) means he is being horribly inappropriate, and has no excuse.


> I will say, however, that you better be VERY close with your coworkers before you start saying it. The kind of close that is IMPOSSIBLE to get to in the first few weeks of employment at a place.

I disagree. I'm a "contractor" which means I've had a lot of short engagements. Part of what makes me good at being a contractor is I usually get on with people pretty well and being a working class Scottish lad, I do have a rough sense of humour. I joke around with both men and woman, and that's okay because people like that part of me.

> The fact that this guy just started working at the company and already called someone a MILF (and who clearly didn't like it, since she complained to the CEO) means he is being horribly inappropriate, and has no excuse.

Well yeah, but that's still the no smoke without fire argument. She clearly doesn't like it, it shouldn't be said again, but do we extend that you immedaitly firing the guy if he simply misread the situation and dropped it from there?


If you are friends with your coworker, and you know each other well, then sure, you can get away with calling her a lot of things. I have specific coworkers that I am like this with (in private, away from other coworkers who might not know our relationship)

There is no WAY this would be acceptable until you have established that type of relationship over a long period of time. This guy just started working there, so that is not the case here. The fact that she complained about it means that they don't have that type of relationship, as well.


Yes, ownagefool, I think that this thread, the more extreme reactions come from an oversensitized USA to the sexual harassment.

One has barely any info other than the attitude of the guy made the CEO upset [and we don't know exactly if that translate to harassment, improper conduct or maybe latent feelings (consider all of these)], yet, everyone is saying fire him.

The asking for a whatsapp and she saying 'only as friends in a work context' can't be seen as a first advance, so it can't be seen as he got rebuked the first time, he got it clear with the MILF remark, she probably rebuked him, if he continued, it is harassment, if not, I wouldn't call it that.


Probationary periods are basically fictional unless you've laid out some formalized termination process.


Perhaps fictional in the US. They are very much legal fact in (most of?) Europe where at-will employment isn't really a thing.


I assumed this story took place in the US, where people talk about "probationary periods" all the time despite basically your entire term of employment being "probationary" in this sense. Yes, if you're in Europe it's a totally different story.


99.9% with you, but I would suggest a minor change to your last sentence. Either: - Don't say anything about the departing employee - Note that his/her behavior violated company policy/policies - Give the euphemistic "X decided they weren't a good fit for our organization and is pursuing other opportunities"


Yes, +1 to this.

Also, just because this one innocent employee says she "can handle it" doesn't mean that he isn't behaving like this to other employees, current or future. In order to (1) protect your other employees, and (2) set the tone for what is acceptable at your company, you need to get rid of this guy immediately.


> I think the consensus in the grown-up business world is "fire immediately for cause."

Not in my experience, and it's not the law (as taught in the myriad of training courses I've endured over the years). The man should have an opportunity to learn from this mistake, then be fired when he proves incapable of learning.

Providing the warning and training is enough to legally cover the company's ass if the guy screws up again.

Yes, it's a big mistake to make, but when your hiring pool is predominately college graduates, it's pretty likely they don't know the law (or how to navigate romance in the workplace) either. Time to educate them.

EDIT: It's also important to get the other side of the story; why did this guy feel it was appropriate to approach the woman in the first place? Were there conversations not included in the record? Was there body language the man misinterpreted?


It's not a mistake. He didn't leave the server room door open. He called her a MILF.... TO HER FACE.

He's not 12 (I assume). If he hasn't learned to be respectful to women before now, it's not this guy's job to teach him.


" He called her a MILF.... TO HER FACE. He's not 12 (I assume)"

Good point. This kind of person will probably need more self-improvement lessons than most companies can justify investing in him. Plus likely cause other headaches. Best to get rid of him if claims are true.


[flagged]


Please provide one example of using the term "MILF" in a professionally appropriate way.


please have the parser accept the following ASCII formatted unix stream: FirstName LF MI LF LastName LF

except don't allow trailing whitespaces at the ends of lines so more like

FirstNameLF

MILF

LastNameLF

*if she's a MILF, definitely get her first and last name... did I just ruin it?


As the director of an "American Pie" franchise entry.


That was too great given the asker probably thought a correct answer was impossible. Lmao.


When you work for an intelligence agency, federal law enforcement, customs/immigration or something like that (or a private sector contractor for them), and the topic of discussion is the MILF?

the MILF is a violent organization that has been known to cut off peoples' heads...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Islamic_Liberation_Front


The context is irrelevant. Whether or not it was intended as a compliment, or even received as a compliment does not matter. It was inappropriate for the workplace.


If this was "after hours" between two adults? Was it a couple comments, that got rebuffed (You think I'm cute? Thank you, but I'm not interested) and was then dropped? Was it repeated comments that continued after "she" said no?

I wouldn't use those terms with someone at work, during working hours... I wouldn't think it's earth ending to compliment someone after hours, outside of the work place (The terminology is a bit strong for my tastes, but assuming it is intended to be "complementary"... depending on how "comfortable" I was with someone, I might use similar terms if I "read the situation" as "she might be interested")

I'm all for "fire for harassment"... but is this really harassment (continued after refusal)? Or is this a one time thing that happened when hanging out after hours that ended upon request?

"Context is irrelevant" is a bit short sighted, because context - and responses of all involved - is completely relevant..


Hitting on a fellow employee after work hours with a tinder-esque technique is grounds for termination.

The female employee has little recourse to stop the advance, and has not approved it. Workplace courtship protocol requires slow, deliberate advancement with explicit ACKs from the receiver.


Again, it depends. You can't just immediately go all scorched earth "You said she's cute? You're fired!". Because that's the brunt of the story so far (I haven't read many of the recent comments to see if there was anything deeper revealed from the initial story)

We have one side of the story (with a part of the trail of messages recorded).

Harassment: n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment

Systematic. Continued.

That's the basic definition I think when I hear the word Harassment.

Which is why context is king.

One string of conversations (including the texting)? That's not systematic or continued IF he stops when she says "I'm not interested".

If she said no, no, no, no... then that's continued. If he's pushing the issue that's continued. Some men don't know the meaning of "no". Some consider it a challenge. Some people think that non-verbal responses (like going out to a bar) mean that there IS a chance if you can get past the initial no.

At THAT point, we would have something that can be construed as harassment.

The problem with this entire conversation is we don't have the entire story. What was his response to her no? Has this continued or did it end?

This is one side of the story. I'm sorry, but I agree that a lawyer should be involved and proper procedures should be laid out going forward... and I agree IF he hasn't stopped after "no", then "bad things" should happen... but right now? We have one side of the story - and we don't have the whole story.

Slow, deliberate advancement with explicit ACKs? What is this? Some touchy feely dorm room with safe places and yes-means-yes over-PCd levels of red tape to show your interest? "May I have your permission to compliment you or can we discuss it with your lawyer?"? What nonsense...


This can be company policy but it is not required. Companies are only legally required to prevent harassment at company sponsored events and commutes to the events.


You have no absolutely idea, who started the tinder-esque technique. For all you know, she could have been calling him a dirty stud, a day earlier.

If this true? Would you then fire her?

This is why, you need both sides of the story before you can do a "with cause" firing.


OP post suggests he does not question the facts and asks for advice.

You're welcome to suggest to OP that he question his facts. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what bar he has to cross, but if his facts are true as presented, then he should proceed to termination.

As to your question regarding the female employee. Sure if is she is in fact harassing the male employee, she should be terminated. She could also have fabricated the whole thing. She could be being blackmailed. She might be playing a prank. Someone could have been impersonating the male employee. She might have mental health crisis. There are many scenarios. We weren't asked to consider them.


And she felt so flattered that she went to her boss to show him the texts?


That's the clincher for me. If she'd enjoyed that - and it's at least conceivable that someone would take it as a compliment - then the boss wouldn't know and no harm would be done.

Remember, it's perfectly legal to date your coworkers. You can ask them out and everything! But the moment they move to stop your advances, you must cease immediately. It sounds like she was at least initially open to out-of-work conversation (as evidenced by her agreeing to switch to WhatsApp), but once she become uncomfortable it should have ended.

Acceptable:

You: We should go out sometime. I've never asked before, but would you be interested?

Your colleague (NOT subordinate): No.

You: OK, back to business. Hey, what time did they move our meeting to?

Not acceptable:

You: I know I ask you this daily, but...

You: I'm not really supposed to date people who report to me, but...

You: We went out one time and you broke it off, but...

You: This was OK last week before you asked me to stop, but...


It's almost certainly inappropriate. That doesn't, however, mean he needs to be fired on the spot.


No one makes up stories like this. They're ALWAYS TRUE. Plus, she probably can show him history on whatsapp (if it supports that, I don't know).

MILF is NEVER a compliment to a stranger. It's NEVER a compliment to a friend you just met. It's probably a bad idea even if you're in her bedroom and both stripping down about to have sex.

The only time it's sorta safe to call someone a milf is if you were the one who made her a Mom, and even then, it's VERY situational.

Basically, just don't.


Wait, so if I go to your boss and tell him you called me a MILF, it's true?

It's not completely implausible there is an ulterior motive. And she is well protected if there is. He, on the other hand is not.

None of us know enough about the situation to make a determination in either direction.


If you're a woman, yes, it's probably true. Like 10,000,000:1 chance.

If the boss has known me for a long time and it seems completely out of character for me (which it would be), then maybe he talks to me about it to see WTF is up.

But some dude who just got hired? Assuming there's no record and no witnesses? You have to go with the vastly more likely case that he did it.

If that gets 1 in 10,000,000 guys unfairly fired, but gets 9,999,999 guys justly fired, that's a pretty good outcome in my book.


The reason sexual harassment complaints are taken at face value and assumed to be true has little to do with probabilities or truth and everything to do with risk. The potential liability of a mishandled complaint is greater than the possible damages (if any) associated with firing an employee in error. And if/when there are future complaints, the existence of an earlier, mishandled complaint greatly increases the contingent liability of that future complaint.

Is a risk-based approach less idealistic than a noble pursuit for absolute truth? Sure, but we live in the real world. Companies have to protect themselves, and there is no perfect solution for preventing sexual harassment. Education is critical, but so is a firm response.


Where did this 10,000,000:1 number come from? Why 10^7:1, why not 10^100:1? I can't find evidence that men are millions of times more likely to lie in harassment cases.


As if "positive" discrimation was ever useful or not just another form of discrimiation.


Jesus, your comment is absolutely terrifying to read. Come down from the high castle you put yourself in.


I agree with your last three paragraphs.

Unfortunately I do think such accusations are made up occasionally -- though probably not as often as true accusations are dismissed as fabrications. (I believed Anita Hill.)


Its a shame to see how aggressively this is being down-voted. All you're saying is to take a step back and try to improve the behavior before firing the guy. Face to face dialogue, communication, etc etc is much more likely to prevent this in the future.

Just firing him is kicking the can down the road to the next company.


So, instead, you pick up the can, and have a stern talk with the guy, have him sign some paperwork, and move on. Later, the guy makes untoward comments to someone on a PIP. You don't find out he did this until after you terminate the PIP person, and they sue you. Right in the middle of your next fundraising effort.


I personally believe that short of committing a felony, every employee gets a warning first. I'm not going to be held hostage by the abstract threat of frivolous lawsuits. And yes, with everything including the PIP being documented, that would be a frivolous lawsuit.


Twice in my career I've seen sexual harassment claims raised at a company I worked for after someone departed the company, and twice I've been led to believe the result was a very large cash settlement for the accuser. (Neither case occurred in a company I was in management at).

If your firm has any money in the bank at all, the accuser's lawyer will take the case on contingency, knowing both that you are unlikely to prevail and that your likelihood of prevailing is besides the point because the case will cost a fortune to litigate and taken years to dispose of, during which time you will be frozen on any major business development moves.

You can call these kinds of suits "frivolous" or "unfair" or anything else you'd like. I don't care, as long as you don't also call them "ineffective".

I think there are better places for employees to learn basic standards of professional conduct than in a deposition.


Yeah, my point is that there are better ways to avoid lawsuits than just firing anyone the minute someone shows an inappropriate text message.


This isn't responsive to what I just wrote. Not terminating is what risks the lawsuit. Terminating forecloses on that lawsuit.


Because of bad luck, I know way too much about employment law. Ongoing harassment is required for the legal definition [1]. The company only has to demonstrate reasonable effort in addressing the problem to avoid a lawsuit. So termination after a MILF comment is overkill in the legal sense. The cases that make it to court are god awful. [2]

The variables are how badly does the employer want to avoid negative press and an EEOC investigation. On the other hand, lawyers wouldn't take a case on contingency unless the litigant had a chance. In fact, it's a litmus test. Don't sue for discrimination if no lawyer will take the case on contingency. For example, Ellen Pao had to pay for her own lawyers. I chatted with my employment lawyer friends and they said her case was weak.

[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

[2] https://www.eeoc.gov/search/search?q=sexual&btnG=Search&entq...


My experience has been the opposite. I've probably been much luckier than you (I've never been a party in a suit), but I've watched companies settle up over weak-seeming claims.

It's not just ongoing harassment, but also claims of retaliation when someone who has complained about sexual harassment is later terminated for (ostensibly) other reasons.

Pao's case was extraordinarily expensive.


Retaliation is a different beast. It's human nature. A poorly trained manager's first instinct is to retaliate. If they don't retaliate illegally then they will do it in some other way.

After investigating, the EEOC shares their evaluation. So both parties should know how strong or weak the claims are. The requirements for a case are stringent, as you can see from the previous link. This is because EEOC understands the damage done by frivolous cases.


Would you do the same for embezzlement?

Jobs are jobs, not training programs. It's not wrong to expect someone to just be able to do their job without opening the company up to lawsuits. People are fired for incompetence of all kinds -- no one is guaranteed a job. And do you really want to spend an hour a week discussing with this guy that MILF isn't appropriate workplace language and then checking in with all the coworkers to make sure he's not secretly getting away with more? What a waste of company resources on an adult who certainly knows better.


embezzlement is a felony.

> Jobs are jobs, not training programs.

As a manager, I'd say this couldn't be more false. Learning and development is a critical part of any job and if your manager isn't actively concerned with helping your L&D, look for a new one.

Also, if it were an "hour a week" he wouldn't last more than a very few weeks.


> Would you be worried about this if he had been embezzling?

That would be an egregious and illegal behavior taken against the company, and the company execs should take action.

However, this is a case of one adult sending inappropriate private messages to a co-worker (also an adult), but not on company time, and not using company resources.


Yes, but fast forward 5-10 years and we'll see Ask HN: how do I get rid of this lawyer who insists I can't do anything without his expert advice?


Stop paying them?

I imagine most lawyers tend to go away pretty quickly if you stop giving them money.


"I think the consensus in the grown-up business world is 'fire immediately for cause.'" Concurring that this is the correct answer.

I make this statement from the perspective of having employees since 1979 in multiple concurrent businesses. If they have no respect at the beginning they will have less respect next week.

You must choose between your business and the new guy. In a year, you will have one or neither.


I agree with the consensus that you need a lawyer to navigate you thru this, but if you fire them without their being made aware of their actions constituting harassment you are liable. Further if you do not conduct an investigation that involves all parties you are liable. I have seen more grey area cases where a complaint is filed and it comes out she is married, things went to far and now it gets walked back as harassment (usually due to a husband finding a chat log). Not saying this is what's happening here but that's the point you don't know, you have one side of the story and acting on one side of the story puts you in a bad legal position. Further harassment requires a warning that the actions are not appropriate and constitute harassment (documented) by either the individual or a supervisor and a second violation before it is actionable. This often gets construed with sexual assault which is actionable immediately. Basically the TL;DR is "get a lawyer before you do anything".


Ah, HN. The place where people complain that companies aren't willing to invest in their employees by (re)training them, and the place where firing is demanded if people make a misstep.

Embezzlement is not equatable here - embezzlement is an objective crime that attracts jail time. Flirting with someone in the office (even if clumsy) is not - there's plenty of office romances out there, and people don't go to jail for them.

Yes, talking to a lawyer and documentation is the right thing to do, but damn, why does every mistake require a scalp?

> As to messaging to the rest of the company, again lawyer lawyer lawyer, but "X made comments of a sexual nature to another employee. As a consequence, we fired him. If you have questions or concerns, speak to me later. Moving on."

No, not moving on. If you do that and then don't then make a sexual harrassment statement part of your hiring process, then you've half-arsed it and are setting yourself up for a repeat - and next time an employee won't come to you, because they don't want to get someone fired over the issue; you've both broken an employee's trust in you and not protected yourself in future. If you're going for the hardline approach, you have to do it completely.


<insert thank you gif here>

OP: if you want to build a team, scalping people for any misstep won't be a good idea, especially if you have no clear policy regarding what is proper or not.


hahaha holy shit, this person thinks "calling your coworker a milf" is 'any (silly ol') misstep' and literally thinks a written HR policy is needed before you discipline them for clear sexual harassment

HR COMMANDMENT XVI: thou shalt not call your coworker a milf

HR COMMANDMENT XVII: thou shalt not ask your coworker to suck your d

HR COMMANDMENT XVIII: thou shalt not tell others in the office "your coworker has DSLs"


you know the flash animation video that goes "badger badger badger badger badger"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI

well, think like that, except;

lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer

mushroom, mushroom


As someone who's done a lot of hiring and firing, the part that stands out most to me is not the sexual harassment part, but the fact that he was just hired and already is causing problems.

Normal people tend to be cautious and respectful at first. By immidiately jumping in and pushing boundaries, this person is demonstrating that he doesn't care about your company, he doesn't care what you or anybody there thinks about him, and he doesn't care if he breaks things and gets fired.

I would fire him as soon as I could without the lawyers getting up in arms. People like this tend to be very destructive. The smart ones will wreak havoc in your organization for years before you figure it out.


I second this sentiment. Especially someone in a biz-dev role. Can you imagine if he crossed the line like this with a customer? It's not something a budding business wants to ever deal with.

Someone who feels casually about this kind of misconduct with another employee - in my mind is someone who would feel casually about lying on an expense report and other things you just don't expect people to do.

I suspect the lawyers would have you fire for no cause, give a good reference, support unemployment benefits, and potentially offer a small departure package. None of that is really necessary - when confronted with the facts, nobody in their right mind is going to say "I didn't deserve to be fired. I'm going to sue!" But in the end, protecting your business is your highest priority.

I also get the sense that this is your real desire.


This. The likelihood is this is going to just be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to future problems.


So, I am female. When working at a Fortune 500 company, I once emailed a colleague and copied our two bosses. I advised him to never speak that way to me again.

It went to HR. I got interviewed. I assume he got interviewed. He was not fired. He never spoke that way to me again. I eventually reestablished trust with this man and we got on well. I suspect he got sensitivity training. I was not told what went down. It was all handled very discreetly.

Please do get HR involved. Please do not listen to the people here who are advising you to nuke the man from orbit, it's the only way. Doing that will only deepen the problem. Men and women need to learn to interact at work. Promoting fear and loathing will not further that larger goal.

You get his side. You do some training. If it continues to be a problem, sure, fire him. But please do not use final solution/terrorist tactics. This only hurts women in the long run. Men need to learn better manners. Cutting their nuts off for a faux pas doesn't teach them that. It promotes a hostile environment between the genders. It doesn't create a more civil environment.


Ding ding ding, first cogent, non-hysterical, mature comment on the page!

Edit: In the spirit of trying to actually add some worthwhile content in my comment: Harassment sucks, just like not knowing a core skill of one's job, sucks. But demanding perfection in either case is not a reasonable approach. When someone joins, and they don't meet expectations, you have to tell them they didn't meet expectations, show them the difference, let them know what the expectations are, tell or teach them what they need to know, and give them a chance to remedy it. You document this and all related conversations, in the presence of a third party if possible... usually and preferably an HR rep. If expectations are not met after this point, you are now fully able to eliminate the possibility something was inadvertent, accidental, or due to ignorance, and you have solid grounds for disciplinary action. Most times the employee will learn the lesson and it will never even reach this point.

When this woman requested a big deal not be made, she was talking about the type of panicky hyper-sensitivity on this comment thread. MY PRECIOUS GENITALS!!!!

Life is full of easy, simple snap-judgments when you haven't lived much of it yet.

Firing someone is costly, and in more than one way.

People can learn. Think of stuff you did ten years ago, that you cringe at now. You know better now. You learned.


Refusing to tolerate unwelcome, overt, and repeated workplace sexual advances isn't a demand for perfection; it's a demand for a minimal standard of professional conduct. It's right there on the list along with "don't steal, don't try to finagle kickbacks from suppliers, don't physically threaten employees" and so on.

There are better places for bizdev and sales people to learn professionalism than in depositions.


Where did you get repeated from? The whole point was that it is a single incident, try fixing it rather than jumping straight to firing. If it becomes repeated, then do the firing.


The harassment of the magnitude described here is not up there with supplier kickbacks and physical violence, anymore than it is up there with embezzlement!


Says you. Actually: the kickbacks are less likely to seriously harm your company.


Money accidentally miscounted at the till, and explicitly stealing money from the till might cause the business an equal loss, but both are not equally as bad.


You have a pretty strong opinion in this thread considering the lack of information we have.

In this particular reply, all the 4 things you mentioned are NOT happening in the story. (At least by what we know.)

Unwelcome: We don't know if it was unwelcome. She even agreed to move to another communication medium (one which wasn't officially work related.)

Overt: It was on their own time, on a completely distinct communication medium. I don't see how more COVERT it could be.

Repeated: Again, from what we know, this was on a single weekend. He called her a milf, asked if he could tell her a secret and she refused. That's it. If he's not asking again and again, it's not repeated.

Workplace sexual advances: That's not in the workplace, nor on the company's time.

There's not much we can conclude without knowing more.


She reported it to the founder, presented evidence, and made it clear that the conduct was unwelcome. I'm done at "milf".


And that's a clear moment when the behavior needs to stop, with any future misbehavior grounds for termination


The 4 things you mentioned are still false.

She made it clear to the FOUNDER that the conduct was unwelcome. Did she tell it to the new employee? Did he repeatedly talk to her in the same manner after being told it was unwelcome? We don't know.

I have no problem calling a coworker an "asshole", especially on my own time while taking a beer with him. Without context, that the new employee said "milf" doesn't convey anything other than he found the lady sexually attractive. His seducing techniques might be abyssal, or she might be the kind of girl that likes a little spices.

Again, we don't have near enough information to make a judgement here.


The problem here is that in a workplace you are thinking about whether his seduction technique is abysmal or whether she "likes a little spices". THAT'S THE PROBLEM. By definition, things have gotten dreadfully unprofessional -- especially from your end.

"Well, I just figured I'd grope you because you might like it, and it is after 5 pm..."


Of course things were unprofessional, it happened on the weekend on Snapchat. What did you expect?

"Subject: possible sexual intercourse --- Good morning Miss, We met earlier today at Acme corp. I wanted to bring to your attention my desire to meet you in the goal to have intercourse. Please answer before 5pm. You can reach me on my cellphone.

Regards, Mr. X"

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the boss has no responsibility. He might want to intervene if the relationship is influencing their work performance, but that's all.


If there wasn't anything wrong with it (in her mind) - it never would have made it to the founder.

What happens when you don't fire the guy? Say later on, for whatever reason, SHE has a bone to pick with the company. Now the FOUNDER is the guy who got a harrassment case and "didn't take it seriously". What's the founder's responsibility to protect his company? Don't see how he needs that risk.


She explicitly said that she didn't want him (the boss) to do anything about it. So (in her mind), there was nothing she couldn't handle.

In addition, the event took place outside of work. You are not responsible for the social/sexual relationship of your employees in their private life.


She explicitly brought it to the boys, which means it is impacting the work environment. You are responsible for the work environment of your employees, including for addressing known low-leveling issues before they become higher-level issues perhaps involving other employees from the ones involved in the earlier issues.

Which is why you need to consult an employment lawyer and/or your internal HR expert.


"the boys"?


Typo, should have been "boss". Didn't see it while the edit window was open.


Good job on that situation. This one seems a bit different as I'm with some guys that almost everyone, even frat boys, knows what she claimed is something that can annoy people. I differ from most on a few points.

1. It happened on the weekend on personal time on WhatApp chat she agreed to. That's personal and has nothing to do with work. I don't think it's a work issue until it impacts work by happening at work or being a recurring problem of harassment with its obvious effects on teams.

2. Building on that, I'd like to hear both sides of the story and address it. There could be details on her end we don't know. On his, it could be a one-off thing that's correctable and not as bad as we think. Although, odds of that are low given she said "as friends in a work context" then got MILF and I'll tell you a secret as a response.

So, I'm not all for kicking someone to the curb after hearing a claim like this. I understand the legal risks people are bringing up. Someone might choose to eliminate it from their company given people are effectively disposable in terms of IT new hires. Same with the guy with no social skills. Yet, I'd at least investigate it from his perspective and weigh in on whether I'd consider it a work issue at all if it stayed one-time outside of work.

Thoughts?


You need to decide what kind of environment you want at work. Is it an environment that builds bridges and helps people work together? Or is it an environment that promotes fear of speaking with members of the opposite sex at all?

I don't believe making people scared to talk to women at all does anything good for diversity. Companies with good diversity financially outperform companies that lack it. So trying to find a way to help diverse people work together is in the best interest of the company. It is not some do-gooder, pie in the sky thing. It is a practical approach to trying to build a successful company.

The histrionic responses here by people terrified to talk to a woman, terrified of offending a woman, etc are rooted in the current unhealthy culture. Your employees will come from that culture. You are unlikely to get any employees at all that are entirely unmarred by the larger culture.

Thus, male or female, your employees are likely to be in need of some education as to how to work effectively with members of the opposite sex.

I do not entirely agree that "It happened away from work, so it is not work related." But I have work of my own to do today and this discussion has already taken far more of my time than I expected it to.


I applaud you for this comment and how you handled your situation. Hopefully the man in your story also apologized to you.

People are people and in a moment of idiocy can make stupid comments. Every single person has said something stupid at some point. It is how we handle things afterwards that matter.


No, he did not apologize. Nor did I expect him too. I expected him to treat me with respect, not kiss my ass, curry favor or fear me. I spent some time making sure he understood that I was not a threat to him, not out to get him and that I was also going to do all in my power to respect him. This is how I won his trust.

He was a very good looking man in a female majority department. Eventually, he seemed to take a few cues from me and quit letting women there verbally feel him up.

I am entirely satisfied with how it all went down.


I'm glad that you exist.

From what I get reading these threads on this post, many people with power to fire and hire people know a big glossy nothing about human interaction and psychology. Not even one person gives a thought to whether the guy knows what MILF actually is. Not a single consideration was given to his age, his background, his experience. No chance to make a single mistake. Is it mostly like this in the US?

And after all, if the woman thought that she was sexually harassed, I don't understand why she didn't tell that to the guy himself first, or didn't go to police, before telling it to her boss. We're talking about a bunch of adult, employed people here, why does the boss have to act like a primary school teacher overseeing interactions between adults?


She did the correct thing. She went to her boss. That is where she should seek remedy before going to the police.

It is typically dangerous for a woman to try to assert herself directly with a man she feels is harassing her. I am particularly savvy and I confronted him and also copied our two bosses and I was well aware I was taking a serious risk. But I also was 100% clear that if I did not take a firm stand with the first incident, it would only get harder.

This is a problem space I have studied for a lot of years. I am unusually well equipped to deal with it. Please don't start talking like the guy must be innocent. That is as bad, or worse, than the people ready to hang him high with zero due process.


"She did the correct thing. She went to her boss. That is where she should seek remedy before going to the police. It is typically dangerous for a woman to try to assert herself directly with a man she feels is harassing her."

Understood. I'm a male from a different culture and maybe miss the cultural context of the incident.

"This is a problem space I have studied for a lot of years. I am unusually well equipped to deal with it. Please don't start talking like the guy must be innocent. That is as bad, or worse, than the people ready to hang him high with zero due process."

I don't think I implied that he is/must be innocent. What I wanted to say --sorry if not clear-- was that accusing someone with sexual harassment is a big thing and should be done with the due care and consideration. Once labelled, there's no recovery.


Thank you for clarifying.


Why would you go to the police?! This is an employment matter, not a criminal matter. And she needs to tell the boss, because she wants to head off retaliation in the workplace.

I get tired of hearing these excuses about age, background, I didn't know what the word meant, in my old workplace I got to harass ladies all the time and it was fine. Just act like a professional. I'd even give the guy a pass if he said, "Look, I'm interested in you and I'd like to go on a date. If you're not interested, just say so and I won't mention it again." At least that's polite, instead of all this textbook boundary testing.


> Why would you go to the police?! This is an employment matter, not a criminal matter.

When you call it sexual harassment it's criminal. Otherwise you're basically saying that sexual harassment is not a crime. With regards to going to the boss, I'm perplexed with the role of the boss and the company in an interaction between two adults. Maybe that's a cultural issue, but I think it's the court's job to decide if an action was a sexual harassment or not, not some boss', neither a lawyers (If lawyers were to decide on cases, oh dear god...).

> I get tired of hearing these excuses about age, background, I didn't know what the word meant [...]

Well you can get tired of many things, but at the end of the day people need to be educated somehow, nobody is born a polite, educated, pleasurable person, one becomes so. And remember, we're not talking about a rape here, a stupid interaction instead.

> [...] in my old workplace I got to harass ladies all the time and it was fine.

Oh you're so funny. But the topic is serious: calling a person a sexual offender.


> When you call it sexual harassment it's criminal.

No. Sexual harassment is not always a criminal offence.

> With regards to going to the boss, I'm perplexed with the role of the boss and the company in an interaction between two adults.

Those two adults met at work, and this meeting was a work related meeting - she had said that. The employer has a duty of care to the employees, so that's why its gone to the boss.

> Maybe that's a cultural issue, but I think it's the court's job to decide if an action was a sexual harassment or not

If the boss doesn't do anything it might go to court. Or if the boss does something like fire the man, and he disagrees, it might go to court.

> neither a lawyers (If lawyers were to decide on cases, oh dear god...).

Well, if it goes to court everyone is going to have lawyers, right?


Where I am judges decide and lawyers defend. I didn't say lawyers are unnecessary, just they can't make the ultimate decision. For the rest of your comment my answer is my parent comment, I don't think I can elaborate further.


When you call it sexual harassment it's criminal.

IANAL, but if/when this is eventually made criminal, urban construction will basically cease when they haul all the construction workers off to prison for catcalling. The reason the employer is involved is that the employer wants to avoid getting sued. On the street, there is no employer, and no one to care if remarks are made, so long as those remarks don't constitute assault.


> Not even one person gives a thought to whether the guy knows what MILF actually is.

How could he possibly not know what it means? The acronym doesn't work for "Mom I'd Like to Have Coffee With."


It's easy enough to hear slang and not know exactly what the etymology is. That's why Urban Dictionary exists at all, and some people think LOL means "lots of love", or that unicode Winking Tongue emoji means vomitously ill.


> [letting women] verbally feel him up

Could you explain what you mean by this phrase?


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11687362


I really get what you're saying. But don't you think the fact his guy is already acting like a cowboy a little while into his job raises some red flags? Sure, if he'd been there a while and was carrying on like this then some sensitivity training might be the best option. But this BDM is acting like a loose cannon somewhere that he has just been employed. Seems like a bad hire all-round, regardless of the SH stuff.


Your sexual harassment policy cannot be written for one specific instance. And if you write it with a "Guilty until proven innocent" (or just hey, hang 'em high on her word alone) framing, this is going to cause serious problems.

I am aware that people like to get on their high horse concerning perceived injustice, but the comments here are a) passing judgement on third hand information -- she told her boss, who came here and repeated it presumably in his own words and b) reacting to only one side of the story.

I get that actually determining what actually happened is a pain in the ass, but if this man is fired out of hand based on a) the female employee's remarks and b) histrionic discussion on an overwhelmingly male forum where many of the men here have no idea how to interact effectively with female colleagues and if this becomes the precedent for the company policy, I think that is very problematic.

Would you want to work for a company with a known track record of firing someone out of hand based on the remarks of another employee, without so much as asking for both sides of the story? Never mind issues like this going to court, how are you going to attract good talent if people are terrified that the women in the office can say something to the boss and get them canned the next day without any attempt whatsoever to hear both sides?


Agree. I would definitely not want to work at the kind of place you mention (it actually sounds a little bit like modern academia in the liberal arts). But third-hand information aside, I can't imagine a context in which someone would feel it's okay to act like this at a brand new workplace.

I wouldn't call the discussion here histrionic either. I think it's a progressive dialogue of really differing opinions, which I find are illuminating issues I hadn't thought of. Also most people here are pretty intelligent and would be treating it like a thought experiment, as we know we do not have all the information at hand.


An awful lot of people here are ready to fire the guy without due process. And you cannot say "third hand information aside." You cannot set that fact aside. It is all we have to go on.

A lot of what has been written here does look histrionic to me.


Late to this party, sorry. Just saw your blog post, commenting here.

I agree with you that the female in this story handled the situation optimally. I recently made a sexual harassment claim at a megacorp. It was handled much as you described. I was pleased by the whole process and outcome. Much improved, very different from how these things were handled in the 90s.

I agree with patio11's advice that the founder should lawyer up. Being a startup, they probably don't have mature processes. Lawyer + HR can instruct founder how to handle this situation legally, professionally.

I disagree that the new hire should be summarily fired for a first offense. But as a dude I predict this guy will eventually be fired; it's best to start that documentation now.


If you assume at the outset that he is on track to be fired, that has a tendency to be self fulfilling prophecy.


Why will firing him worsen the problem? I would fire this guy immediately.

> Men and women need to learn to interact at work.

Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.


> Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.

I know it feels good to take zero tolerance policies, and we all do it (why do you think we have so many people in prison in this country).

But..maybe he is some kid in his early- or mid-20's and has very little workplace experience outside of small startups working mostly with other males his age. He may have never had the opportunity to understand why this kind of behavior makes a workplace uncomfortable for those on the receiving end (and others as well).

Firing him is obviously one way to teach that lesson, and will not only lose him this job but possibly make it difficult to find another. Giving him an opportunity to learn it through training is another.

I do, though, think it's probably unfair to make an outcast of every young male who isn't born with a deep understanding of why you need to keep your attraction to women restrained once you start a grown-up job, just because you were born that way. At that point in your life (if I'm remembering correctly, it's been quite a while ;), most of your energy and focus has been in trying to attract whatever you are attracted to, and there are often no blunt cues indicating "hey, this situation is different from what you are used to".

As patio11 said, though, lawyer first if you want to keep the business alive.


I have no sympathy for the "boys will be boys" side of this argument. I am a male in my early 20's so am familiar with the mindset. Sure maybe zero tolerance is a bit far, but every woman I know has a story like this. Every one has had to deflect some strange workplace advance or some uncomfortable proposition by a superior. The problem is magnified 10 fold when the workplace is so heavily skewed male (as it is in tech). Retroactive sensitivity training isn't going to fix this problem.


Consider the case of a small startup with only one or two female employees. If OP does in fact fire him and provide training to staff it wouldn't take much deductive reasoning for the rest of the employees to figure out who was involved with the incident. Maybe the accused was favored in the office and some employees take his side. Maybe some employees have a bias that is set off by what they deem to be necessary sexual harassment training.

Just to be clear I think he should be fired, but it's a shitty situation to be in with a small office and a small number of, presumably close, employees.


This is a fair point. Thanks.


> Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.

Sexism should already be over, but it isn't, and is more complicated than people who think they are not sexist declaring zero tolerance policies.


Not sure where you're getting the "think they are not sexist" from. Everyone has unconscious biases (men and women). Some are more aware of them than others. This problem is not sexist in and of itself. It would be equally inappropriate for a woman to put a man in this position in the work place or for a man to put another man in this position, or woman to put another woman etc.


Have you studied sexism at all?

It's significantly more complicated than your simple explanation implies, which is mostly my point.

Hint: I don't disagree with that it would be equally inappropriate for a woman to put a man in this position, but that doesn't mean it isn't sexist.


I don't understand why you're calling out "people who think they aren't sexist". Why is that point important? (Besides to belittle me?) I'm not claiming to be free from bias here. Everyone has biases both conscious and unconscious.

And can you please explain how it is sexist? (I have not studied sexism..and am curious to learn.) Your hint gives no justification except your assertion again that it is sexist without explanation.


I'm not calling anyone out or belittling anyone. I am saying that if you acknowledge that you are sexist (as everyone of both genders is), then a zero tolerance policy doesn't do anything to solve the problem.

If you haven't studied sexism, how do you get to claim that the situation isn't sexist? Therein lies the problem.

For some reason you think it's fine for you to declare things as not sexist despite both your acknowledged bias, and your acknowledged ignorance about what sexism is. Only people with relative social advantage can rely on support when they make pronouncements from bias and ignorance. Marginalized groups have an altogether different experience when they state what is just as obvious to them.

Ask yourself why you haven't had to learn anything about sexism, and who does need to know about it?


Thank you! People need to be allowed to make mistakes and have a decent chance at improving themselves. For all we know, the person in question might just have arrived from some super sexist workplace where such behaviour is the norm.


> arrived from some super sexist workplace

Sexual harassment is not necessarily sexist and in this case OPs dilemma does not deal with sexism.

Going by the definition of sexism "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

Unless we dilute the word sexism to mean any sexual encounter, hitting on someone does not fit that definition. If it did, nearly every relationship and every person would be considered sexist.


Have to say that makes sense. Had the same experience, except creepy behavior from a female colleague. Talked to HR, they talked to her, she apologized through HR (my preference). Work was awkward after that, but you deal with it. She eventually left.

I did not think what she did justified firing, although I would have preferred she were gone right away, of course.

People do learn boundaries. One should not overreact.


There is certain conduct that is so beyond the pale that it doesn't matter if it is the first time or not. Calling someone a MILF at work is one of those things.


I just wanted to say that I appreciate the nuanced tone of your reply, as well as the nuance present in your responses to those that disagree with you and also those that seem just slightly too eager to agree. Every individual has a personal anecdote that validates their "side" of the debate, and these anecdotes tend to drive the cadence of our reasoning into a direction that offers little consideration for outcomes that push us forward as a society in favor of those that capitulate to a sense of indignation that demands unequivocal satisfaction.

Thanks.


I think if the guy in question had been a long time or otherwise indispensable employee, this would be the right course of action. However, OP said he was just hired. In that case, it's probably easier just to fire him.


Easier and right are often not the same thing.


Interesting, did you first explain your complaints to that colleague (without CC-ing others) and got no result?


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11687362


Not a native English speaker and maybe I'm missing something between lines - I don't understand your story.

So your "I advised him to never speak that way to me again" was about "gushing"? I had too look up the word, but couldn't find offensive example atm. And as I understood you've never asked him to not to "gush" you (whatever that means) before CC-ing others, right?


No, sorry. I never asked him to not gush at me, nor did I find that offensive. Nor did i need to ask that. The detail that you are missing is that he turned something I said into sexual innuendo, something he had never done before. In other words, he took a non sexual comment by me and replied to it in a sexually suggestive manner. This was not something he had ever done before and I was very clear it was malicious behavior. He did not like the fact that I was replying to him in a more low key manner and he was upping the stakes.


Oh, got it, now it completely makes sense to me, thanks. Just minor note regarding the prose - that innuendo is mentioned once in the middle, and kind of "by the way" I think, while you mention a lot of "gushing" before and after that, and it grabs the attention, so I thought that must be something bad.. :) but probably because of my "non-native-speakerness".


Yeah, with answering your question, I realized I could stand to make that clearer. I hope to get to that today. So I appreciate you asking. Thanks.


Excellent advice AND an Aliens reference. Wish I could upvote more than once.


I agree with Patrick: you should terminate the employee, immediately. Try to understand how lucky you just got here. Here's a simple tweak to the story you told that creates a nightmare scenario: the person who reported this to you, who was called a "milf" by the bizdev guy, was on a PIP.

I disagree with Patrick on the mechanics, subject to one condition:

If, like a sane person, you consulted a lawyer before you began hiring people, and so you're offering a standard employee agreement --- the kind every competent firm in the industry offers --- then the answer here is:

Just fire, and move on.

I don't know that "with cause" adds much.

The principle here is pretty straightforward. You got lucky this time. A new hire crossed a serious line, and the person they irritated came to you directly with a complaint, rather than through their lawyer. You will not get lucky next time. And next time, there will be a history that you'll be accountable for.


Can you translate to human why " the person who reported this to you, who was called a "milf" by the bizdev guy, was on a PIP." is a nightmare scenario. If she is on a PIP (just checked out what that means), she is on a final warning basically?


She's someone you're trying to manage out of the company. Maybe you were harsher on her performance metrics than you needed to be, because in the back of your head, getting rid of someone who complained about sexual harassment was easier than dealing with the problem. Presto: colorable sexual harassment and/or retaliation claim.


How does firing the accused harasser clear the path to PIP firing? It still looks just as much as retaliation for pushing another employee out.


It doesn't. That's the point: get rid of sexual harassment risks before they can create problems like this.


Thank you.


If someone sexually harasses someone who the company needs to let go for unrelated performance reasons, then this gives the victim a lot of leverage for lawsuits or expensive financial settlements if and when she is terminated for those unrelated performance reasons.


You're right. If she was already on a dated and documented PIP before the report, then you're probably OK. It would be worse if you were just about to put her on a PIP.


I don't think timestamps are going to be as dispositive as you'd hope they'd be in this situation.


Even in that case, it might be worthwhile to get a quick confirmation from your lawyer.


Not a lawyer. When the female employee says she doesn't want to cause trouble, it just means that, if you are going to do something about this situation, then you better own it. Make this a problem between you and the employee who acted inappropriately. i.e. if/when he demonstrates understandable reasons for acting the way he did, you don't turn this around on her.


Once, I had a coworker report a sexual harassment to me (I was the team leader) but she said that she wanted me to deal with it personally, that she didn't want to make a fuss about it and that I shouldn't say anything to HR. We had a good working relationship and, like OP, I also didn't want to violate the "trust" she placed in me. I respected her "wishes" and acted accordingly. This was a mistake for many many reasons, among them the fact that it also ended up biting me in the ass. After a while someone else said some very inappropiate things to her and she ended up hating the job and decided to leave. At her exit interview with HR she said why she was leaving and, needless to say, HR didn't like the fact that I was told of the harrassment and didn't report it to them. "she told me not to get you involved and I didn't want to break her trust" doesn't cut it as an excuse (and it's also very unprofessional). HR then had a meeting with me where they let me have it. After the meeting the coworker and I talked about it and she essentially said that yeah, I should've disregarded her wishes and gotten HR involved early on. The lesson is to do what you have to do and don't pay much attention to the whole "I don't want to make a fuss" thing. My guess is that women say stuff like that because of the "likability" tax imposed on them. The whole experience was very eye opening to me, I was very young and relatively inexperienced as a team leader. Being male I was also blind at the myriad of stupid shit women get thrown at them by professional men that really should know better. Well, not blind, I knew sexual harassment happened but I never expected it to happen so close to me. I guess that being young I always thought like it was something that other people (working at other places) did. I'm still stupefied at some of the things that she experienced while she worked there and amazed that stuff like that still happens in this day and age.


Consider that when a woman reports harassment and says "I don't want to cause trouble," it's coming from a lifetime of not having her experiences taken seriously and situations like this backfiring. <i>Boys will be boys, you shouldn't be dressing like that, maybe you shouldn't have lead him on..</i> and then the woman reporting the harassment gets labeled as the troublemaker instead of the real perpetrator.

Demonstrate that you are taking her experiences seriously and behavior like that exhibited by your new employee is not acceptable. Get him out of there.


it's coming from a lifetime of not having her experiences taken seriously and situations like this backfiring.

Or, because corporate culture almost everywhere can be summed up with the phrase "don't rock the boat", gender notwithstanding.

There's no need to prejudge every woman as a victim - certainly one you know nothing about other than a one paragraph story on HN.

This is what's called benevolent sexism.


This. (Or you can just call it sexism)

At one of my previous employers, we had a woman quite high up in the hierarchy (boss's boss, or maybe one more level) who regularly called on young male interns to "fix" her computer, which invariably involved them crawling underneath her desk...or asking pretty much all the inappropriate job interview questions etc. etc.


Wow. Interesting example. I wouldn't fix it while she was sitting at the desk lol...


That's the thing. This IS a problem that the employer has now.

Let me paint a hypothetical: Idiot salesmonkey learns that hitting on a colleague doesn't get him in trouble. So he hits on someone else. They have an immediate bad reaction (as you'd expect) and the shite hits the fan. During the ensuing nastiness it comes out that the salesmonkey hit on the employee, who reported it, and that nothing happened. Immediate escalation of nastiness ensues.

Not a lawyer, but I went through an MBA where our legal lecturer had a lot of these sorts of stories to tell.

OP HAS to do something. Do NOT ignore, even if the offended-against employee can handle it and doesn't want to cause a scene.


the suggestion was to OWN it not IGNORE it.


This. If she didn't think it was an issue, she wouldn't have brought it to the OP's attention.

What she's really saying is: "I don't want to be embarrassed and it would make me feel guilty if he was punished because of me, so I don't want to advocate for a course of action"

But she is right to have brought it to the OP. Now he is obligated to take care of it discreetly and professionally.


Respectfully, that's not the employee's decision to make.


your parent is suggesting a pappabear approach, "i heard what you said, and although she might not have a problem with what you did, I do"

it protects her from trouble, and frames the dispute as between the founder and newhire.


What do you mean?


While it's good to respect her wishes, the outcome of downplaying the problem could affect many more people. There's the cultural impact of leading people believing that sexual harassment isn't taken seriously, and the very real problem that leaving it alone could lead to it happening again which might result in a key employee leaving (or suing, or initiating criminal proceedings). At the very least there needs to be some sort of written warning to act as evidence that the business took it seriously.


Yes, but darkerside wasn't recommending downplaying the problem, but "owning it". I don't see how peterep's post is a reply to that.


it means that once it's been reported, it is extremely unwise to just "let it go". Now that the employer known that sexual harrasment took place, if they do nothing about it then they will be HUGELY liable if something worse happens later on (which seems likely, seeing as this guy did this as a relatively new hire).

Additionally, you generally don't want ass-hats that do this kind of shit working for your company, when the other party has made if obvious the advances are unwanted (we can only go off what OP has said though) working for your company. Especially if its small.


> it means that once it's been reported, it is extremely unwise to just "let it go".

That isn't a quote from the person you replied to and that isn't what they said at all. Not even ballpark.

You seem to be replying to a strawman argument rather than the person you hit reply on.


Many people go "lawyer lawyer lawyer", making your first sentence ambiguous: I first read it as "don't get a lawyer" but reading it again a minute later (after different context) you could mean "I am not a lawyer". Which do you mean?


Lawyer is good advice.

If it's not acceptable in the company then you should tell him to leave.

If you don't you poison your culture.

The employee now knows that she will still need to "deal with" harassment at this organization. Her outlook on the company culture will be forever changed. And she will share this experience with her friends and potential recruits forever.

Likewise the harasser will know that there are not serious consequences for unacceptable behavior and will continue to "get away with" things. He will repeat the behavior among his friends and towards future staff. They may not have the confidence to report it.

This is one of the root causes of the gender imbalance in the work place.

Harassment is never ok.

This needs to be explicit and you should work hard to build a team where there is complete trust that violations will not occur.


1. While you need a lawyer for advice and to cover your ass, lawyers can’t lead. Lawyers offer advice and dot i’s. Weak leaders delegate their responsibilities to lawyers.

2. You need to assess your culture. Is this one bad apple or is this something larger. The work hard, party hard, live in the office startup culture can be a breeding ground for this. Not that you can’t have this environment and succeed, but you need to understand it and put checks and safeguards in place. One option is to designate a sexual harassment rep and make sure everybody knows this person’s roll and that they can talk to them, possibly anonymously.

3. Talk to your female employee and let her know you have to do something. You can’t ignore it as that effects the company and thus everyone. Get her opinion about how much of a problem his continued presence in the office will be. She may not want him to be fired as she may feel partially responsible (not saying she is in any way, but we don’t know how she’ll feel).

4. Talk to the bizdev employee. Document the meeting and any outcomes or remediation. Is this a problem of just being junior and not yet having the ability to separate barroom behavior from the work place. Why did you hire this person? Are those qualities still there and does this person have potential? Only you know.

Talk to a lawyer, but remember, you are the leader, they are not. Walk through the steps and make the tough decision about what is best for everyone. Reactionary firings can be almost as negative on your culture (not your liability though) as doing nothing. Be the type of leader who talks to their people and tries to come to a decision that is best for everyone. Don’t be the leader who makes reactionary decisions behind closed doors.

Also, don’t talk about ‘kicking someones ass’. As a leader, this is almost as bad as calling someone a MILF. Step back from your emotions. After a decade in the military, part of it working in legal, I’ve seen a lot worse: rape, child porn, attempted murder, grand theft, fraud. While obnoxious, calling someone MILF is pretty far down on the scale. This makes it tougher in some ways since firing isn’t automatically the only response.


Ok everything about this situation aside, it feels like a bold move to post about this publicly on HN, particularly when you're concerned about trust issues. I honestly can't believe I don't see any other comments along these lines.

You run a startup. A lot of people read HN in general, but I have to assume startup employees are _even more_ likely to read HN. As such, it doesn't feel crazy that one or both of these employees might see this considering it's sitting on the front page and doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

So...there is a lot of commentary here about how you should handle this situation, but in my opinion, posting pretty specific details about it publicly was among the very worst first moves you could make.


I have been thinking about Yishan-style CEOs for a while now, though sexual harassment is probably a special case here. BTW, I hasn't done much research on sexual harassment laws, but so far I don't think they are as bad as anti-discrimination laws. This is partly because sexual harassment often do leave evidence behind. This don't mean they are worth the costs though.


One thing to remember if you keep him on and he continues this behavior you might not find out about it for a while. People won't always speak out and tell you. What happens when he starts harassing your new hires? If he is new to the company and already this bold what happens in a year or two?


When an employee makes you aware of a possible occurrence of sexual harassment, your obligation as the employer is to investigate and take appropriate action.

Tell the employee that your company isn't one that believes this kind of behavior is acceptable, tell her you're going to talk to a lawyer, tell her you need to investigate this, and that she isn't causing trouble and you're glad she brought this to your attention.

Get an HR professional, lawyer or not, and deal with this immediately.

Let me assure you, when she said she doesn't want to cause trouble, she didn't mean she wanted you to do nothing. It means she wants you to do something, and she doesn't want to be blamed, she doesn't want the office to talk about it, and she wants you to own it.

If you do nothing, one day, if she (or someone else) ever decides to file a lawsuit for sexual harassment and fostering a hostile work environment against your company, you saying "but she told me she didn't want to cause any trouble" is not an excuse to sit idly by.


Please get someone from HR involved. Do not immediately fire the employee as this could lead to severe financial problems for you. Despite the peasant with pitchforks in this comment section, wrongful termination / paying unemployment / litigation, etc. is also something you may want to avoid. This employee of yours may not be aware of the policy or the law and is possibly entitled to progressive disciplinary action based on your employment policies (and I disagree with those below that said sexual harassment was somehow equivalent to murder and embezzlement - WTF?). From what I read sexual harassment laws might not even apply to your business if you have fewer than so many employees, I am not a lawyer or an HR professional, so don't listen to me.

The employee did something wrong, no sensible person doubts that, but not necessarily something that allows you to fire them without consequences for you. You need to speak to HR and then if necessary your legal representation.


Who are all these people who think a small startup has a HR department?


Really? I'm pretty sure my advice has merit even if you don't have any HR professionals on full-time staff, just like 'lawyer up' has merit if you don't have a lawyer on staff. It really isn't hard to piece together.

If you have no HR staff or lawyer on staff and have a question requiring their expertise, you can hire consultants or lawyers to assist you with your problem.

If you are a really small start up and can't afford to do any of this, then you should read the law yourself and make your own conclusions.

If you don't have time to make your own conclusions you should just do whatever you want.

How many contingencies do I need to assume here? I'm giving advice on the Internet.


With respect, and I'm not saying this applies to you, but I'm poking fun at the people throughout this thread who keep saying that these incidents should be reported to HR, or we should get HR involved, or some combination.

In my opinion, these are comments from people sitting comfortably behind their chair at insert Fortune 500 company here, who have no idea what it's like to work at or run a startup. The suggestion that said startup should go out and hire an HR consultant is equally ridiculous.

That's not to say "lawyer up" isn't good advice, because I think it is, but startups routinely hire lawyers; they do not routinely hire HR people.

My startup was almost 4 years old and well past a B round before we ended up hiring our first HR person.

So, to be clear, what I'm saying is if the problem is bad enough, you should consult a lawyer. If it isn't, you should handle it in-house with common sense and perhaps some advice from advisors/lawyers. At no point do I think it's reasonable to advise someone to go out and hire an HR consultant.


I guess the same ones who imagine that all the employees have an employment contract.


Most employment contracts allow for a probationary period during which the contract can just be cancelled. It sounds like this was a new employee so it may well be the case.

I believe sexual harassment is considered gross misconduct, and that can be grounds for immediate termination regardless.

A good lawyer would be able to advise.


Fire him, even if there are financial consequences to you. It's the right thing to do. Sure, do it right and follow the law as best as possible... but do it.


First of all, talk to a lawyer.

One thing that is really overlooked about harassment is that it's not about a single event. Realize a few things:

* She's saying that it's ok because in the real world most companies will protect the man over the woman. Women who want to get ahead learn to never put her neck out too far. All too often, clearly bad behavior will result in "training" for the guy. (After all, she was a hottie asking for it, am I right?) Do you really want accept an apology for her that it's not a big deal that she was harassed at work?

* Workplace harassment happens because most guys know they _can_ get away with it. More importantly: if this was the line cause a stir, the he'll just be more subtle next time. It's boundary testing that is no different from a four-year-old. It _will_ get around, because this guy will associate with others who don't mind his behavior. Do you really want to be known for that type of environment?

* Once the workplace accepts an event, it becomes that much harder to rationalize dealing with equal or less events. You'll have people actually arguing that Henry wasn't punished when asked Sally out, why are you punishing me? And, he could have valid precedent. Do you really want to be dealing with the fine lines between behaviors?

Fundamentally, sexual harassment erodes trust. If you have a workplace that has clear line between humor and personal relations, that creates teams who understand and care about each other: you can joke about sexual innuendo, personal problems, etc. When someone is unhappy with something, he or she feels safe to speak up. Encourage people being humble and considerate. If harassment is allowed, at best it just causes drama. At worst, it causes power problems that kill trust, brings in more people who causes problems, and the real possibility that someone could own your start up by lawsuit.


I'm not familiar with US customs, so little confused here: is asking your co-worker out is considered a sexual harassment? Or is it the "milf" part?


Asking somebody out isn't sexual harassment. Insisting and making crude work-inappropriate remarks is harassment, and that's not just in the US: [76/207/EEC] Article 2 § 2

> harassment: where an unwanted conduct related to the sex of a person occurs with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment

> sexual harassment: where any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature occurs, with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment

[76/207/EEC] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLE...


Though were "crude work-inappropriate remarks" the case here?

We here know too little to really make educated statements.


I'm having trouble thinking of a situation in which calling someone a milf would be anything but a "crude work-inappropriate remark".


Not knowing enough English slang to know what it stands for? I wrote sth similar elsewhere in this thread, I guess to many milf means sexy 30+ yrs old female.


milf


Not sure about asking a co-worker out, but calling someone a MILF (Mom I'd Like to Fuck) sounds like sexual harrassment to me.


I find it quite strange that you're getting downvoted for this comment. As a man, I wouldn't want to work at a place where such a comment wouldn't be considered harassment.


Don't know why you got downvoted, this is EXACTLY what MILF means.


I upvoted your comment. Calling someone you work with and barely know a milf is an asinine move. That said though - she might have led him on when she agreed to move the conversation to whatsapp.


According to what was told, they moved the conversation to Whatsapp before he asked her to hang out. What would she be leading him on about?


Implicitly agreeing to continue a conversation that may become inappropriate for the regular employer-provided channels.

In more archaic terms, he asked for her number so that he could call her up after work. If she were not at all interested, she would not have released her personal contact info.

Obviously, she was not expecting him to immediately blow his chances by making a clumsy, ham-handed, and vulgar come-on. She [wisely] notified her boss because men that do not demonstrate emotional maturity may have difficulty handling rejection gracefully.


I think once the conversation is moved from the company slack channel to whatsapp qualifies it as getting moved from the work-related realm to the private realm.

One can argue that by agreeing to move the convo to whatsapp she sent a "sure let's have a private conversation" message.


"Private conversation" is anything not related to work, from asking if there's a good restaurant to geeking out on the latest TV show episode; it certainly does not imply any sexual attraction!


Agreed. However once the conversation goes private it's just that - a private non work related conversation. Unless there's anything illegal there like physical threats etc it's a private matter between the parties directly involved.


From every sexual.harassment training I've had given by lawyers working in the field, the idea that a change of venue/forum necessarily removes something like this from work-related is absolutely not the case.


I think there's a fine line there. From what I understand from whatever corporate training I went through in the past - if there's a job-related activity like team dinner and then some ppl go to the bar for a few drinks - this is still 'job related'. Same goes for business-related travel and so on.

In this particular case though - a weekend conversation after an explicit request to take it private - not sure if this qualifies as "job related".

And even if it somehow does qualify as being 'job related' I guess my point is that I can see how by agreeing to switch to whatsapp the signal that she sent was 'yes, let's talk in private' and if he's the kind of dude who calls someone he barely knows a 'milf' I can totally see how in his mind this was 'yea let's hook up' :)


Coworkers speak privately to one another all the time about all sorts of things. Even in private conversations, they can reasonably expect professional and appropriate behavior from their colleagues.

When does someone become "more" than a coworker? There's no clear line there, but it's definitely not during the very first private conversation.


Don't think there's a question here whether his comments were appropriate or not. They were not.

Ppl also get harassed on the street with all kinds of inappropriate comments.

The question here is whether this constitutes a workplace sexual harassment or not. It's probably going to be a judgement call on behalf of the employer, however they have to be careful not to get a wrongful termination lawsuit to deal with down the line if they do end up letting him go.


It's a workplace issue because the two people were brought together by their employer and the conversation was initiated in a work context.

You're right that people get harassed by strangers in all sorts of public places, but that's not what happened here.


Yup same here. Every sexual harassment training course I've attended has said that just because it is not happening on company time or on company property does not make it not harassment.


if i said "can we move this conversation somewhere more private, and outside work" and you said "yes" is there an implication of some consent?

could the guy have been imagining that her agreeing to move the convo was her approval, and anything further was her playing hard to get?

that said, the magic words "sure as friends in work context" should have been a cease and desist to end any further bright ideas.


> if i said "can we move this conversation somewhere more private, and outside work" and you said "yes" is there an implication of some consent?

Consent to have a private conversation, yes. Consent for sexual advances, not necessarily.

Coworkers can ask for private conversations for all sorts of reasons. Maybe they have a work question and don't want to look dumb by asking it in front of everybody. Maybe they want a restaurant recommendation and don't want to clutter the work chat with that. Maybe they heard you've been to Orlando, and they're planning a vacation there, and is Disney World worth it? Etc.

It can even be a private conversation to ask a coworker out--that's fine if done appropriately. Dropping F-bombs, even in acronym form, is not.


That specific wording ("somewhere more private") might imply acceptance of sexual advances, but nowhere do we see those words in the original post, and I find it hard to believe that one would say "yes" to that if one wasn't interested in being asked out.


if a coworker asks me for my personal phone number or email address, something is up. there is a reason they arent using official company provided communication. asking for my phone number sounds like explicit "move this off the record."


Yes, and that might be because they want you to make a move on them, or it might be - like it very recently happened to me - that they just wanted to ask you for help on a side project. I can definitely tell you that I wasn't leading my coworker on when I sent him my personal email address, and I find it weird that it would be someone's only assumption.


If instead of asking you to help out with a project they would've asked you out, would you consider this to be an inappropriate/sexual harassment situation though?


No, but neither did she. If they kept pressing after being turned down, yes, probably.


There is no US customs to this kind of thing. Every where I've ever worked the rules and thoughts on it have varied. It's a huge minefield of problems that very few handle well. The general idea is don't be rude and/or crude to anyone. In some cases asking out a coworker is fine, in others it's a violation; could depend on how you ask them. The milf part is clearly a problem.


It's generally uncouth to ask out a coworker, especially at a small company. Incredibly unprofessional to do it within the first few days of joining. The milf part is the icing on the cake.


A quick Google around shows that 38% of people have dated a co-worker, so it seems unusual to call it uncouth.


US custom is to sue first and ask questions later. As a result, successful companies mitigate their exposure to that particular risk.


Very good question!

Generally in USA everything can be considered sexual harassment. All you have to do is go to HR and complain that (here is important part), in your personal opinion, you were harassed.

Also it doesn't have to be verbal or physical. You shouldn't stare either.


I'm going to address how to handle the employee who came to you in confidence.

You need to sit down with her--before you do anything--and inform her you need to do something and why. Tell her you understand she came to you in confidence, but this behavior can not be tolerated. She might be able to brush it off, but the next employee the biz dev person harasses might not be so understanding and file a sexual harassment lawsuit against the company.

And if it's discovered YOU knew of his behavior and did nothing.....


> I want to fire him immediately. If I do, she'll know and it will be a violation of the trust she placed in me.

Beyond creating a potential legal liability-- the biz dev guy demonstrated poor decision quality, bad peer relationships, and questionable business acumen. All cause for performance dismissal. He caused the true breach of trust. You can leave your female employee entirely out of any discussions.


Don't fire without talking first. I'm not saying your innocent employee is lying but try to get both sites and possibly some proof (the messages).

/ EDIT: I missed the part where he said that he saw the evidence - sorry.

Why I'm saying this is because I was in a similar situation once. Employee X didn't like me without me knowing. At a party (alcohol involved) we talked a little (normal things, nothing sexually, personal, private or anything like it) and that was it. On the next day I got asked into the office and have been told that multiple people filed a sexual harassment claim against me. No names who that could have been, no proof, but I was guilty.

They told me that I either have to leave the company or send a public (anonymous) apology for the bad things I did. (They didn't even tell me the things I did)

Until today I can still only guess who it was and it perplexes me that "multiple people" filed that claim against me. After talking to my better friend coworkers it seems like all people that could have filed that were friends with that one employee X that didn't like me.

Long story short, I still don't believe I did anything that could have been even remotely near sexual harassment but I'm feeling horrible. Maybe the worst memory in my entire career. Every time there is a harassment training I get reminded of what happened and that there are indeed people out there that call me a "sexual harasser".


I think the reaction of this thread is a little over the top. Lets calm down and be professional and adult before we convict someone based on scant information. I know it is fun to rail on someone but firing a person is not a minor issue and could potentially destroy someone's career.

The information we are presented with is minimal. This is perfectly understandable but it means that no one in this thread has anything like enough detail or context to make any judgement on firing someone.

What if the man was simply making a pass at someone he liked but unfortunately was clumsy and inept at doing so? Should it never be possible for a man to ask a woman from work out on a date? What if the woman has a reputation of being a social justice warrior that hates men and loves any excuse to complain about any perceived slight. We have no idea on the ages or marital statuses of the two people. What if he is a married middle aged man with three kids and she is a young intern? That makes it sound a lot more creepy. What if they are both single and the same age and seem to have the same hobbies? Does that change things a little? You cannot judge this scenario based on a couple of sentences from the OP.

My point is not to defend him, I have no idea if he is a predatory creep or a good guy that made a simple mistake. But then neither does anyone else here. Get a lawyer so you can follow a sensible policy of sitting down with the accused and ask about his side of the story. Depending on the response determines your next action.


While normally I'd agree with your point, the OP gave a pretty clear description of what the employee did.

>He asked to take the conversation off Slack (moved to Whatsapp) and asked if they could hang out (she said, "sure as friends in work context"), referred to her as a milf (ugh...), and asked if he could tell her a secret (she refused)

>I've seen the evidence of the texts in question.

It doesn't get any less ambiguous than that.


"Milf" is where he crossed the line. Otherwise it's just clumsy courting. But "milf" is sexual harassment.


Consult your lawyer.

I've attended a few sexual harassment training's over the years. There are no clear cut rules. In fact, in my first training, harassment couldn't occur until the other sex said "stop, no, etc." In the last one I attended, things aren't so clear cut, and it seems like the lawyers have made sexual harassment so unclear that the only ones who can determine it are the lawyers themselves.

It doesn't matter that it was after work, using a non-work communication medium. It still could be or maybe its not harassment.

You are going to have to talk with her and let her know that you have to act upon this. You don't know what is going to happen. At a bare minimum, something is going to his HR file. At worse, a lawsuit is going to happen.


Based on the training I've received - document the incident, talk to the problem employee and remind him that this is not appropriate business behavior, and warn him that a repeat performance will not be tolerated, nor will any attempts at retribution aimed at the company at large, or the female employee. Provide training to the company at large, so they know what is, and what is not acceptable in a business. Get training yourself so you know the law and how to handle this in the future.

I disagree with the chorus of "Fire him now!" in the other comments; startups hire a lot of folks straight out of college, so there's a significant chance that the employee in question has never been informed of what is, and is not, appropriate when they want to pursue a romance with someone from the office. What may be acceptable in a college classroom is very different from what is acceptable in an office.

Mistakes happen, words and body language which were not included in the chat log may have been misconstrued... you have one side of the story right now. Get both sides, and give the opportunity for the man to learn.

Involving a lawyer to ensure that you're on the right side of the law is, of course, a damned good idea. Especially if you end up deciding that you want to go down the road of firing.


If you don't know by 21 that calling a woman a milf is degrading and offensive, you're never going to learn. Or at least not in any timeframe where it's valid for this company.


Amen. Everyone knows; it's just a kid getting out of punishment to say otherwise. Readers might be impressed at just how resistant some people are to learning what's offensive: they can learn calculus, botanical names, database management, but miraculously just never figure out that hitting on colleagues is problematic.


I think you over estimate how mature people are. I worked at a bottom heavy company and constantly wondered if I was this immature at their age.


> If you don't know by 21 ... you're never going to learn

Ah, the good old "people's personalities are set in stone by 21" canard. If people were 'never going to learn', then first-wave feminism wouldn't have attracted anyone over 20, for example.

This kind of statement is just an excuse to throw a person under a bus, rather than take the effort to educate them.

> Or at least not in any timeframe where it's valid for this company.

And this is also nonsense. A simple talk can be enough. When I was at university, one of the professors kept asking improper questions of the female students, told to me by a female colleague. I went to my professor and asked what could be done, mentioned what my female colleague said (and stressed that she'd asked not to be named). My professor had a chat with the questionable professor, and the problem disappeared instantly.

It's called 'feedback', and we ask it of our colleagues, our clients, our trainees and trainers. Some people respond really well to feedback. For those that don't, well, at least you tried to improve things rather than kick the can down the road to someone else to deal with.


Come on. You've still got a lot to learn about women if you think that. Where appropriate, calling a woman a MILF is actually perfectly acceptable. Here are specific comments I've made to women: "Ummm. MILFY.", to "That is nice, milfy look." The receivers include romantic prospects, girlfriends, my wife, and female friends. It is not something I use everyday, but it is very much within acceptable bounds. No one has ever been offended by my use of the word MILF. Why? Because I understand proper social etiquette. Example: my wife is dressed to the nines before we're about to out. MILF. In my past, woman at bar is receptive to my advances, I comment on her "milfy" shoes.

What is not acceptable is jumping to "MILF" or "DTF?" within a professional setting. Workplace courtship requires careful advancement with an ability to permanently halt at the drop of a hat. The recipient of an advance must always have full power. This new employee failed at corporate worker bee 101. He cannot be trusted with employees, customers, or clients. He should be terminated.


It's baffling/hilarious/concerning to me that there are multiple commenters saying they're not able to see the harassment and asking for clarification.


And all the people saying, "Well, give him another chance. Everyone makes mistakes and maybe he can learn from his..." as if this kind of "mistake" is a normal one that anybody might make. I think it says a lot about the commenters' attitudes towards their female coworkers.


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11666857


My favorite is the 'but what if she was leading him on?" defense. Because let's just point at the victim, they surely wanted it.

God bless the internet. Never disappointing in how predictable it is.


Legally this isn't enough to create sexual harassment liability. A one off comment typically doesn't create a hostile work environment. But many one-off comments over a period of time does. So while it isn't sexual harassment yet, if the OP doesn't take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again, he could be facing liability for future actions.

unless there is a quid pro quo element.


You need to listen to guy's side of story. When I first came to this country, people told me never ever date anyone from work. I was focused on my career and too scared to mess up. I met some wonderful people at work, we made friendships, and some are still friends.

But sadly I took that advice too closely to my heart. Many of my crushes ended up dating someone else at work or outside. Some even found their life partners at work. It seemed only I followed this advice. As introvert, it was hard for me to meet people outside of work context.

The guy probably had no clue that he was making her uncomfortable. He needs training, not a life time of loneliness.


As an experienced biz dev person, I feel like I understand this type of employee and have worked with them many times. Based on the feedback from your female employee, it sounds like her concern is this happening to other people who doesn't "know how to deal with it" and that is why she got you involved. She doesn't seem concerned with short term repercussions, more about this employee's attitude needing adjustment for him to fit in long-term. She sounds like a very thoughtful person.

I think whatever solution you decide, you should keep her in the loop. You can't violate her trust if you are transparent about her with what you are doing.

As for the solution, it is easy to want to fire this employee. However, I think it would be the wrong thing to do. Many people are immature and the tech industry has given many people the wrong impression about how much of a party certain roles (sales) are. I'm absolutely not condoning his behavior, but based on the female employee coming to you in confidence and "not wanting to cause problems" it sounds like she doesn't believe he should be terminated for this.

What I think you should do is immediately document this incident. Document it well, and file it in his HR file. Tell your female employee that his behavior is unacceptable, and you are going to speak to him with HR about acceptable and unacceptable communication between employees.

Then you watch and see if he improves, and maintains an acceptable level of respect and decency while hitting his quota and contributing to the company's success. If he does not to this, then you have plenty of cause to eliminate him.


What the victim wants isn't relevant to the decision of how to handle the harasser. The reason the harasser should be fired is that they are creating egregious risk for the company.

All that has to change in this story to create a nightmare scenario is for this bizdev person to have harassed someone who was already on a PIP, or who is about to be placed on one, or someone who has a preexisting grievance with the company.

There are better places for bizdev and sales people to learn professionalism than in depositions.


Good points. To add to this - biz dev is outwardly representing your company in ways other employees don't. Do you want this person interacting with potential partners or clients in this manner?


I think the biggest issue is likely to be a misunderstanding about this person's view of the word "milf". Namely, that this person's view of the world is completely unacceptable and the word should never find its way into a professional setting. It seems like that word in particular has caused so much of the emotional response in this thread. It is OP's gimmick name, it is referenced in nearly every negative comment, and it is the only feedback in many comments.

The point you make about him doing it to someone on a PIP or other situations is a great point, and it really is the core of the issue.

However, I think while this person's behavior is unacceptable, if we remove him calling the co-worker a milf, the entire situation changes. I'm willing to give this person a second chance, and a permanent red-mark on their HR record.

In regards to what the victim wants, I completely agree. My point was just to help ease the founder's guilt in potentially breaking her trust. You can't break her trust if you keep her in the loop and are transparent about the steps you will be taking.


1. Talk to your attorney, yes.

2. Probably: fire this guy. This isnt someone you want at your company. When you fire him, you wont announce to the rest of the company why. And you can have a conversation with the victim employee to let them know why you did it: you don't want abusive people on the team, and that you value every employee and also have to look out for everyone and the entire business. The employee will respect you more for taking action, trust me.


It sounds like you already made the decision: you call one your 'employee', but not the other.


Should you make business decisions based on your feelings? In fact, should you ever make decisions in response to feelings if they're not yours in the first place (since it's her thing)?

It's a nice catch, I hadn't picked up on it, but she wants it differently. Just because you don't like that doesn't make it right to act on it as employer.

I'm not saying OP should do anything, I'm also not saying they should do nothing, I don't know. I'm just observing that this reasoning might not be the best.


+1 Nice observation


Just to play devil's advocate: how hard is it to spoof whatsapp/slack messages if one wanted to get someone fired?

If he denies that he sent the messages, or says he sent messages but the content has been altered where could the employer go then? "She's trying to get me sacked because ...". Where could you go from there to prove he committed an offense against propriety/policy?

Also, a perhaps more realistic issue is the move to WhatsApp could be seen as a move to personal interaction away from business interaction - if the employee alleged to have committed sexual harassment called her a milf once in a private conversation that was not a work context do they deserve to be fired?

Did he stop when asked, doesn't that mean it's not harassment? Still could be inappropriate and ultimate lead to firing but to me harassment is an ongoing series of incidents.


He called her a milf to her face. That's completely unacceptable.

She was clear when she said "as friends at work". It wouldn't have been harassment if he hadn't been so crude and suggestive. if he'd just said "hey, want to have dinner some time?" Then it would have been a little forward, but not harassment. He didn't. He said "You're a mom I'd like to fuck".

It doesn't have to be ongoing to be harassment. Once you've declared "I'm the kind of guy that'll call you a milf to your face after only knowing you a short time"... all bets are off. Any time you're alone with him, you're going to feel uncomfortable. And I guarantee you, that kind of guy is not going to be a perfect angel the rest of the time. He clearly has messed up ideas of what is appropriate to say to women.


That is her side of the story, which does not have be necessarily true.


milfseriously stated that he saw the conversation/evidence


Sorry, that statement is too little to justify the tarring and feathering mentality prevailing in this thread.

If there was a seriously inappropriate conduct then that should be certainly dealt with (harassing colleagues is not acceptable - whether they are male or female), but so far only the "MILF" statement leaves a bad taste.

Also, all digital evidence can be more or less easily faked. I am not saying that this DID happen in this case, I am saying it could have.

The downvoting and lynch mob attitude people exhibit here in this thread is rather worrying.


> Just to play devil's advocate: how hard is it to spoof whatsapp/slack messages if one wanted to get someone fired?

Easy. Same with telegram. And with HushSMS you can change the text of already sent SMS messages. And lets not get into the real devious stuff. Especially if your company sysadmin is accomplice.

On the other hand - the story rings true. They guy made advance, was rejected, she informed the boss - it sounded to me like she wanted to avoid a potential "two weeks on a business trip" scenario with the guy in the future and not to cause company drama.


I'm baffled by this thread.

Yes it might not be appropriate and yes it might necessitate action, but fire him immediately when the "milf" handled it, ended it, and the situation was finished? He didn't push it further than his perception of her comfort level.

Furthermore, the term "MILF" has transcended its literal meaning. It doesn't, at this stage in time, literally mean "I want to fuck you". It's a normal Pop Culture term now which is synonymous with "attractive", is in every tabloid, on every reality show, blah blah. I'm not saying that it was appropriate to say it to her, but it isn't the aggressive, invasive term that is being suggested in this thread.

I can only guess that this occurred in the US; you all make it sound like a seriously stressful environment to be in.


Picture yourself, as an owner of the company, explaining to a jury how "Mother I'd Like to Fuck" doesn't constitute a hostile environment in the course of a sexual harassment lawsuit. Maybe with a jury that includes someone your grandmother's age. And maybe not as a result of this particular conversation, but the next time it happens.


I'm not saying the owner should not be concerned at all. He should clearly log this incident and follow up at a later date to ensure that similar incidents haven't continued. If the female worker is satisfied that they haven't continued then there's no way that a court would construe this as sexual harassment, ever.

Also, "milf" is in standard printed dictionaries at this stage. I haven't ever used the term, but I understand that people simply use it as a colloquial noun and don't tend to use it as a literal proposal. I'm confused that so many people in the thread seem to think this.


Are there any other acronyms around sexual intent that are considered benign intact but offensive when mentally unpacked? I can't think of any. Because when you unpack it the original meaning becomes clear.

It's hard to imagine someone dignified not taking offense to being called a MILF, because regardless of what was intended you just told the person they are a mom you'd like to fuck, to their face.


It absolutely is an aggressive, invasive term. It literally means he wants to fuck her. "Mom I Want to Fuck". That's the thing it means. And his 'i have a secret' junior high bullshit sort of cements that as his view.

Your perception of my comfort level means nothing. Maybe you shouldn't be in a situation where you have to worry about my comfort level?

>I can only guess that this occurred in the US; you all make it sound like a seriously stressful environment to be in.

So sexual harassment is only a US thing?


Did you not read my post? It does not literally mean "I want to fuck you". You'd have to be pretty dense to think it is a literal come on or proposal. It's a mainstream pop culture term. Turn on any random X-Factor type show for 3 minutes and you'll hear Sharon Osbourne or someone use it.

> So sexual harassment is only a US thing?

If this occurred as OP described, I don't see how it can be construed as sexual harassment. He ended contact upon her making it clear that it was unwanted, so by the very definition of "harassment" he didn't harass her.

Again, I'm not saying that it was appropriate or that it doesn't warrant action, but I'm flabbergasted that people are suggesting he be fired.


k. Let's do that, then.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

"It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature."

or

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm

"Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following: [...] The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome."

Unwelcome sexual advances. That's your black and white definition. Being called a MILF can be an unwelcome sexual advance.

Being called a milf ----LITERALLY---- means you are a mother I would like to fuck. Regardless of how you perceive pop-culture to use the term.

It ----LITERALLY---- is an acronym for mother I want to fuck. There is not another interpretation. You're wrong. You're just wrong.

As for:

>If this occurred as OP described, I don't see how it can be construed as sexual harassment. He ended contact upon her making it clear that it was unwanted, so by the very definition of "harassment" he didn't harass her.

OP said nothing about how the male employee ending contact. He said that the female employee "handled it well and didn't let it get out of hand." That is something entirely different. That means that, had the female employee not ended the contact herself, this could have gone on.

EITHER WAY. You're just wrong. This could be perceived as harassment by a female employee.

Now, whether or not the guy should be fired really depends on what OP learns when s/he interviews both parties, after s/he talks to a lawyer. Honestly, the EEOC or lawyers or courts would try to determine if the actions were pervasive (I don't think they were) and created a hostile work environment (sooooo grey, maybe this did, maybe it didn't).

I'm telling you that you're just wrong. That's not phrased as a question - it is a declarative statement.


You've literally cherry picked sentences from your own links to avoid pointing out that - as I originally said - instances of harassment such as being called a "milf" must occur at a demonstrably frequent enough rate that it creates a hostile work environment. I.e. you must be harassed, not simply affronted. It appears that you realised this halfway through your post...?

Anyway, there is no court in the western world which will deem this lone instance as "sexual harassment". I don't know why you're so insistent that I'm "wrong" regarding this, as if I'm the harasser or something. I have not suggested that this incident should be dismissed or taken lightly, in the least.

I simply said that I'm shocked that 90% of this thread is saying he should be fired. In my country, not only would you not be fired, it would be illegal to fire you for this.


I was saying you were wrong that Milf doesn't mean mother I would like to fuck, and that it could be construed as harassing language.


Again, I'm not saying that this wasn't unwanted behaviour, and I'm not saying that it wouldn't be construed as harassment if it continued. But in court (it wouldn't ever get to court but) they'd just say "but it's in the Webster's dictionary as a noun and is synonymous with 'attractive', it wasn't meant literally". Then in my country the guy would be able to sue for wrongful dismissal.

I get what you're saying though.


I got sucked far enough into this thread and its references to MILF in the dictionary that I became curious as to whether Webster's actually includes MILF. I don't have a printed copy of Webster's handy, and it's not in webster.com.

Dictionary.com has it as follows:

noun, Slang: Vulgar. 1. an attractive older woman, usually a mother, who is regarded as a sexual object by a younger man. Origin of MILF Expand M(other) I(‘d) L(ike) to F(uck)

Oxford online is roughly the same.

I'm not sure I'd want either of those read to a jury as part of a description of conduct I chose (as a manager) to ignore.


Every year here in the UKish area the media makes a big deal about what words are being added by the big-wig printed dictionaries. Mostly because, as time goes on, the only words that get added are 'funny' like...YOLO...words like that.

We have different main dictionaries to the US, Oxford English and Chambers, for example, and milf is in all of them as a noun and has been in some for a long time.

So I mean, if even the dictionary says that it's a noun and only that its origin was an acronym which was made a generation ago, I think it's fair to say that anybody could legitimately plead ignorance here, if needs be.

Like I've heard people on TV calling their family members Milfs even, and "incest" doesn't immediately spring to my mind.

I feel like people here are just pretending that they don't know it, effectively, now simply means "attractive" so that they can attack the guy in OP's post.

You wouldn't need to have a jury read it because this case would never ever make it to court, and as I said elsewhere, in any modern country not only could you not fire this guy for this, but if you did fire him you would be probably on the hook for damages due to wrongful dismissal.


You know, the first time I saw MILF, it was in a forum and someone there said it stood for "Mature Intelligent Lady Friend." It was literally years before I learned it meant "mom I would like to fuck." I was completely shocked when I did learn that definition.

People can use offensive language and have no idea it means something offensive. This isn't just people making shit up to cover their ass so they can be abusive. Yes, that also happens. But it isn't the only possibility.


It's an acronym. It can't transcend its literal meaning.

The amount of convenient and false assumptions you made in your post is indeed baffling.


I understand that it's an acronym. You mustn't be thinking straight if you feel acronyms can't transcend their literal interpretation. Spend 10 seconds thinking about it and you'll think of many nouns which originated as acronyms.


Like OK, Laser, Pin, Id.

There are also words like 'posh' which have claimed acronym origins (although they are probably incorrect). http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php

And according to the Oxford dictionary the particular word in question counts too.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_englis...


And Captcha!


People in this thread asking about "whats wrong with calling someone a milf" really feed into the tech is sexist stereotype


Nip this in the bud right now! This isn't the guy's first attempt at harassment (there is no other word for it) and it will not be his last. If you have a no-tolerance clause in your employee manual, fire the guy. If not, a serious discussion is in order and, depending upon how it goes, either the guy is immediately fired or is placed on double secret probation for some period of time. Explain that if this happens again, he's gone, immediately. No appeal. No reprieve.

Seriously, you need to protect your company and yourself from these things. A seemingly minor event can go nuclear on you quicker than you could ever believe.


You don't need a clause in your employment contract to enable you to fire someone for unwelcome sexual advances. What you need is the standard employment contract that establishes employees have been hired at-will and without any implied contracts to the contrary. You must have that document no matter what --- it's what makes it safe for you to fire anyone.


I am not a lawyer, but:

Apart from the "Milf" comment I don't see much in your description of events that would qualify as sexual harassment (at least not from my European view of things). Certainly unprofessional but not quite sexually harassing. As far as I understand, the transgressions were "only" verbal and there was no other inappropriate behaviour.

Here's what I would do: Collect all the facts and evidence about the BD person's inappropriate behaviour. This may involve talking to your employee about this again. Then take some quiet hours in the evening to review all of the facts. If, and only if, you come to the conclusion that the BD person's behaviour clearly qualifies as sexual harassment, get lawyers involved (and probably eventually fire).

If on the other hand you come to the conclusion that the comments were inappropriate but not sexually harassing, have a private and very serious and straight talk with your BD person about the events and that there is 0 tolerance for that behaviour, then move on. And of course fire the guy immediately if it ever happens again.


> Apart from the "Milf" comment I don't see much in your description of events that would qualify as sexual harassment

Well yes, it might be hard to see the sexual harassment once you've decided to set aside the sexually harassing part.


I don't see a problem in that. I was pointing out that "Milf" would be the only thing in the series of events that could qualify as "sexually harrasing", and the others would not.

That's a legitimate thing to do when trying to be objective in face of making some important decisions. A single qualifying statement is not a very firm basis to make decisions on. That's btw. why I was suggesting collecting all the facts.


Excuse me, but where was it?

Also, Milf can be sexual harassment. Sure. So can be telling someone "you look nice". I worked with someone that was bashed by HR by telling a co-worker "I like your new haircut". I didn't see it as SH.

It depends on point of view.


There's a clear difference between "I like your new haircut" which I agree is not sexual harassment and MILF: Mother I'd Like to Fuck (which is just slightly above calling your coworker slut). The second sentence is sexual harassment.


We don't know if the mentioned person's mother tongue is English. They may well not know that MILF is mother I like to f*ck. I'm from a non English speaking country and I can say that I haven't met anybody who'd know that. I myself didn't know that until I read a Wikipedia article. The OP should first try to see if this is the case, otherwise fire them. Some are bad at flirting, and sometimes you say silly things. We shouldn't be this generous at calling everything sexual harassment.


If that is the case, would you, not knowing the meaning of a word, use that word in a professional environment? And also, does not understanding the meaning of the word excuse it's use?


I said he may have mistaken the meaning of the word. They don't have footnotes on porn sites deciphering milf, bdsm, cfnm etc. Sometimes we say silly things in foreign languages. And also in our mother tongues. It's not like we check every word we use in the dictionary.


Helpful Hint: If the only place you see a word is on porn sites, it's probably not a good thing to call a coworker.


Oh thank you I didn't know that!


In many states, intent doesn't matter for sexual harassment -- even if the person saying "MILF" didn't know what it meant, the recipient could still construe it as harassment (and win!).


And some states still execute people and until recently some didn't allow homosexual marriages. Some states kept slavery well into the twentieth century. Do we measure right and wrong with state legislations?


I'll ignore your strawman entirely.... and just say: If the OP wants to protect his business, the offending employee's intent is immaterial when it comes to exposing himself^ and his company to undue legal risk.

^ IIRC in California managers (as company representatives) are personally liable if they knew of the harassment and didn't take corrective action.

OP needs to lawyer up, deal with this, and address harassment more broadly in the company. Sucks to deal with... but is mandatory training for all medium-to-big companies.


Doesn't there have to be persistence involved for something to become harassment instead of just being a single instance of a offensive/dumb/annoying comment?


No, harassment is a violation of the norms of a professional workplace. If it only happens once, it still happened. It might not always be a firing offense, but at minimum it requires management to intervene and reset expectations.


Unless you are in the porn business, describing a coworker as a "MILF" is always sexual harassment. The acronym literally declares an intention to have sexual intercourse; it has no innocent interpretation.


I agree with you, but depending on a person's background, it is likely not always intentional harassment. I've known people who use MILF interchangeably with something like "hot". (Which also would often be inappropriate of course, but presumably wouldn't be considered as crossing the line into harassment as a standalone incident.) Basically there are plenty of people out there who use MILF as an adjective without even considering the literal meaning of the acronym.


This is the correct answer to the questions posted. Collect facts, review evidence, have the conversation or fire.

Then follow up with female employee to inform her that he has been appropriately dealt with, and to inform you of any further transgressions.

AND FUCKING DOCUMENT EVERYTHING


Apart from the "you're a mom I'd like to " comment...

Once you break apart the acronym its pretty clear you should fire this guy.


It's not your European point of view. I'm European and I find utterly disgusting and grounds for termination calling someone else a MILF.


> Over the weekend, he sent some messages that were inappropriate ... on Whatsapp

So, not during working hours, not using work-related tools, he send some inappropriate messages. It's not a big deal.

> these things aren't acceptable in the company we're building.

Sure. But this conversation did not happen in the company, not during work hours, and not using work tools. You were made privy of a very personal conversation happening between adults outside of work.

> The employee came to me in confidence

And you posted about it in great detail on Hacker News, making it a topic of water cooler conversation of about 80% of startups world-wide.

> she'll know and it will be a violation of the trust she placed in me

Exactly.

> So what do I do HN?

Preferably nothing at all. Don't make a big deal about what your employees do in their spare time.

> she shouldn't have to deal with it

She shouldn't have confided in you, because you can't seem to handle it. This dude is poison now. He may as well be fired. And your employee made it a business issue, which is a big thorny issue. You shouldn't have to deal with it, but now you do.

Good luck!


As a female startup founder I can't tell you this emphatically enough: fire him. Your judgement and opinion of this dude will always be clouded by this incident and it opens you up to a lawsuit both things you do not want to deal with, fire him.


Very rarely do biz owners regret firing people too early - it's usually done months too late. Don't wait for this to happen a second time and for your valuable long term employees to leave because you didn't take action.

Don't let cancerous employees into your organization. Don't allow him to harass another one of your employees.

Fire him.


* Immediate dismissal - the language isn't in any kind of gray zone - completely inappropriate. This person will damage your company if you keep them on. * Make sure they're not able to make a scene. No access to email or the premises at the point of dismissal. You don't want them causing further damage to the team. * Make it clear the issue is wholly between you and them, this is your action, decision and responsibility.


Have you a sexual harassment policy? Did they agree to it when they took the job?

Fire that person immediately, it's a clear breach. You need to show your employees that you will support them when something like this happens.

This may not be the first time this has happened, might only be the first time that you have heard about it. You need to be proactive in creating a safe work environment and as the founder that is your responsibility.


> Have you a sexual harassment policy? Did they agree to it when they took the job?

The United States of America have a sexual harassment policy. They also have theft and murder policies. This isn't a matter of company policy, although covering up these things may be.


And yet, companies have sexual harassment policies that employees agree to - probably because the harassment is more prevalent than murder in the workplace.

By having them agree to the policy, it makes it easier to settle the dispute.


> The United States of America have a sexual harassment policy.

If you are talking about the EEOC, then you are only talking about sexual harassment in a workplace with 15 or more employees. Also, it is a concern for the company, not the harasser; while it is antisocial behavior, it isn't a crime.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm


> Have you a sexual harassment policy? Did they agree to it when they took the job?

Does this matter? Most employers don't have a murder policy. In both cases, laws supersede policy.


It was very interesting for me to observe my own reaction to this thread.

When I first read what you wrote, I though "fire. immediately." I think I was just angry that someone would be so off the mark when they are a new hire. And the milf thing made me genuinely angry.

But as that anger passed I realized how much of a gross overreaction that is. People pursue workplace romance all the time. The thing that sucks about approaching someone is when it is welcome, you are golden, and when it is unwelcome, you are a creep. It is incredibly hard to get through an unwelcome approach without any awkwardness.

So really, this guy needs to learn manners, and to chill out.

Unless he continually repeats the behavior, I don't see why there's any real long term problem.


"Romance"? Are you serious??? There's nothing the slightest bit romantic about what this guy did.


> The thing that sucks about approaching someone is when it is welcome, you are golden, and when it is unwelcome, you are a creep.

I hear you. I actually read a comment here at HN by such a "golden" man and his experiences (women from his workplace approached him often), but unfortunately I cannot find it right now.

Keep the workplace separate from romance. Heck, even outside of the workplace things can be risky (I had been called a stalker by a female neighbor just for existing, uh).


What's this guy going to say to one of your business partners/customers? Not that your employees don't matter but if he can't control himself around other employees he can't do it anywhere.


This guy should be fired both for harassment and incompetence. First of all, this guy is supposed to be biz dev. We are not talking about a rude comment by an engineer, people skills and sensitivity/understanding of business etiquette is part of his job. Two, this is not a "faux pas". He did not say "your dress looks hot" or "will you go out with me" or any number of less than polite come ons that people use outside of a work context. Instead he made an explicit comment to someone he barely knows. This shows clear lack of judgement.


Hire slow, fire fast.

He's new. If he's still in a probationary period - either by statute or contractually - get rid of him. If he's not, and he's a brand new employee, consider adding wording to future contracts regarding a probationary period.

Obviously, still talk to a lawyer.


You're in a bit of a quandry. He should be go, but it's not going to be easy.

If you fire him for this instance, you could be sued for wrongful termination, and in which case you would have to produce those whatsapp messages, and convince your employee that they were harmful.

> He asked to take the conversation off Slack (moved to Whatsapp) and asked if they could hang out (she said, "sure as friends in work context"), referred to her as a milf (ugh...), and asked if he could tell her a secret (she refused)

My interpretation was this person used Slack (work resource) to ask a coworker to switch to Whatsapp (non-work resource), during the weekend (non-company time). He proceeded to make inappropriate comments on whatsapp.

I'm not a lawyer, but from limited research, it seems that a few sets of inappropriate text messages (of which you dont approve of, but the recipient doesn't mind) sent over the weekend does not constitute workplace sexual harassment.

The employee has said "it's not a big deal." which even though you don't like it, means it's somewhat out of your hands.

The quandry is, the bizdev person is probably a bad fit for your company. You should get rid of him, but would need something more substantial in order to standup to a wrongful termination suit.


Also it is worth saying that an employee coming to a manager / founder / owner to report a problem "in confidence" is not the same as you not being able to do anything about it. You need to manage that person as well so that they know that they've a) done the right thing b) aren't at fault for whatever the consequences are and c) that you / the company do care about them.

Even if you weren't to fire the person (and as a brand new hire firing seems a better option) then you would need to provide specifics when having the conversations that would follow. Mainly because all you have so far is an allegation, making your mind up (not the same as considering options) beforehand is not good.

Regardless of whether you fire the employee or not the key thing is to prepare for the conversation. If you're a founder speak to your co-founder(s), if you're a manager don't just speak with HR and have them in the room for the meeting but prepare with them. Have your opening statement well rehearsed, consider different conversational flows and how you might react to them. This isn't a thing to do on the fly.


I spend a good deal of my time working with high powered men on how to actually develop intimacy with themselves and with women as well as training companies and organizations on how to build cultures of intimacy, vulnerability and strength.

For many high performing men, their shadow side is that they view themselves and thus, their world as objects.

That your culture manifested this sort of dynamic to me is a weak signal about deeper issues in your organization, leadership and overall company. From my vantage point, the least of your problems is how to protect yourself from the fallout of this situation legally and you may want to take a deeper look at the root cause of this, lest you begin a game of cultural wack-a-mole, firing away manifestations of a deeper cultural issue.

I don't mean this to come off as blaming you, but rather, there is an element of you in all of this that you do have control over -- some of that will be in how you handle the situation and the other will be in your understanding of the dynamics inside of you that led to you co-creating it.

Happy to gift you a culture session if you want to discuss it more deeply.


If the person is new employee, presumably you have a probation period clause in the contract, and at the end you can state that it's just not working out, protecting both the accuser and and the accused from knowing circumstance?

You absolutely have to get rid of that type of person, it's already moved outside of work context to a personal context (WhatsApp), which implies that the author of the messages is not comfortable talking about what he's talking about in the context of a work environment because he knows it is wrong, and because he is willing to take that risk, it signals a danger.

You should speak to a lawyer about removing the person from the company in a quiet way (which I think is what the accuser would prefer to protect her complaint) – since he is new, it's generally easier than ridding the company of a long-standing employee. Probation clauses are common in the United Kingdom, I'm not sure about the U.S. – so this advice might be awfully inaccurate.

If you have seen proof, the accused needs to be removed. He is toxic if you know for sure of the correct circumstance.


I've had a similar experience at a start up I once worked at.

We hired our first network administrator to replace developers like me who had been doing the same sort of job.

The day that he started the job, we received an email that someone using our gateway IP address had posted to Usenet [this was a while back] the IP and root password of some other company's public webserver, with a message to the effect that people should "f--- it up". The email also stated that the root password seemed to work, and we verified that.

We quickly worked out that the server was our new employee's previous workplace, and we sacked him and walked him out on the spot. He didn't receive any pay or benefits. We also documented everything on paper in case there was some legal problem (which didn't happen, of course, but you never know with some people).

So my advice is:

* Document everything. On real, physical paper. Sign and date each page.

* Fire them, now.


Well, that's a nice story, but I don't see how an attempt at intentional malicious sabotage of their previous employer is "similar" to this.


It's not a "story", but a real thing that happened to me. It's similar because the OP needs to fire the employee now, and document everything. And maybe get a lawyer too.


I meant story as in anecdote, not as in tall tale.


I might be missing the obvious here, but why did she confide in you if she didn't want something done? Unless you two are drinking buddies and she was just unburdening herself, you have to assume that she is asking for your help - and the double speak is an attempt to emotionally protect herself from the inevitable.


Do nothing is not an option (not that you seem to consider that an option), because even if she truly is fine, the next employee he harasses may not be.

An HR rep is, frankly, usually pointless, unless you have high quality HR with specialized training. They do serve as a verifying party though.

Me? I'd interview this guy (not alone) to see if I thought he could learn (as atrocious as his behavior reportedly is, I've been very surprised by what lessons have simply never been communicated). If you don't have full confidence he can improve, he's a liability to you and should go.

I'd also lead this off by talking with the female employee about what you want to do - It's not just about her (although she certainly deserves respect), but about what kind of a company you want to have - which employees are protected and which ones are not. Hopefully she'll understand.


IMHO, harassment is only the tip of the problem. Team members should respect each other's right to pursuit of happiness. If you draw the line here, the MILF comment is so out of line, there is really no question about what to do, only how to do it.


I've been through this kind of thing. It's very unpleasant, frightening even. Hang in there!

From your critical incident report here there was no inappropriate physical contact or attempted coercion between these two people. Make sure that's correct. If your senior HR person or some other executive of your company is experienced with this (meaning: has done it before) have her/him conduct an investigation. If you don't have experience in house get your lawyer to do the investigation. Get it done; don't let it sit.

Base your decision about disciplining or terminating the guy with bad boundaries on the results of the investigation. Ask your investigator how to confront him, and follow that advice. As hard as it is to imagine right how, anti-harrassment discipline is a dish best served cold, not hot. It's also best served promptly.

You need to do the anti-harassment seminar. You need to let your whole team know this kind of stuff is not condoned or ignored in your company, because it's not who you are. Your lawyer's office can probably provide the seminar. (Our lawyers did a great job with our seminar.)

You need to establish a policy about harassment if you don't already have one. There are plenty of good template policies around. If you work with a payroll service they probably have one you can use. And you need to require all your people to take the seminar. It should be part of your onboarding process.

If you sack this guy don't worry about a wrongful termination suit. Do what's right for your business. You'll have the investigation paperwork, and the state commission on such matters will very likely look at it and say "case closed," if the guy bothers to go after you.

Also don't worry about people in your company worrying about who's going to get whacked next. Just make it clear that respect, civilized behavior, and good interpersonal boundaries are a vital part of your company culture. You could even go so far as to say "no aholes."

Good luck. But you won't need luck. You'll just need the strength to get through it, which you have.


Fire him, give no reason.

A dumbass like that can easily cause major problems down the line


Sexual harassment is always a big deal due to it being illegal according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm

You will need to insure your company, employees and yourself are legally protected by visiting an attorney as soon as possible. As it appears you do not have the standard company guidelines and procedures in place for investigating and terminating employees found violating law. Your attorney should be able to help you draft the proper paperwork and procedures to accomplish this in your company policy and employee training.

When you talk with your attorney there may be more things that are required to do legally (filing a police report, filing charges, having the employee harassed file charges if she wants too, etc.). The attorney will be able to walk you through everything you need to do. As it may not be a big deal to your employee now, but that could change down the road, especially if it unfortunately picks up again or escalates. Now would be the best time to resolve the issue while it is only at the texting phase, as things would go downhill for your entire business quick if it were to escalate in the near future.

I hope you are able to get this sorted quickly as it is very important to have something like this in a well known zero tolerance policy that everyone knows about on their first day on the job during their on boarding process.


> she really doesn't want to cause problem

> made it clear that it's not a big deal and she knows how to deal with it

Last year I watched an emotionally strong friend reduced to a terrified sobbing mess before he gathered the courage to go to his leadership about a sexual harassment issue with his direct superior. I know you won't take her grace for granted but please consider that how she really feels may be different than what she says in order to maintain professionalism.


Most humans are dicks. That is my general rule when dealing with these things because it is true. But, should you do anything about it? From what I can tell this didn't happen during business hours or at work. This was a conversation between 2 adults where one was a dick. I would thank her for the heads up and do what she wishes and stay out of it. If it does become a problem or shows up at work then document the hell out of it and lawyer up.


HR manager here who has dealt with this exact situation a number of times. Retaining counsel for consult is a good idea but do not be surprised if they tell you that unless it's specifically in your policy that this is prohibited, nothing here is likely actionable.

In fact the "ideal" scenario is that two employees interact, one rejects/rebuffs/corrects the other for harassing or inappropriate remarks and it does not continue. IF it continues you have something to work with, at present it does not sound like you do. Thank your employee for telling you and for speaking up, and ask her to keep you updated.

Sexual harassment, like other workplace harassment issues, generally has to be considered "pervasive and severe" to be something with teeth, and yes the court has generally very high standards for what constitutes both of those things.

Talk to your HR rep and do not burn up a ton of cash on lawyers just yet. Talk to them about this as a constellation of fit issues for the role, see if term is needed for all of the above. Make plans to hold a sexual harassment and bullying training anyway for all EEs. Let HR help you with this, seriously, we deal with it all the time.


INAL, but here's what I think

> I'm really upset by this guy's behaviour and I want to fire him immediately.

If you are in the US, which that u in behavior suggest that you might not be...

If you have an established HR process you have to follow it. Otherwise fire him discreetly and then let people that hes moved on in a few days. Don't tell either him or the employee that came to you that it has anything to do with their interaction and if he asks specifically during the firing process turn the tables on him and feign unawareness and ask what the hell he is talking about. I wouldn't out her or acknowledge that you are aware of the incident to him at all. If the employee who confided in you asks if that why he was fired, just tell her that its a confidential matter and you really can't go into it. I live and work in at will state and wouldn't bother to lawyer up if I went this route (though it wouldn't be a bad idea), but I would wait til I was calm enough to leak that he had done something really upsetting.

If you want to make an example out of him (or keep him around) you definitely need to lawyer up.


Yeah talk to a lawyer first, listen to all of the people that say talk to a lawyer.

Actually it is up to her to file a complaint with you or HR. If she does not want to file a complaint, just add it to the employee's annual review that he used inappropriate words with another employee. If he is still on probation as a new employee it could violate that probation and you could fire him for that.

You have to ask yourself how valuable is this new employee to your team and company? Can he get some sensitivity training to learn not to speak that way to a female employee? If he is very skilled and valuable you might want to suggest the sensitivity training for him, if not he broke probation and can be fired for it.

You don't have to use the employee's name that he sexually harassed. In fact if you are in a state that has a no fault clause in the hiring and firing, you could fire him without giving a reason. Just say something like his position was removed due to budget problems, then create a new position to replace it with a different name.


Everybody saying "lawyer", ignore, that's expensive and bad advice, you already know what the lawyer is going to say, lawyers are incredibly cautious and not particularly flexible or business savvy in helping you, all you'll get is a bill and no help with anything except what you already know couched in terms of a lot of statements designed for future "I told you so"s

Fire: probably, but not because this infraction was so bad or impossible to deal with (the victim herself said so) but because the guy appears to be a bad egg, just really bad judgement and other employees or customers might not be as adept as she is at dealing with it. So, unless his contract somehow protects him, or he is God's Gift to Business Development and your company is down the tubes without him (in which case you'll still need to figure out a way to head-off/handle his future infractions (promote her above him?)), you don't need to spend more time dealing with this.


Are you using a co-employer? Like Insperity?

If so take it to them immediately.

If not welcome to lawyer hell.

This is one great things about using a co-employer, HR in a bottle.


Agree with Patrick on your next steps. So go do that.

My breakdown of the reasons to terminate:

1. New employee did not follow broadly understood/legal courtship protocol with female colleague. [e.g.: On tinder/okcupid/etc., you can try your luck with "DTF?" or "You're a lovely MILF." Doing the same with a work colleague (regardless of whether on the clock or not) is broadly accepted to be harassment. Why? Because the parties are both colleagues who have to work together. On okcupid, a recipient of "DTF?" can immediately block the sender. Not so easy to do a colleague. Our legal system protects workers from harassment. "MILF" isn't just a query about going out for coffee. It is a GOTO jump over many protocol stages without ACKs from recipient.

2. New employee is either ignorant of work-based courtship protocol, new employee actively chose to disregard it, or perhaps new employee was drunk during the exchange. It doesn't really matter. Either way, the guy does not meet the standards to work in a professionally run company.

3. By so flagrantly violating a commonly understood protocol [workplace courtship] very early in his employment, the guy is demonstrating to his boss that he is not worthy of trust and responsibility. Terminate him.

As for those few of you who think the guy should be given a break, this is corporate worker bee 101 stuff. Sure he is sexually interested in a colleague. There is no problem with that. The thing that is for very good reasons, your fellow workers are protected from harassment. Dating a fellow worker requires running a very different courtship protocol than picking up someone in a bar or over tinder.

Unless you feel qualified to run corporate-dating-protocol from start to finish (what will you do post hook-up/break-up?), please consider the advice of our forebears: don't dip your pen in the company ink.


First of all, the most important thing: talk to a lawyer. The real ones that demand money, not random people from the internet. Sexual harassment is a particularly nasty thing, because no matter what you do, judges will always be biased against you: You did nothing? How dare you accept sexual harassment at your company! You fired him? How dare you fire that innocent guy groundlessly!

Second of all, you need to listen to his side of the story as well. People are probably going to down-vote me for this one but taken out of context text messages don't mean very much. His friends could've played a very bad joke on him, the messages could be forged or he could've made an honest mistake.

Hell, if I were in your place I even would give the guy a second chance if he honestly apologized. But do make sure you watch him closely if you decide to take this route. These people do not tend to improve.


Seeing as he's new and she's not - kick him to the curb. Get rid of him before he causes more headaches for you.


Sorry, but the person's gotta go. Get your lawyer on the phone, get the documentation ducks in a row, then let the axe fall. If you let the harassed employee know before hand is up to you, but I probably would a day or so before so they could prepare, change their phone number or something if they wanted, etc.


I don't know if what he was doing was 100% harassment or not but that word makes it at least hard to argue its not.

The sad reality is that if a man makes advances towards a woman at work and she isn't interested, it is very possible he will end up being terminated for 'sexual harassment' regardless of what words he uses. Because sexual harassment effectively really boils down to any unwanted advance or even flirtation. It shouldn't be that way, it should be about actual harassment, but very few people are able to make such a distinction in a fair way.

So I don't think that in the current environment any sort of flirtation at work is really a safe maneuver unless the woman makes obvious advances first.

I have a feeling people will slam me and this comment but I haven't been downvoted very much this week so I guess it is time.


any unwanted advance

it should be about actual harassment

For your sake, I hope you realize that "an unwanted advance" is "actual harassment".


For your sake, I hope you realize that people might not know that their advance isn't wanted until they try it.


She may say it's not a big deal, but it is. An employee who doesn't understand "no" is a liability, now and in the future. That being said, details matter, and you should deal with this using your HR and legal counsel. HN is not the right place for this kind of advice.


Talk to your lawyer. And fire him anyway, there is no reason to keep a person like this in your team, it will get worst. Then send a short and non-inflammatory message to the rest of the company so everybody will know you won't tolerate this kind of behavior and act swiftly on it.


Going to one of the founders over a weekend WA conversation, even bringing evidence, sounds like she's trying to get the guy fired. This isn't something that should be allowed to happen covertly, because it's ripe for abuse.

Other posters mention the phenomenon of avoiding interacting with women at work. The threat of "she secretly went to top brass, and I was fired without defence or cause" is exactly what might justify this.

The trust she placed in you is the trust that you'll keep her name out of this, but if she's getting someone fired, that's not ok without a more objectivity around the details. One side of the story is not objective - even is that one side turns out to be accurate, you can't know this in advance.


So what do I do HN? Do I fire him? Kick his ass? Get them in a room with a HR rep and talk it out? Hold a "how to recognize sexual harassment seminar"?

Is threatening to beat him up for off hand comments (which have not been fully presented) acceptable behaviour from an employer?


Even if the harrased employee has no problem with it, it is clear you personally do and what will you do when you end up expanding or replacing existing members of the team and he continues his harrasment?

If nothing else, that guy is a liabillity (and a dick).


You really do not need something like this derailing your startup. Hire a lawyer, and follow their advice.

Large companies like Intel give each employee rigorous sexual harassment training, but this is not something startups can always afford to do.


This is actually a chance to set your startup's atmosphere for years to come – you should actually send the guy a gift basket. (1) Talk to the reporting employee to explain why (2) has to happen. (2) Fire him, for cause, publically, immediately. (3) Deal with any consequences of not talking to a lawyer first.

If you're at the scale where a wrongful termination suit isn't an existential risk to the company, you'll get bonus points if you actually lose in court.

As an employee, I'd work on weekends & nights for a boss who has a well-adjusted moral compass and will sometimes disregard business interests to act on it.


I'm a partner at a global law firm. We handle these pretty routinely for both publicly traded and private companies alike. There are some funky theories in this thread. Happy to help if you want to get in touch.


I guess going forward, there should be clear employment policies that forbid this type of behavior so the soon to be departing employee can not state that he was unaware that this was not apprioriate behavior.


If you are not aware that sending crude sexual messages is not appropriate behavior you have nobody but yourself to blame.


Talk to your lawyer.


IANAL so talk to your lawyer first. Second write a policy regarding sexual harassement, make it sign by every employee, so it's clear this kind of behavior should not be tolerated.

The thing is if goes out of hand and for whatever reason the victim changes her mind and decides to sue you on the ground that you did nothing to prevent it you're f--cked. I've seen this before. So it's really about covering your ass and the reputation of your business. I think there are enough examples ( Github, Google ...) to prove my point.


SEE YA!

Door. ASS. Way Out. Consult a Lawyer if you feel like it.

This kind of thing doesn't get better.


If someone hasn't said this already, I'd look at firing him as a "teachable moment". It's not a negative, but rather a sign of unity, positivity, support, and togetherness.

Framed correctly, anyone in the company who hears even a rough "person was let go for a serious HR violation" (a lawyer will clarify who can hear what) will come away from the experience with increased rather than diminished confidence in their colleagies and your leadership.

EDIT to add: Also, she's not causing trouble, he is. Very simple.


is it really sexual harassment? He tried clumsily to make a move on her and she declined, if he tries again it's a red flag, but if he stop his behavior you have nothing to worry about


Referring to a colleague as a 'milf' is not 'clumsily making a move'. Everyone knows what that's an acronym for. If you start a private chat with a colleague, they tell you to keep it about work, and then you tell them you'd like to fuck them, then you should expect to be fired.


Yes, it is. Undoubtedly.


absolutely is. It's not a clumsy making a move. That would be "hey, do you want to go have dinner some time?" Calling someone a milf is not something ANYONE with any respect for women would ever do.


By bringing it to you, it is now your problem. You can't have him on your team continuing to think what he did was ok.

At the very least you need to bring it directly to him.


I'd love to see a follow up of your decision and out comes. Possibly a tellHN later on. The advice in these situations seems pretty consistent in this unfortunate situation. Document, Lawyer, fire, support. If you do follow up id be particularly interested in the outcome of the support piece of the puzzle and how to balance group dynamics associated with the affected party in the aftermath. Any kick back...etc.


By all means see a lawyer. Have the lawyer draw up an agreement of severance where he agrees not to contest the firing and not share any trade secrets.

Then immediately let him go and offer him 3-4 months of severance. Generous enough that he will sign it and immediately get out of your life. Then buy a sexual harassment video course that all new hires are required to view on their first day. Good luck!


Eeek, please tell me you've anonymised the key details... HN isn't really a great place for discussing sensitive/confidential information.


This thread has become legal drama material. You have to scroll a lot of pages for some sensible opinions. I don't think the OP solved his problem.


What happened to no harm no foul and a slap on the wrist this time and a clear policy to everyone that if it happens again by anyone, it won't be tolerated.

Why do you guys jump to the extremes?

I'm not in the US lawyer up of A though, but common sense should apply.

That said, ask a lawyer first, because clearly that is the land where we get our funny 'news' of 'someone when to court because of ludicrous action X, and won'.


Yes it wasn't egregious, but I've learned that if clients or employees cause problems early, the chances of it working out is very slim.

Plus, a big part of being successful in biz dev is to be able to read people and interact professionally. This person is new and to do what they did shows their 1) arrogance and 2) inability to read people.

Biz dev generally means investing in that person financially for some time before getting a return as it takes time for them to ramp up and close deals. Do you want to invest in someone like that and hope they'll change in fit your culture or just move on?


Maybe it's part of his tactics :)

Well, you may be right on that.

Simply put, IMO what constitutes harassment is if after you hit on someone, they tell you to stop, and you continue.

Or if you do something really bad as groping or saying something obscene. Calling someone a MILF is borderline, he might be just a very honest guy that said what he thought and meant it as a compliment (well, yeah.. a weird compliment).


Curious why you think there was no harm done.


Curious why you think there was


She told someone up the management ladder. The business is now financially libel if the situation is not aggressively corrected.

This can also apply to customers, not just co-workers.

Lawyers, good lawyers that know harassment law.

Worked for a company that had to settle a lawsuit before I started there. Management meetings every six months on this the entire 5 years I worked there, part of the settlement.

I have fired a coworker and banned a customer for this.

In US.


Man, talk about CYA answers. A lawyer is probably going to give an answer that covers their butt. They're going to chose the lowest risk legal route.

Your employee came to you in confidence. If there is a legal way out of this that doesn't break that (maybe requires a bit of extra work), I'd chose it.

You have to realize how this could blow back on her in a big way.


Get him out, this will not change. Ask your layer how to make it but you as a founder has the right to select who to work with.


Definitely talk to a lawyer if you don't already have clear HR processes to handle this. It doesn't seem to me like a particularly egregious case, but mishandling it could be trouble down the line in a number of ways, and you need not only to handle it, but to be more prepared to handle -- and if possible prevent -- the next one.


>referred to her as a milf

Ouch. Office romance happens...a lot...but this guy just sounds tactless & doesn't know when to back off.


Tell her that you understand she doesn't want him fired, but that you need to protect all your other employees. He just started. It's not about her- it's about people who won't report it.

People who join your company later will be scared of existing employees, and probably won't report it. You can't be party to this.


>I've seen the evidence of the texts in question.

Is this smartphone? If so, ensure its not a rooted device, where users can insert/delete things as they want.

-- Let me add another view. Involve HR and talk to him first. If he admits truth then ask him to resign. If he didn't accept, listen to his version of story and ask him for proof. Then decide.


Personally I would fire him after explaining to the victim that there's zero tolerance for sexual harassment (after consulting our lawyer - have to do these things by the book).

Ultimately it's up to you and how you want to define your company's culture.


"told me she really doesn't want to cause problems with the team."

What people say and what people do are two different things, that and it could open you up to further legal issues. Talk to a lawyer, then talk to him (preferably with the lawyer).


I recommend introducing an explicit sexual harassment policy. Have each employees sign that policy form indicating they understand the sexual harassment policy and that violating it is an offense that will result in termination.


"The employee in question has made it clear that it's not a big deal and she knows how to deal with it"

Get that in writing, keep an eye on the situation and move on. Get rid of that person for another reason.


OK this might sound harsh but the dude needs to be fired not only because of his conduct and legal risks the company could face, but because being a biz dev he's key job skill is to read people well.


Isn't he in his probationary period anyway? If he is I don't believe you need a specific reason other that "not a good fit for the company".

As @patio11 said though. You need legal counsel.


Fire them. If you don't, and they harass someone else, and it comes out they did it before and you didn't fire them, you will be held responsible and it will be extremely expensive!

Fire them!


Lawyer

"it will be a violation of the trust"

Tell her that you really need to make sure there are no future problems with the team and that is why you must fire the new biz dev. He broke faith, not you or her.


here are all the ways that people traditionally deal with sexism in the office. This vid from DevOPs Days Con, explains the pros of cons of each method. Going forward, implementing what you learn from this will go a long way. https://youtu.be/M2mnDiWJhOY?t=2h27m26s


Are you serious?

Terminate. The end.


So many comments saying "Fire the guy" without any kind of investigation. And almost universal acceptance that what the woman said is the end of the fact-finding needed to make a decision.

In previous lives as a senior manager and litigation paralegal, I have had to deal with dozens of sexual harassment claims, including the kind that end up at the EEOC and a few that resulted in lawsuits. A good friend and former coworker is a regional HR manager for a Fortune 100 company, and he has seen everything under the sun.

OP, the only reason to do anything is because you're the founder and she brought it to you. You don't have to do anything other than document her conversation with you, but if you decide to stick your nose into it, here's what my thought process would be:

First, even if it's a small startup, OP cannot discuss with the accuser what action he takes with the accused beyond "I'll handle it." While this may baffle many here, it's really none of her business since it involves the accused's relationship with his employer. If he ends up firing the guy, she can put 2 and 2 together, but he cannot provide details of disciplinary action.

Second, he cannot announce to the rest of the employees that he fired the guy for sexual harassment, only something along the lines of "he no longer works here" with maybe some generic fluff about pursuing other opportunities. It's none of their business either.

Third, he needs to talk to the guy. "But she showed him the texts!" someone exclaims. "He called her a MILF!" That's one side of the story. Let's hear the other side before jumping to conclusions. This all happened outside the work context. We don't really know what the hell happened, only third-hand reporting of one of the participants.

Fourth, let the HR person talk to the lawyer, if OP's startup is big enough to have a dedicated HR person. If not, then yes, talk to a lawyer, but make sure they've got some litigation experience. Too many HR lawyers are just overpaid risk managers who don't have any clue of when to fight and when to fold and pay.

Which brings me to my last point: I know it may be unpopular to say, but sometimes women lie and manipulate just as well as men do.

At my senior manager job, I was accused several times of sexual harassment, even though I scrupulously avoided any kind of personal conversation that could lead to any hint of anything sexual with all coworkers, whether direct or indirect reports, peers, or superiors. I never met behind closed doors with women, except my boss, and she always left the blinds open and people felt free to interrupt at any time. And yet, I was accused. None of those accusations withstood scrutiny, but they were a gigantic PITA.

One crazy person even reported me to the FBI, after the EEOC found nothing actionable! (Seriously. The issue was that I was her last resort for altering an unfavorable survey given to her by a customer, and I refused to do so, for sound business reasons.)

Texts can be faked. We don't know enough to know whether the accuser's story is absolutely true and complete, and we certainly don't know her motives.

OP, find yourself someone with serious experience in employment law in your jurisdiction to give you counsel. Pay their fees. Stop trying to do it on the cheap by asking here, since it will do you no good and quite possibly do great harm to follow 90% or more of the advice in this thread.

Edit: added paragraph about doing nothing, and fixed "autocorrect."


Any ideas why your employee brought it up to you (management) but does not want you (management) to do anything about it?


I would be very concerned that this is an indication that she has reason to expect that dealing with this problem will result in aneruption of other problems.on the team, which may stem from persistent, lower level harassment that is already occurring.

That may actually be a bigger hostile work environment problem than the more blatant incident.


"I don't want to be seen as a problem, and I don't want this to be a case of management portraying it as 'that guy we love got fired because X can't take a joke'".


What is a manager supposed to do in this situation that does not lead to something along the lines of that? In that case, why bother bringing it up?


"i heard what was said, and although she might not have a problem with what you did, I do"

make it about you as management being the one that cant take the joke.


"Evidence has come to light that X has acted in ways that are both illegal and unacceptable in our organization."

versus

"Y complained that X was flirting with her, so we had to fire him."

It needs to be made clear that management finds the behavior unacceptable.


Keep an eye on him in case his behaviour persists? What may be reasonable and innocent done once, turns into harassment if done repeatedly, but if one just reports after many events, it's difficult to show the pattern.


I'd argue that calling someone a MILF in the workplace is already harassment. The problem with passively sitting by is that it can introduce more problems down the road because someone can claim that you passively sat by and fostered a hostile work environment. The harasser also has more credence if you only confront him until he does something else because at that point he can claim he didn't know it was a problem.


Totally free blue sky daydreaming?

1) There's a pre-existing dysfunctional relationship, and she wants him in trouble but doesn't want to get caught setting him up or not telling the whole truth. Aside from obvious romantic relationship, might have been professional, perhaps a grudge developed at a previous employer. Or even school rivalry. Or something more tenuous like he cheated on her roommate making her roommate cry so she feels justified... Good luck discretely figuring this out without being declared a victim-blamer. Your lawyer will help.

2) They're teaming up to siphon off money/stock/something by submitting a lawsuit next week for either wrongful dismissal and libel/slander (depending on what you say to the guy, if anything) or for sexual harassment from her end. Your lawyer will help.

3) See #1 above, it might be the dude who has a grudge with someone else at the company (the other founder?) and is hoping to mess with that 3rd party and you're just kinda in the way. Your lawyer will help.


First of all, talk to your lawyer. This is something that should have already been in place and there should be literature to give to each employee during their on-boarding.

Second, if the harassed employee does not wish you to do anything, the best thing to do is to indirectly address the situation with a company-wide seminar/meeting about the topic. List off all the things this employee did that are intolerable - he'll get it really fast.


This is super bad advice. Clueless people who read company wide memos very often have no idea that "We are talking about YOU, bub." I know, because I used to get those department wide memos and almost always felt like raising my hand and asking "So, um, this thing you are talking about...is...is that something I am doing?? Kthxbai."

(No, this was not about sexual harassment per se.)

Edit: Additionally, if this guy does put two and two together, he may well realize she told on him and this in no way protects her.


Tell him don't do it again, or he'll be fired?

And check with your lawyer. Get a lawyer if you don't have one.


Lawyer + document + fire him.

This is a no brainer.


Good Luck, I know this is a very touchy subject, sorry you have to go through it.


Fire him. This doesn't have to cause team problems or violate any trust.


Fire him


Man I'd Like to Fire


You should not have posted all that detail here.


Not share the incident on here for starters.


watch Silicon Valley :-)


> Please provide one example of using the term "MILF" in a professionally appropriate way.

"Team, some numbers are in. It seems our hot-milfs.xxx domain is bringing in more ad revenue than the rest combined."


We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11669698 and marked it off-topic.


That's not an example since you're talking about a website and it has a compound name. Additionally it's the porn industry, obviously, so MILF might be the okay word in that field. BUT in the software field where most people don't use the term MILF except in very private ways, MILF is derogatory. Whereas "Mother I'd Like to Fuck" isn't exactly a phrase that slips out in general corporate conversation.


Aw man, did you have to reply? :) I was about to delete that. It's a stupid comment, attracting undeserved upvotes.


[flagged]


HN has always appreciated humor -- just of a very special type. edw519's profile is filled with heavily-upvoted comedy.


On those days when I want "HN + humor", and they do exist, I simply visit the HN Humor Museum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5326511


Really can't stress it enough that you need to lawyer up before literally anything else.

Do not talk to them, do not go into work, take sick days if you have to, don't respond to emails, phone calls, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING until you have talked it all out with your lawyer, and then do exactly what he instructs you to do.

Don't let this destroy your dream, friend! Especially over someone else's bad choices. Be safe, lawyer up, get this taken care of and move on with the work.


Write it all down, consult a lawyer. Have a heart to heart with the guy and assess whether he just didn't understand or is a true creep. Let him know it doesn't fly and that you'll be keeping an eye on him, talk to the girl make sure she's cool with it.

Adults, move on.

All of you 'fire' 'lawyer' 'criminal' people are ridiculous.

It's a single word, out of work.

Imagine if two employees are dating. They are staying in each others flats. They get in a fight at work. Words are spoken. Is that harassment?

We are human before we are corporate warriors. We say and do odd things.

If you are a human leader you'll be able to handle the situation without a single thought moving forward.

Though I'd recommend putting it all in writing and documenting everything for legal purposes.

If you are a good leader, this thing will never bubble up again.

You have a product to build, focus on that.


You, er... you just called a woman a 'girl'. Did you mean to do that?


Is it sexual harassment B/C he asked her out or B/C he used the term "MILF" or B/C she wasn't interested? Did the whatsapp portion of the conversation occur at work or outside of work? Does your company have a policy that forbids coworkers to date?

My former boss dated an employee who worked in a different department. People at work knew and it was not considered a problem. No one got fired or sued. I guess I'm trying to understand the difference here. It seems to me the major difference is that in this case the woman wasn't interested. So is the takeaway here that if you ask out a woman you work with she will either say yes if she is interested or you will potentially be fired if she is not?


If you ask someone out at work and they tell you, 'as friends only' that should be the end of your advances. If you continue past that point and say stuff like, "You're a Mom I'd Like to Fuck" that is clearly into sexual harassment territory.

One polite and appropriate invitation to hang out (to a single coworker) is not sexual harassment. That is usually where the line is. Pushing after the rebuff is almost always trouble.


One thing is a relationship that builds up between two people; another is a new recruit asking out a coworker calling her a "milf". Huge difference.


The only part that actually qualifies as sexual harassment is that he called her a milf. Although it's entirely up to the discretion of the victim what's harassment and what isn't (unless the founder is there to witness it himself).


Wow.

So few information, but so many people ready to fire his ass.

At this point, I wonder if we should have men/women segregation in the workplace. This is the logical conclusion if you want to avoid this kind of problems.


> I wonder if we should have men/women segregation in the workplace.

That assumes all of your employees are heterosexual.

Once you assume some employees may be homosexual, bisexual, non-binary, asexual, etc. you quickly get a graph where employees are nodes are edges are "could possibly have unwanted attraction towards" that is not bipartite.


You are right. I also forgot those identifying as unicornkin.

Remote work for everyone is the only solution. :-p


It really gets ugly once squirrels are in

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1Z3UE4U9MXPAX/


Yes, <insert thank you gif here>

I think that people in the USA tend to make extreme reactions with known 'social problems'. Racism lead to an overreaction and abuse from the minorities in _some situations_ [i'm not saying that racism is dead, all I'm saying is that sometimes you spot an overreaction to something]. Sexual harassment lead to this.

If anyone is building a team, the best way to deal with this is to discuss it with the team, and draw a clear line in the sand of what is tolerated and what isn't.

OP: I cannot judge by the information you have given me if this was inappropriate conduit or not, present that info to someone else who is going to be honest to you (you should have a friend or two like that that won't simply pander to you if you're building a company, also, present that without bias)

You being upset might be for a number of reasons.

Then, if it was inappropriate, ask for a lawyers advice to see if this it is ok to do the following: talk with the team and say what is inappropriate and what isn't and what is going to be tolerated and what isn't going to be tolerated, ask their opinion on those guidelines and be flexible on those according to what you hear.

And that's it.


This is a bannable offense. Fire him and let your employee know that she did the right thing reporting such a thing. She did nothing wrong and should not feel bad about other peoples' behaviour.


It's a very interesting case, I wonder if there are any lawyers who would care to comment?


While your business might be your life, for most of your employees it's only a job.

This means that for most of them, it must be pleasant. They must be able to joke around and even, occasionally, flirt. If you try to turn every social interaction into a perfectly professional unfriendly and unsexualised environment, you will very quickly find that you are the only one left.

This is even more relevant in a small startup. In my experience, the worst kind of work environment is a startup trying to act like a big multinational. None of the perks, but all of the soulless experience.

I have nothing against firing someone for bad behavior. However, with the little info you provided us, there is nothing serious.

Make sure the new employee knows that her colleague didn't like his approaches and that it won't happen again.

You should also try to get both sides of the story.

Finally, you did say this:

> The employee in question has made it clear that it's not a big deal and she knows how to deal with it (...)

How is she going to react if you fire his ass? Wouldn't it be acting like she can't take care of herself?


> How is she going to react if you fire his ass? Wouldn't it be acting like she can't take care of herself?

You know, it occurs to me you can't have this both ways: take care of yourself and rat out the fiend to the boss above.

"Hello, 911? There is a robbery at Elm and 41st. But don't send anyone, I can take care of these dudes! One of the perpetrators saw me using my phone, so if police arrive, they will know it was me! And that scares me --- that's how much I can take care of this myself!"

If you don't want some authority to take action, don't burden them with the conflict of the knowledge and the request not to take action.


I can't believe I didn't see it sooner.

That's blatant manipulation.


I think I'm in the middle in this issue. On one hand the guy is new, and went pretty far on this one. On the other hand you are hiring human beings and you can't completely stop flirty behaviors (I remember reading about the percentage of Americans who meet their spouse at work and it was pretty high).


I really don't understand the environment around sex and relationships in the work place. It's messed up. Someone should be able to express interest and the other person should be able to refuse it. Simple as that. But instead there is a whole drawn out ritual around these things. It's not really grown up thing that adults do, instead any male is looked at as an aggressive offender looking to rape someone, unless the female is interested and the male is supposed to know how at this moment the female is feeling. And the female is apparently always fearing rape unless she is interested. I am sort of creating hyperbole, but it seems as if the undertone is like that. On the surface I guess it's that well I am uncomfortable with how the other person is acting, but that should be resolved with some training or something, as when someone is rude to someone else and they don't appreciate it. But so it goes.


She did refuse a romantic involvement by stating up front that she was okay spending time outside of work as friends. That interaction is okay. But he kept going. It's the "kept going" that is sexual harassment.


Yeah I don't know how the whole thing progressed. But it's a fine line and I guess he crossed it.


It says in the post how it progressed. He made a move, she clearly said she only had interest in a platonic, friendly/coworker relationship, he persisted and dialed up the crudeness to boot.


No, it's not a fine line, it's a thick line that's visible miles away.

You don't tell people you want to fuck them at work.


* not at work


It's one thing to nurture a relationship with a coworker and have it develop into something bigger. It's carnal and rude to ask someone out when you've just joined the company. Like, have some decency to get your foot in the door before you whip your dick out.


I agree, but "rude" and "illegal" are two different things. I have never asked my-coworker out during my whole career as I deem it unprofessional, but don't see anything inherently bad about that.


It is extremely common to date in the workplace. People express interest and people accept or refuse it all the time.

When there is kindness and respect involved there is no problem. We don't here about any of these events. It's simply normal human relationship building.

There is a line not to cross however. Harassment is a real thing that people do and nobody should have to deal with in a professional context.


Want to ask someone out for lunch or a movie or just hang out? No problem.

While you're away from work together, want to make a pass at someone? Sure.

Just don't do it at work, on company time. Going to work is not a license for your co-workers to proposition you.


I completely agree as far as expressing interest goes. Calling someone a MILF however is out of line (IMO).


I totally agree with you. It should not be illegal to attempt to start a relationship with a coworker. The fact that it is is frightening. It's not something that should require a lawyer when it goes wrong.

To think that hitting on someone in the 'wrong environment' is illegal is RIDICULOUS.


I find all these laws around sexual harassment strange and confusing too. Where I live, it's not sexual harassment unless you grabbed somebody's ass or demand sex/sexual favors using your authority. Saves a lot of nerves for everybody. I don't see anything bad one adult person asking other adult person out and showing sexual interest in non-violent, non-demanding way and accepting "no" for an answer (as far as story goes).

EDIT: despite all downvotes, it's interesting to watch cultural differences in this situation.


Would you find it appropriate if a coworker at work came up to you and said they would like to fuck you (which is quite literally what MILF means)


No, but neither I find appropriate if the same co-worker asked for other similarly personal thing/favor out of blue (i.e. "let's meet my parents tomorrow"), but if he/she accepts "no" and doesn't bother me anymore, I would only give a strange look.


But according to what was told, he did bother her after she told him she was not interested in going out on a date.


[flagged]


This will inevitably conclude with your employer settling a claim of retaliatory treatment subsequent to reporting sexual harassment for a sum of +/- $500k and with you being fired. Your competent legal advisor will, accordingly, recommend against retaliating against the reporting employee, even if you consider this issue beneath your notice. The laws of the United States on this matter are relatively well-settled and they do not agree with your opinion on this matter.


[flagged]


I hope you are joking. You expressed no interest in "babysitting grown children", and then suggested that you yourself would proceed with a course of action that would be appropriate only for a grown child.


If that's your plan I wouldn't go around posting about it.


an impossible project is also retaliation. your scheme is actually worse than transparently firing the harassed employee, as it costs you extra salary, in addition to the lawsuit.


Why both? What did the female employee do wrong?


[flagged]


When a woman is called a milf (along with the other poor conduct) she reports it even if she thinks it's mild because she doesn't know what he's saying or doing to other women in the company.


> whose skin is so graphene thin that being called a MILF

Are you serious???


That seems deeply unfair - what did the existing employee do wrong?


The victim? Why on earth?


>My reaction would be to just fire both.

What did the existing employee do to deserve such treatment?


[flagged]


Calling someone a "MILF" is tantamount to saying "I'd like to fuck you." It has all of the same meaning: "You're a human (mother) I'd like to fuck." It's disingenuous to call this a compliment.

Dudes on this thread are being histrionic, like, if I can't call a woman a MILF at work, what's next, the PC gestapo are going to prevent me from making eye contact with women.

I can't stress this enough: if not being able to call a woman a MILF in your day to day life is an imposition, you really need to reevaluate how you talk to (and think about) women. I'll skip the moral appeal and go straight to self interest: on average, women just don't like that shit. You catch more flies with honey than you do unwelcome, overly sexually aggressive comments.


Continuing sexual advances in a work context after being explicitly rebuffed is textbook harassment. This is, perhaps, nearly the most minor incident possible of that basic pattern, but it also pretty clearly fits it.


Did that happen?


Find the pattern in the following list of numbers:

  2


[flagged]


You seem to be conflating sexual harassment, which is a work-related tort, with sexual assault and rape, which are very different characters of things.

Yes, sexual harassment involves many things which fall far short of sexual assault. And, sure, maybe those are first world problems -- if you want to run a successful business in the first world, then you shouldn't be surprised by the need to address first world problems.

And, sure, maybe some women like playing hard to get. The existence of those women does not create license to continue to pursue any woman who has turned you in the workplace. Nor does it remove the legal obligation of the employer to address such unwanted pursuit. What you do when pursuing women who are not your coworkers outside of your work environment, so long as it comports with the less restrictive laws applicable in such environments, is your own business.


I wonder how your grandmother would feel about you bringing her into this discussion.

Also just because there are worse things than verbal sexual harassment doesn't mean it should be ignored.


"since no one will want to be the first one to make a move."

It's a work environment, not a bar. No one should normally need to make a "first move" in this context. Sure, work romances do sometimes happen, but I don't think our population is in any danger if they do not.


"work romances do sometimes happen"

A quick google suggests that 38% of people have dated a co-worker.


That ignores the fact that you've hired human employees. Maybe chemical castration should be a part of the onboarding process these days?


Please stop.

Edit: Actually we've banned this account for trolling.


Contrary to other animals humans are capable of keeping their instincts in check. In fact one could argue that this ability is what elevates humans above other primates. So being a human with a sex drive is no excuse for calling others MILF.


>albeit crudely

There you have it. I'd bet dollar to doughnuts that if this person had simply "expressed interest," I don't think there would have been an issue. But if a total stranger says they only want to "hang out" as friends, and your reaction is to call them a MILF and try to share some creepy "secret" with them, that's clearly an unwanted interaction.


Yes, crudely remarking on a coworker's appearance then asking to "tell them a secret" (which is obviously going to be sexual in nature) is sexual harassment.

If you can't see why, I think quite a few people are very happy you don't have plans for management.


At least he is owning up to not want to deal with adult babysitting, which is what this is.


I'd guess it's because she didn't handle it on her own, and instead relied on the manager.

It's not your job to handle shit like that. If the person continues and it makes the work environment hostile than it might be, but not a one-time interaction like OP describes


Actually, as it potentially a source of liability for the company, reporting it to management if not merely acceptable but good for the management. On the other hand, firing the reporting party for reporting the incident is clearly and blatantly illegal.


What's the name of the liability? I'd like to look it up


Why both?


[flagged]


If you fire someone for reporting sexual harassment, they have an open-and-shut retaliation case against you. You've just vastly magnified your legal problems if you do this.

I'm sorry you have had personal issues in your life stemming from your wife dealing with sexual harassment issues from the HR side, but your emotional reaction based on that experience isn't likely to be the basis for sound advice.


There's a simple answer to that. Change the law!


The woman (in this Ask HN) did not do anything wrong. Firing her would not be appropriate.

> If two employes can't resolve their own issues without involving you then you don't need them.

No employee should be subject to harassment. And as a consequence of being harassed they should not be cast aside. Part of being a boss is dealing with these situations. Even if dealing with it means handing it off to a lawyer and HR to resolve for you because you don't have the time or expertise.

> If the innocent party was truly free of blame you can always hire them back.

I can't get my ex back. Firing someone burns bridges.


A startup typically does not have a lawyer on retainer for HR issues or an HR department for that matter.


In which case the responsibility falls on the boss. And the first thing they need to do is get a lawyer. Firing someone without good cause ("I fired them both after she accused him of sexually harassing her") is a BAD idea. You're opening yourself up to suits. The situation, the investigation, it all needs to get documented and reviewed by people who know this stuff.

Once a startup goes beyond some friends/colleagues tinkering in their garage or bedrooms, you need to retain proper staff to handle your various employee situations. You need people that know how insurance works. You need people that understand retirement plans. You need people that understand legal obligations re overtime, travel compensation, etc.

With a small company you can conceivably get away with a handful of lawyers on retainer, or one primary in-house counsel who consults with specialists as needed. But you can't get away without having lawyers and HR people in the long run.


I'm sorry about your marriage but this is awful advice.


Honestly it sounds more like your wife and ceo were the idiots for not not knowing how to handle such a routine situation.


When you say, referred to her as a milf, do you mean to her face? Or to someone else in a private conversation?

If you take that out of the picture, then talking on Whatsapp, and asking to hang out, and telling a secret, do not constitute any sexual harassment. This is particularly true if we are talking about just one conversation after which the person did not persist. Should investigate that milf comment, however.

I am rather surprised by the number of people just saying that he should be fired. Really? Showing the littlest bit of attraction and then getting shut down is not harassment. You want to take away a person's livelihood for that?


I think people here are assuming that the other employee had a reason to go to the OP and show him the text, and that OP has a reason for being "really upset by th[e] guy's behaviour".


Fire him. Period. He'll do this to someone else who might not report it.

Anyone who calls a woman a milf to her face has NO respect for women, and will cause problems with women at the company in 1000 other small ways (and possibly big ways).

Be that guy that says he's not going to let this shit slide, and then actually follows through.

Of course the woman said she doesn't want to cause trouble... she's trying to cover her own ass to make sure that you're not going to get mad at her (yes, I'm sure it crossed her mind). She reported it to you for a reason. Because it was completely unacceptable.

Fire him. Fire him. Fire him.

And then explain to the rest of the company exactly why he was fired. And that you're not going to tolerate that behavior. You can leave out details of who and why, even white lie if there's only one woman on the team, that it was a friend or something...

If you work in a state without at-will employment, you might need to talk to a lawyer... hopefully your HR team can help you figure out the safe way to do it. But do it. Even if it's not safe. Do it because it's the RIGHT thing to do.


Don't use a lawyer. Read the penal text. Make yourself an opinion. And act according to the rules and preferably use written procedures without shaming. You can however make an "unrelated" meeting if you want to make yourself clear stating the law, and the process your company is following.

https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment-facts.html


From a legal standpoint, you need do nothing. He is not in any position to commit quid pro quo harassment. So far, there is no evidence of hostile workplace.

What your female employee has done is to cover her own ass in case the new male employee engages in any work-inappropriate behavior. If she comes to you again, and claims harassment, you are primed to believe her immediately and take immediate, appropriate action at that time.

Don't fire him. Don't kick his ass. Don't have a meeting with HR. Write down, "Ms. Y stated on [datetime] that Mr. X propositioned Y to upgrade beyond a work-only relationship, and Y declined. Y presented sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim." Attach a copy to both of their personnel files.

In two weeks, six weeks, and twelve weeks, proactively hold 1-on-1 meetings with all your employees, including Mr. X, and ask them if they feel as though Mr. X is assimilating well into the workplace. If no one has any complaints, even after you go fishing for them, there is no evidence of hostile workplace, and you have no further business with your employees' personal relationships.

It isn't your business to manage your employees' personal lives. It is your business to provide them with a safe, cordial, and productive work environment. It isn't your business to remediate unsavory bro-havior. I don't like how sales and biz dev tend to work in the real world, but I know that sometimes that kind of behavior is beneficial to a business. I just don't hang out with that sort of people in a social context. I prefer that their oily schmoozing be directed at potential customers, and I'm sure they prefer that I not ruin their good time with my dry-toast nerdity.

Personally, though, I would question the judgment of a biz dev employee whose first act in a new camp is to dig his latrine next to the watering hole. Aren't they supposed to cultivate new business relationships outside the company?


>So far, there is no evidence of hostile workplace.

Other than the fact a female employee just told him about hostile comments?

I agree that it's probably not a hostile workplace YET, but it could quickly become that. And since he's aware of it, he'll be liable for future conduct of the male.


It's not their personal lives. It was in work time, initiated through work channels. And even if it was at a bar after work, it would still be rude and indicative of the kind of personality you don't want at your company. Waiting for him to slip up and hoping someone will report it is a horrible solution.

It's not like he said "hey nice haircut" and it was taken the wrong way. He called her a milf. There's no ambiguity.

Fire him.


I completely disagree. OP stated this communication took place during the weekend, via Whatsapp, rather than Slack. Clearly, this was personal business, through personal channels, on personal time.

If it was at a bar after work, there would be no reason for us to know about it other than the suspicion that it might later spill over into work matters. Zero tolerance is a horrible way to run anything, not just a business.

It is true that "at will" employment means you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all, but if you choose to run your business that way, do not be surprised when otherwise disassociated people abandon ship.

If I worked at this company and discovered that a co-worker had been fired on a justification this flimsy, I would be job hunting again at 5:01 PM that very day. Firing is an extremely disproportionate response to making a failed proposition to a co-worker on personal time, through personal channels.

As immediate termination seems to be a somewhat popular response here, I just have to say "What the Hell is wrong with you people?" You are now building the world you will have to live in later. I hope you appreciate the irony when popular sentiments change and your livelihood is subsequently threatened because your lifestyle and opinions are now unpopular.

You are, in all seriousness, advocating loss of employment and potentially long-lasting career damage as extrajudicial punishment for the heinous crime of privately sending inappropriate text messages.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: