Sexual Harrasment opinion needed Female ->Male

[XxSlusherxx]

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle...tml?page=1&c=y

Hirshfield's-Britton feud is a colorful one
By C.J., Star Tribune
Last update: April 26, 2008 - 3:55 PM

Hirshfield's is painting Edina makeup queen Carroll Britton in an unflattering light.
The Twin Cities paint and decorating chain sent Britton two letters about her behavior in the Edina store in February. "Hirshfield's policies strictly prohibit harassing or offensive behavior directed to its employees and customers," wrote human resources manager Eva Quist in an April 4 letter. The letter noted that the company reserved the right to ask Britton to leave if there were "additional complaints."
When I asked my frequent source what she did to make Hirshfield's write her off, Britton said she did what she usually does with a cute male employee. "I'm always joking and jovial," she said. "I'm an older woman; I'm a cougar when I see a cute young guy. I remember commenting he had beautiful eyelashes. I'm gushing. I'm certainly complimentary. I'm not doing anything that would be not a nice thing to say. I'm naturally flirtatious."
Britton said she did not realize she was offending anyone at the time. "I don't ever recall anybody doing anything but laughing with me," Britton said. "I think if you are offended by something, you own it and you say, I'm sorry, that's not funny to me."
Lots of Minnesotans avoid such confrontation.
In the second letter dated April 14, Quist told Britton that the offended employee wanted a letter of apology, which should be mailed by April 25.
"What happened to the customer always being right?" joked Britton, who has taken to calling the company "Hirshfield's paint and punishment." While she sees some humor in it now, she sobbed as she noted that the letters upset her.
In an interview, Quist indicated that the letters might not have been sent had Britton returned phone calls. "She's not at all banned from the store," Quist said. "But her behavior and the verbiage she has used in front of our employees is unacceptable behavior according to our harassment policies. We have two witnesses. One of them was the one who the verbal communication and physical contact were made to."
Physical contact? "There was according to my employees," Quist said. TOUCHING? "Not touching," Quist said. "Inappropriately leaned on both of the male employees. I do not want this to be a formal interview. ... I would like to do this face to face." Later when I called Quist, as she had requested, she said: "The company has absolutely no comment."
I talked to the offended employee, too. He declined to tell me if he is considering a suit against Hirshfield's or Britton. "You don't have the right to call me without my attorney right next to me. I am not saying one damn thing to you," he said. "I don't know who you are. And I'm not giving out any information about what happened."
When I asked Britton if her lawyer was aware of this, she said, "Of course," after "the second registered letter."
A 'most extreme' case
I read the Hirshfield's letters to Jessica Roe, an employment defense lawyer and partner at Bernick and Lifson, to get a legal take on the matter.
"What are they going to do, come strip the paint off this person's house if they don't get an apology?" Roe said. "It's an internal issue that Hirshfield's should be handling." Only in the "most extreme of circumstances" should the customer have been contacted, said Roe, who has been practicing 14 years. "It's very bad customer service."

I apologise, there is no real way a tl;dr summary will work, it's the wording of the article that makes it so offensive to me. No, it's not about me, but I work for the company and know this individual very well. I've had it brought up by at least 20 customers of mine in the last two days, and it's just created a ton of pressure at work. How this was printed in the paper. the SUNDAY paper is beyond me.

Some background, "CJ" is normally a gossip coloumnist who writes about celeberties or other junk like this resturaunt serves water in dirty glasses etc etc. Knowing the guy involved I'll admit up front his "tolorence" Isn't what I would call high, however I find great fault in this situation.

First, CJ is insinuating that writing a letter is a bad way to handle it, well you have to take into account that Sexual harassment is a problum because you're pushing somebody beyond their comfort limits, so mabye the comfortable thing to do is to write to them later, personally I think the written apology thing is kinda lame, I don't believe in asking for apologies but thats his business. In fact this matter was kept completely private, outside of him this "witness" and the HR director mentioned, I haven't talked to anybody who knew about it. I think to go to the paper was very low, your taking somebody who has already informed you they are uncomfortable, and you are taking the confrontation to a public stage. basically taking the very thing thats wrong with Sexual Harassment and multiplying it.

Anyway point of the topic, after the way the last two days of work have gone, I've boiled over about this. People asking and talking about it so often that it's making me uncomfortable, I can only imagine how he feels. One of things you always hear about this sort of thing is the victims often don't speak up because they are embarassed and here you have a typical Female -> Male harassment responce of "Oh I'm just a harmless old cougar complementing him" I can't imagine this coloumnist keeping her job if she printed such a slanted artlicle about a male -> female situation, it just drives me nuts.

[Elmer the Pointy]

Ironically, you should be able to empathize with the lady offender, because you just did the same thing.

You had no outlet for your frustration over this issue, and it boiled over, making you seek a source of comfort. Posting to BG gets your bottled up opinion out and perhaps some consolation and perspective from others.

She was confronted by a letter demanding an apology. It was basically her vs. some big company. She got scared and frustrated and sought an outlet in the form of the local paper.

The slant, I assume, comes from the fact that she is probably a nice lady, who hands out compliments like candy, and I'm sure was a pleasure for the writers to talk to. Meanwhile, your friend was like, "Hey fuck off douchelick, I ain't tellin' you shit, so bite me."

Just my observation from what information I see in your OP.

[Weeks]

Do or do not. There is no female > male sexual harassment.

[Zeb]

Neither your explanation of what happened or the newspaper article explains whether the complaint was from the one being flirted with or the witness. A complaint can be filed by either. The witness can be harassed just as much. There may also be more behind this than just one of the two going to the HR rep and complaining. Most likely, no one knows the full story except those involved and the HR rep.

Also, people need to stop being pussies and learn to communicate when they have a problem, not after the fact. Granted sometimes you want a 3rd party there to mediate, but do it when the problem arises, not after.

[TacoTaru]

Do or do not. There is no female > male sexual harassment.

I'm probably being whooshed, but why can't there be female > male sexual harassment? Males can't have unwelcome sexual advances from females?

[Einherjar]

Until a picture of the female is posted we cannot determine if it's sexual harassment.

[Darus Grey]

I think sexual harassment is BS anyways...

Since the enforcement of it is based entirely on the sensitivity of the "Victim", there can be no standard of enforcement. Whats acceptable in one situation may not be acceptable in another. Since wanted sexual attention isn't a crime, sexual harassment is a crime simply of failure to procure interest, and since the sensitivity of one person varies from one person to another, including people who are overly sensitive over what would be considered normal...the enforcement is entirely subjective. The actual act of enforcing it is based entirely on the will of the victim, so a person who is deranged in their definition of harassment can justifiably enforce their will on a "normal" person...thereby harassing them with no repercussions...

The entire thing is a morale quagmire and should not be a legal matter unless harassment crosses the legal line into another crime like stalking, libel, or assault. Because before it crosses that line it should be entirely avoidable on a social level, or at least employer action should be appropriate.

Another major issue is that sexual harassment is often claimed and enforced after only a SINGLE incident, even though it takes a consistent series of events over a period of time to constitute harassment.

[Quicklet]

Since wanted sex isn't a crime, rape is a crime simply of failure to procure interest, and since the sensitivity of one person varies from one person to another, including people who are overly sensitive over what would be considered normal...the enforcement is entirely subjective.

Anyways, "subjective" judgments are required in a lot of ethical issues. To claim that anything requiring a subjective judgment can't therefore have any standard *whatsoever* is rather ludicrous.

What's the line of punishment vs. torture, etc.? In matters of degree, subjective judgments or the institutional rules used to create the standard are rather important, even if it's a hazy line for some cases.

If this woman is the one who brought the story to the attention to the gossip writer, IMO she's just attention whoring because she can't grasp the concept that not every male body in the universe wants to have some old woman touching them / talking to them in inappropriate ways. It's just easier for women to get away with than men.

[Apelila]

Also, people need to stop being pussies and learn to communicate when they have a problem, not after the fact. Granted sometimes you want a 3rd party there to mediate, but do it when the problem arises, not after.

Sometimes if you don't have a 3'rd party there to begin with it turns into a giant "thats not what they/I said" circle jerk.

Having said that, its beyond me why the employer's went as far as they did for what seems to be something that could have easily been solved with a 'hey, stop hitting on him or else' discussion. The article says that she wouldn't have gotten a letter if she'd returned phoned calls, but you know what? Why the fuck are you calling an employee at home about this bullshit? Maybe I'm weird but when my employer starts sending me letters about job related matters instead of handling them on the job, I would start to get nervous.

[Darus Grey]

Since wanted sex isn't a crime, rape is a crime simply of failure to procure interest, and since the sensitivity of one person varies from one person to another, including people who are overly sensitive over what would be considered normal...the enforcement is entirely subjective.

Thats so flawed on so many levels, a physical crime involves force, a mainly "verbal" crime can be avoided or ignored. Seriously that was a horrible analogy.

I didn't say any crime that requires subjective judgments on the side of judges, police, etc isn't enforceable. I said a crime in which the supposed VICTIM determines a often acceptable social interaction is a crime, is unenforceable. There are plenty of things I *think* should be crimes that are not. However I am legally unable to enforce my will upon these "criminals" based on my own judgment to punish them. Sexual harassment however is exactly that, it takes behavior that is perfectly acceptable in many situations and criminalizes it based on the will of the listener. It violates the first amendment rights of the speaker by legally censoring his speech that is not *inherit*(key word here) in it's harm.

I don't support the active harassment of people, but at the very least the crime is far ...far... too broad in it's enforcement, and should be reserved for people who are truly harassed over a long-term... it is rarely enforced in that way.

[BaneTheBrawler]

This thread offends me in a sexual fashion. Expect a lawsuit.

[XxSlusherxx]

To be honest with you, I think what Elmer pretty much put me in a box right out of the gate, but we don't delete the OP at BG so I'm just going to have to live with my hypocracy. I guess I rationalized it to myself thinking it's just BG but for all I know everybody involved reads BG, I doubt it, but have no way to know. Anyway whatever it makes me I'm going to clarify some things brought up.

-the action in question was "put his face in her cleavage"

-Apperently there was no planned lawsuit, the quote was described to me as "frustration"

-I'm guessing Apelila just skimmed but in case it's not clear this was Customer -> Salesperson at a retail store

then again this is just his side of the story much like the article hers so it could quite possibly be somewhere in between

[Quicklet]

If true, lol yeah that's definitely sexual harassment, and all around gross.

[Apelila]

No I read it all. On second, much closer inspection the only person who ever mentions explicitly that she didn't work there; and the person mentioning it was introduced as "an employment defense lawyer". Thats where my confusion came in. Its also odd for HR people to get involved when a customer did something to upset an employee and not the other way around. (Edit: In this case, its odd that HR people are contacting a customer and not having other parts of the company perform this like the store management. )

In that light, my earlier reactions stands, replace employee with customer in the bolded part but underline it and caps. I was confused about why an employee would get a letter instead of a talking to, I have no fucking clue why any company would go out of their way to contact a customer about something like this unless it was grossly inappropriate; which it may very well have been or perceived since the guy flew off the handle and played the lawyer card.

[wintersquall]

well first off, C.J. is pretty much a giant douche-bag. one of those need a life types that thinks gossip is just the greatest thing since sliced bread, and somehow through some connections convinved the ST to actually let her write about it.

one thing i didn't see mentioned - this being a minneapolis-area department store, the worker in question very well may have been homosexual and that could be the basis for the extreme discomfort. and yes i can say that, i live and work out a matter of blocks from downtown minneapolis and it's very possible.

if the guy was straight, then he's a HUGE fucking pussy if he was really that offended and couldn't tell an older, non-physically threatening woman that he didn't want her sticking her face in her cleavage, or grazing him inappropriately.

none of this would have been necessary if he would've manned up, and i wish i had his phone number personally so i could rip him a new one for causing it.

[Dmitry]

The real question is was she hot or not?

[Woozie]

The real question is was she hot or not?

I'm pretty sure they said she was older?

[Ivve]

From what I took away from the story, a customer who is an older woman hit on young male employee. He said nothing to her at the time to indicate that her behavior was making him uncomfortable, and pursued her at a later date with lawyers. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. I've had jobs where people have said much more offensive things than "You have beautiful eyelashes," and I never turned to lawyers to solve it. I believe that if someone is making you feel uncomfortable with their sexual remarks or conduct, the burden of responsibility to notify them that their behavior is inappropriate falls to you. Silence can easily be mistaken for receptivity to someone's advances, which in turn encourages them to say and do even bolder things. It's just not reasonable to expect everyone to correctly interpret your body language/tone of voice, especially when each individual's boundaries between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" are different.

[Ashira]

I have been fired for sexual harrassment, and believe me, at the time... and it was NOTHING like this. Granted, in part, it was purely political; the new regional manager for the store I worked at didn't care for me, nor I for him, and he used this as an opportunity to get rid of me.

Essentially, I worked at an AE, where we have to have the music at a pretty loud level on order of corporate. One particular month had a lot of classic rock on it, including Cheap Trick's "I Want You to Want Me." Now, I was in my mid-20s, and this particular shift I had a lot of our college frat boys and one other girl on the floor, and it had been a really rugged night. Things had finally slowed down, and I was trying to keep our energy up and make everyone laugh. All of our employees knew I was heavily involved with theatre and performing, so I often goofed around in this way to just keep spirits up. This song comes on and I'm up on the cashwrap counters, basically lip synching into a pen or something, and then I hop down and dance with all the employees, laughing at the "omg you're so weird" type faces everyone was making. It meant absolutely nothing, I was just being goofy, and I sang to all the guys and the girl too.

I got fired cuz the girl filed a report saying I had made her uncomfortable by dancing with her in a sexual manner.

Again, I was completely railroaded; I was never told there had been an issue, I was never allowed to defend myself or given an opportunity to apologize to this employee, so yes, I realize there was much more political motivation than anything. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me that the RM had found out about this and told the girl to make a report so he could use it. It seemed ridiculous I got canned for dancing when another assistant manager was getting promoted, and our entire staff knew his whole sexual history (and he was bi)... and I really am not exaggerating.

IN ANY CASE, the point is... it is unfortunately pretty subjective, but the first course of action should be at lower tiers.. if you do feel uncomfortable talking to the person, then an immediate manager, etc... not corporate and lawyers and bs, who really will have NO FEELING for context whatsoever.

[Seditedi]

I didn't read that wall of text, but I'd just like to say what kind of a faggot would complain about a female sexually harassing them? lol................