5 ms·

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.

by maxcan 10y ago

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.

tptacek 10y ago
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.
- maxcan 10y ago
  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.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    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.
    - maxcan 10y ago
      Yeah, my point is that there are better ways to avoid lawsuits than just firing anyone the minute someone shows an inappropriate text message.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        This isn't responsive to what I just wrote. Not terminating is what risks the lawsuit. Terminating forecloses on that lawsuit.
        kelukelugames 10y ago
        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 https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm [2] https://www.eeoc.gov/search/search?q=sexual&btnG=Search&entqr=0&ud=1&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&client=press_frontend&proxystylesheet=press_frontend&site=PressReleases&filter=0 https://www.eeoc.gov/search/search?q=sexual&btnG=Search&entq...
        tptacek 10y ago
        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.
kaitai 10y ago
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.
- maxcan 10y ago
  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.

by maxcan 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

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.

maxcan 10y ago
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.
- tptacek 10y ago
  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.
  - maxcan 10y ago
    Yeah, my point is that there are better ways to avoid lawsuits than just firing anyone the minute someone shows an inappropriate text message.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      This isn't responsive to what I just wrote. Not terminating is what risks the lawsuit. Terminating forecloses on that lawsuit.
      - kelukelugames 10y ago
        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 https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm [2] https://www.eeoc.gov/search/search?q=sexual&btnG=Search&entqr=0&ud=1&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&client=press_frontend&proxystylesheet=press_frontend&site=PressReleases&filter=0 https://www.eeoc.gov/search/search?q=sexual&btnG=Search&entq...
        tptacek 10y ago
        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.

kaitai 10y ago

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.

maxcan 10y ago
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.