3 ms·

Innocent until proven guilty is a great standard for criminal trials but probably not for the workplace, where people who report harassment are usually taking a

Innocent until proven guilty is a great standard for criminal trials but probably not for the workplace, where people who report harassment are usually taking an incredible career risk by doing so.

tehlike 9y ago
on the flip side of this, at-will employment is a reason a company could take immediate action without having to investigate.
paganel 9y ago
People can also be very manipulative. Following down this path (i.e. "believing that the accuser is right even before the investigation starts") will only lead to less women being hired for relevant positions. Here's a relevant scenario: I'm a man, I hold a managerial position and I have to choose between hiring another man or a woman as a one of my direct-reports. Let's say both contenders have the same qualifications, they're both equally fit for the job, but then, I, as a manager, start thinking that if I hire the woman she will then possibly think of filing a sexual harassment complaint down the line in order to take my job. Remember the "believe" part, which means that the sexual complaint doesn't even need to be backed by anything real, because most of the times after the complaint has been made public the damage is already done for me, as a male manager, no matter what the investigation finds (if it manages to find anything). So I choose the man over the woman as my direct-report.
- ebola1717 9y ago
  Or maybe we just promote more women and gay men to managerial positions :)
- orcdork 9y ago
  So what you're saying is, in your "relevant" scenario, you would discriminate based on gender for a hiring decision.
  - endominus 9y ago
    I think it would be more fair to say he would discriminate based on perceived risk to himself. In this case, that risk is based on the sex of the person involved, but his argument can also include, for example, hiring someone with lesser qualifications, who is less likely to be promoted past him, over a more experienced candidate. The more general point would be, be aware of the second order effects of changes you promote. For example, revocation of innocent-until-proven-guilty would almost certainly reduce the chances of people who have blown the whistle of being hired again, as they would present a much higher risk to prospective companies, regardless of whether their claims were true. The fact that they would blow the whistle at all would serve as a huge red flag. Of course, I don't actually know the incidence of sexual harassment at workplaces, and have no idea whether false reports are even an issue. I strongly doubt they are, but I can somewhat understand male managers fear of them, given that they can ruin careers and marriages. As much as sexual harassment is a problem, I don't think assumption of guilt is an appropriate or long-term effective solution.
  - paganel 9y ago
    When you introduce irrational events into a mostly rational world (i.e. when you introduce "believe before investigation" into a world run by financial compensation) then you're bound to have irrational responses, such as discrimination, yes.
    - HelloNurse 9y ago
      Assuming other people aren't psychopaths is irrational optimism, while desperate defensive strategies like not hiring high-risk people are perfectly rational.
  - hueving 9y ago
    In a world where no evidence is required before firing, then that would be the sane thing to do. Always hire the sex you are not attracted to and make your sexual preference very clear.
- Fraterkes 9y ago
  Im sorry, but if you extrapolate that kind of paranoia and self-servedness everything has difficult repercusions. Maybe companies shouldnt have an HR department at all because people might decide the risk of someone complaining about them is so big that they stop hiring anyone.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
sgift 9y ago
I've never understood this position. We take a risk too by following innocent until proven guilty in criminal trials, but hundreds of years of the opposite (e.g. "A witch!" -> kill the 'offender', "A child molester!" -> kill the 'offender') have shown us that the risks of a fair trial are better than the risks of ruining peoples life over accusations. Why should this be any different in the work place?
- matt4077 9y ago
  a. Because a false positive may result in moving someone to a different division, not burning them at the stake. b. Because the costs of a false negative is forcing someone to continue working for/with someone they clearly feel uncomfortable around. (compare to crimes, where it's much easier to protect the victim even without any sanctions against the accused)
- curun1r 9y ago
  There's a middle ground between innocent until proven guilty and condemned by accusation and we've been using it in a courts of law for many, many years. Sexual harassment is primarily a civil issue, not a criminal one. And civil issues are resolved based on the preponderance of the evidence, not innocent until proven guilty. Anyone accused of sexual harassment should have a chance to give their side of the story and an investigation should be performed, but the company should act based on what HR believes happened, not just what HR can prove happened. Neither the accuser nor the accused has the presumption of being right or the burden of proof.
  - bubinubn 9y ago
    Even when the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, the accuser still has the burden the proof. The general rule seems to be more than 50% probability or "more probable than not." This is not a minor issue...if all you have as evidence are the testimonies of the accuser and and accused and no way to impeach either one of them, deference should still be given to the accused. Also note that it is in general impossible to prove that something did not happen, as opposed to proving it did, as things that did not happen have no evidence of their occurrence by definition...
walshemj 9y ago
The problem is with these "difficult" issues the first thing anyone who is trained to work in this area (even on the employee side) as I am - will tell you is you have to verify what you are being told.
curun1r 9y ago
Preponderance of the evidence is the standard that companies should be following because that is the standard that will be followed in any civil suit that follows the company's resolution of the issue, either from the accused or the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for depriving someone of their freedom, not their job. If the harassment rises to the level of sexual assault, it's the standard the prosecutor will use. Otherwise, it's irrelevant in the context of sexual harassment.

Innocent until proven guilty is a great standard for criminal trials but probably not for the workplace, where people who report harassment are usually taking an incredible career risk by doing so.

tehlike 9y ago

on the flip side of this, at-will employment is a reason a company could take immediate action without having to investigate.

paganel 9y ago

People can also be very manipulative. Following down this path (i.e. "believing that the accuser is right even before the investigation starts") will only lead to less women being hired for relevant positions. Here's a relevant scenario: I'm a man, I hold a managerial position and I have to choose between hiring another man or a woman as a one of my direct-reports. Let's say both contenders have the same qualifications, they're both equally fit for the job, but then, I, as a manager, start thinking that if I hire the woman she will then possibly think of filing a sexual harassment complaint down the line in order to take my job. Remember the "believe" part, which means that the sexual complaint doesn't even need to be backed by anything real, because most of the times after the complaint has been made public the damage is already done for me, as a male manager, no matter what the investigation finds (if it manages to find anything). So I choose the man over the woman as my direct-report.

ebola1717 9y ago
Or maybe we just promote more women and gay men to managerial positions :)
orcdork 9y ago
So what you're saying is, in your "relevant" scenario, you would discriminate based on gender for a hiring decision.
- endominus 9y ago
  I think it would be more fair to say he would discriminate based on perceived risk to himself. In this case, that risk is based on the sex of the person involved, but his argument can also include, for example, hiring someone with lesser qualifications, who is less likely to be promoted past him, over a more experienced candidate. The more general point would be, be aware of the second order effects of changes you promote. For example, revocation of innocent-until-proven-guilty would almost certainly reduce the chances of people who have blown the whistle of being hired again, as they would present a much higher risk to prospective companies, regardless of whether their claims were true. The fact that they would blow the whistle at all would serve as a huge red flag. Of course, I don't actually know the incidence of sexual harassment at workplaces, and have no idea whether false reports are even an issue. I strongly doubt they are, but I can somewhat understand male managers fear of them, given that they can ruin careers and marriages. As much as sexual harassment is a problem, I don't think assumption of guilt is an appropriate or long-term effective solution.
- paganel 9y ago
  When you introduce irrational events into a mostly rational world (i.e. when you introduce "believe before investigation" into a world run by financial compensation) then you're bound to have irrational responses, such as discrimination, yes.
  - HelloNurse 9y ago
    Assuming other people aren't psychopaths is irrational optimism, while desperate defensive strategies like not hiring high-risk people are perfectly rational.
- hueving 9y ago
  In a world where no evidence is required before firing, then that would be the sane thing to do. Always hire the sex you are not attracted to and make your sexual preference very clear.
Fraterkes 9y ago
Im sorry, but if you extrapolate that kind of paranoia and self-servedness everything has difficult repercusions. Maybe companies shouldnt have an HR department at all because people might decide the risk of someone complaining about them is so big that they stop hiring anyone.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

sgift 9y ago

I've never understood this position. We take a risk too by following innocent until proven guilty in criminal trials, but hundreds of years of the opposite (e.g. "A witch!" -> kill the 'offender', "A child molester!" -> kill the 'offender') have shown us that the risks of a fair trial are better than the risks of ruining peoples life over accusations. Why should this be any different in the work place?

matt4077 9y ago
a. Because a false positive may result in moving someone to a different division, not burning them at the stake. b. Because the costs of a false negative is forcing someone to continue working for/with someone they clearly feel uncomfortable around. (compare to crimes, where it's much easier to protect the victim even without any sanctions against the accused)
curun1r 9y ago
There's a middle ground between innocent until proven guilty and condemned by accusation and we've been using it in a courts of law for many, many years. Sexual harassment is primarily a civil issue, not a criminal one. And civil issues are resolved based on the preponderance of the evidence, not innocent until proven guilty. Anyone accused of sexual harassment should have a chance to give their side of the story and an investigation should be performed, but the company should act based on what HR believes happened, not just what HR can prove happened. Neither the accuser nor the accused has the presumption of being right or the burden of proof.
- bubinubn 9y ago
  Even when the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, the accuser still has the burden the proof. The general rule seems to be more than 50% probability or "more probable than not." This is not a minor issue...if all you have as evidence are the testimonies of the accuser and and accused and no way to impeach either one of them, deference should still be given to the accused. Also note that it is in general impossible to prove that something did not happen, as opposed to proving it did, as things that did not happen have no evidence of their occurrence by definition...

walshemj 9y ago

The problem is with these "difficult" issues the first thing anyone who is trained to work in this area (even on the employee side) as I am - will tell you is you have to verify what you are being told.

curun1r 9y ago

Preponderance of the evidence is the standard that companies should be following because that is the standard that will be followed in any civil suit that follows the company's resolution of the issue, either from the accused or the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for depriving someone of their freedom, not their job. If the harassment rises to the level of sexual assault, it's the standard the prosecutor will use. Otherwise, it's irrelevant in the context of sexual harassment.