Responding to a claim





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}






up vote
10
down vote

favorite












My friend Bob and his co-worker Alice where walking down the hallway of the building at work. Their workplace is very professional and so is their work relationship.



Unfortunately, there was nobody in the hallway at the time. After a week, Bob got called to HR and was being accused of harassing Alice down the hallway. I know my friend Bob if very professional and would never do something like that, but what could he do to prove himself innocent? Please help.










share|improve this question




















  • 6




    Related (not duplicate): How do companies handle 'he-said she-said' situations with no objective evidence either way
    – rath
    Nov 9 at 10:12






  • 4




    While I don't agree with the original close reason, I do think some details are lacking to give a good answer; specifically, what was Bob accused of exactly? What did he do in the alleged "sexual harassment" claim?
    – Martin Tournoij
    Nov 9 at 11:52












  • @MartinTournoij Or, perhaps, "What is it claimed he did (to constitute sexual harassment)", or "Was there anything he did do, that is being seen as sexual harassment".
    – TripeHound
    Nov 9 at 11:55






  • 4




    I am very confused by: "sexually harassing Alice down the stairs". Was it verbal? Touching? Just walking down stairs is not harassing.
    – Pete B.
    Nov 9 at 15:04






  • 6




    This question, which started as a sexual harrassment accusation in a back stairway is now a religuous harrasment question in a hallway. Something not right with the edits.
    – Laconic Droid
    2 days ago



















up vote
10
down vote

favorite












My friend Bob and his co-worker Alice where walking down the hallway of the building at work. Their workplace is very professional and so is their work relationship.



Unfortunately, there was nobody in the hallway at the time. After a week, Bob got called to HR and was being accused of harassing Alice down the hallway. I know my friend Bob if very professional and would never do something like that, but what could he do to prove himself innocent? Please help.










share|improve this question




















  • 6




    Related (not duplicate): How do companies handle 'he-said she-said' situations with no objective evidence either way
    – rath
    Nov 9 at 10:12






  • 4




    While I don't agree with the original close reason, I do think some details are lacking to give a good answer; specifically, what was Bob accused of exactly? What did he do in the alleged "sexual harassment" claim?
    – Martin Tournoij
    Nov 9 at 11:52












  • @MartinTournoij Or, perhaps, "What is it claimed he did (to constitute sexual harassment)", or "Was there anything he did do, that is being seen as sexual harassment".
    – TripeHound
    Nov 9 at 11:55






  • 4




    I am very confused by: "sexually harassing Alice down the stairs". Was it verbal? Touching? Just walking down stairs is not harassing.
    – Pete B.
    Nov 9 at 15:04






  • 6




    This question, which started as a sexual harrassment accusation in a back stairway is now a religuous harrasment question in a hallway. Something not right with the edits.
    – Laconic Droid
    2 days ago















up vote
10
down vote

favorite









up vote
10
down vote

favorite











My friend Bob and his co-worker Alice where walking down the hallway of the building at work. Their workplace is very professional and so is their work relationship.



Unfortunately, there was nobody in the hallway at the time. After a week, Bob got called to HR and was being accused of harassing Alice down the hallway. I know my friend Bob if very professional and would never do something like that, but what could he do to prove himself innocent? Please help.










share|improve this question















My friend Bob and his co-worker Alice where walking down the hallway of the building at work. Their workplace is very professional and so is their work relationship.



Unfortunately, there was nobody in the hallway at the time. After a week, Bob got called to HR and was being accused of harassing Alice down the hallway. I know my friend Bob if very professional and would never do something like that, but what could he do to prove himself innocent? Please help.







coworker offices harassment






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago

























asked Nov 9 at 4:39









Raykh

837




837








  • 6




    Related (not duplicate): How do companies handle 'he-said she-said' situations with no objective evidence either way
    – rath
    Nov 9 at 10:12






  • 4




    While I don't agree with the original close reason, I do think some details are lacking to give a good answer; specifically, what was Bob accused of exactly? What did he do in the alleged "sexual harassment" claim?
    – Martin Tournoij
    Nov 9 at 11:52












  • @MartinTournoij Or, perhaps, "What is it claimed he did (to constitute sexual harassment)", or "Was there anything he did do, that is being seen as sexual harassment".
    – TripeHound
    Nov 9 at 11:55






  • 4




    I am very confused by: "sexually harassing Alice down the stairs". Was it verbal? Touching? Just walking down stairs is not harassing.
    – Pete B.
    Nov 9 at 15:04






  • 6




    This question, which started as a sexual harrassment accusation in a back stairway is now a religuous harrasment question in a hallway. Something not right with the edits.
    – Laconic Droid
    2 days ago
















  • 6




    Related (not duplicate): How do companies handle 'he-said she-said' situations with no objective evidence either way
    – rath
    Nov 9 at 10:12






  • 4




    While I don't agree with the original close reason, I do think some details are lacking to give a good answer; specifically, what was Bob accused of exactly? What did he do in the alleged "sexual harassment" claim?
    – Martin Tournoij
    Nov 9 at 11:52












  • @MartinTournoij Or, perhaps, "What is it claimed he did (to constitute sexual harassment)", or "Was there anything he did do, that is being seen as sexual harassment".
    – TripeHound
    Nov 9 at 11:55






  • 4




    I am very confused by: "sexually harassing Alice down the stairs". Was it verbal? Touching? Just walking down stairs is not harassing.
    – Pete B.
    Nov 9 at 15:04






  • 6




    This question, which started as a sexual harrassment accusation in a back stairway is now a religuous harrasment question in a hallway. Something not right with the edits.
    – Laconic Droid
    2 days ago










6




6




Related (not duplicate): How do companies handle 'he-said she-said' situations with no objective evidence either way
– rath
Nov 9 at 10:12




Related (not duplicate): How do companies handle 'he-said she-said' situations with no objective evidence either way
– rath
Nov 9 at 10:12




4




4




While I don't agree with the original close reason, I do think some details are lacking to give a good answer; specifically, what was Bob accused of exactly? What did he do in the alleged "sexual harassment" claim?
– Martin Tournoij
Nov 9 at 11:52






While I don't agree with the original close reason, I do think some details are lacking to give a good answer; specifically, what was Bob accused of exactly? What did he do in the alleged "sexual harassment" claim?
– Martin Tournoij
Nov 9 at 11:52














@MartinTournoij Or, perhaps, "What is it claimed he did (to constitute sexual harassment)", or "Was there anything he did do, that is being seen as sexual harassment".
– TripeHound
Nov 9 at 11:55




@MartinTournoij Or, perhaps, "What is it claimed he did (to constitute sexual harassment)", or "Was there anything he did do, that is being seen as sexual harassment".
– TripeHound
Nov 9 at 11:55




4




4




I am very confused by: "sexually harassing Alice down the stairs". Was it verbal? Touching? Just walking down stairs is not harassing.
– Pete B.
Nov 9 at 15:04




I am very confused by: "sexually harassing Alice down the stairs". Was it verbal? Touching? Just walking down stairs is not harassing.
– Pete B.
Nov 9 at 15:04




6




6




This question, which started as a sexual harrassment accusation in a back stairway is now a religuous harrasment question in a hallway. Something not right with the edits.
– Laconic Droid
2 days ago






This question, which started as a sexual harrassment accusation in a back stairway is now a religuous harrasment question in a hallway. Something not right with the edits.
– Laconic Droid
2 days ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
26
down vote



accepted










The usual response would be for Bob to write down his version of the events, send it to whoever investigates the matter and request that it will be added to his personal file together with the results of the investigation.



Bob might want to pay for legal assistance when writing his statement, depending on how much he wants to keep his job, how strict the company is about sexual harassment and how likely it is in his country that he might also become the target of a criminal investigation because of the incident.



There are three possible things which could have happened. Bob's strategy should depend on which of these is the case:





  • Bob is being framed by Alice. This is something which happens a lot less often than some people claim. Contrary to what... certain circles... seem to believe, women usually do not go around and accuse men of sexual harassment just out of pure boredom and spite. Taking the step to accuse someone of harassment is difficult. It also bears some risk for Alice, because she might become the target of victim-blaming, victim-shaming and losing reputation because nobody believes her. In the unlikely case that this is actually what happened here, Bob might want to deny and look for motives why Alice would go to these lengths just to harm him.


  • He is actually guilty and intentionally harassed Alice. In this case, Bob needs to make a moral decision and decide what kind of person he wants to be.




    • The smart but unethical move would be to deny, act as if he is being framed and hope they don't believe Alice. It is a he-said-she-said situation, so just as he can not prove his innocence, Alice can not prove his guilt.

    • The super evil move would be to try to capitalize on the situation. He offers his resignation, but demands a huge severance in exchange for assisting with sweeping the incident under the rug. No company wants to get an image of being an unsafe place for women, so paying both sides off in a sexual assault investigation isn't unheard of. When this happens, then the "Bob" is usually someone who has powerful friends in the company who like him too much to just cut him off but don't like him so much that they are willing to sacrifice the reputation of the company for him.

    • The ethical move would be to admit guilt, offer an apology, promise to work on his behavior and offer his resignation.


    Whether to do the right move to restore his moral integrity or the right move to further his own goals would be a personal decision for Bob.



  • It was a stupid misunderstanding. Bob did or said something which he considered normal but Alice interpreted as sexual harassment. In that case the best move would be to seek a dialog with Alice and try to clear up that misunderstanding. Bob should explain what he did and what he meant with it. Bob should keep in mind that misunderstandings are often the fault of both sides. So Bob should go into this dialog with an attitude that he might have miscommunicated, that he wants to learn from Alice what his mistake was and what kind of behavior he should avoid in the future. Such a dialog should happen with a neutral party present so both Alice and Bob feel safe during this dialog.







share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Jane S
    Nov 10 at 22:11






  • 5




    Third option: I'd think if there was a misunderstanding and a formal allegation, it should be noted that Bob should not personally try to arrange a 1 on 1 meeting with Alice, as this could be pretty severely misinterpreted, as well. He should offer to have some sort of moderated or witnessed sit-down with a third party present to hash things out.
    – PoloHoleSet
    yesterday


















up vote
3
down vote













The following assumes Bob didn't do anything he should not have done.



I think Bob should ask for a detailed written report of Alice's accusation. Then he can study this in details and then he can chose to react.



I think Bob should not just go ahead and tell his version of the events. Because he could easily forget parts or describe them in a way which leaves them open to interpretation, etc.



There is a reason for the Miranda warning: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." And I like to add: It's even worse in the "public" opinion.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Assuming that Bob is innocent (I know, shocking these days, isn't it?)



    Bob should take time off immediately to speak to a lawyer about this.



    He should say NOTHING to HR without a his lawyer present, or conferenced in. Not a word to Alice, HR, coworkers or anyone else about this, not even to protest his innocence.



    He needs to get a good employment lawyer versed in the laws of his state. His lawyer should then obtain a copy of the company's policy regarding such matters.



    Things will likely get unpleasant and aggressive. If this is baseless, Alice will likely lose her job for filing a false complaint, so prepare him for that.



    He needs to act fast to protect his reputation. He may be done at this company. A lawyer may negotiate severance and a quashing of the accusation in exchange for not suing the company for a false accusation.



    Bob needs to be ready to go to the mat to defend himself. It's going to be ugly no matter what happens.






    share|improve this answer





















    • Question: does immediately "lawyering up" send an implicit signal of guilt?
      – Chris
      12 hours ago


















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Bob's attorney should write an appropriate response letter to be added to the personnel file.



    If HR wishes to discuss the matter, then Bob, Alice, and Bob's attorney should be sitting in that office together.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 1




      Why should Alice's attorney not be included?
      – a CVn
      yesterday










    • @aCVn: Mike never suggested that Alice's attorney shouldn't be present. But that is not Bob's call.
      – TonyK
      yesterday










    • Precisely. (Thank you.) And one would hope that Alice had consulted with her legal professional before making her claim. Although sexual abuse absolutely is not(!) "anything that either male or female should tolerate," the present legal situation has definitely become altered by the [apparent ... but, let you alone decide] recent experiences of Judge/Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Alice would have been well-advised to engage an attorney first – before proceeding, without fear, with her claims "if(!) they be true." For, if they be false, she could now suffer grave consequences.
      – Mike Robinson
      yesterday












    • @aCVn it's not Bob's job to provide a noose to hang him with.
      – Richard U
      yesterday






    • 1




      @MikeRobinson The company is not going to require Alice to get a lawyer, and it would be a sad state if you needed a lawyer to file a complaint inside the company. Assuming Alice is not completely making this up, it's highly unlikely that anything will be proven against her. BTW, the #metoo movement predates the Kavanaugh hearings by over a year, minimum.
      – David Thornley
      15 hours ago











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "423"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: false,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122379%2fresponding-to-a-claim%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest



























    StackExchange.ready(function () {
    $("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function () {
    var showEditor = function() {
    $("#show-editor-button").hide();
    $("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
    StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
    };

    var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
    if(useFancy == 'True') {
    var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
    var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
    var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');

    $(this).loadPopup({
    url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
    loaded: function(popup) {
    var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
    var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
    var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');

    pTitle.text(popupTitle);
    pBody.html(popupBody);
    pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
    }
    })
    } else{
    var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
    if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true) {
    showEditor();
    }
    }
    });
    });






    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    26
    down vote



    accepted










    The usual response would be for Bob to write down his version of the events, send it to whoever investigates the matter and request that it will be added to his personal file together with the results of the investigation.



    Bob might want to pay for legal assistance when writing his statement, depending on how much he wants to keep his job, how strict the company is about sexual harassment and how likely it is in his country that he might also become the target of a criminal investigation because of the incident.



    There are three possible things which could have happened. Bob's strategy should depend on which of these is the case:





    • Bob is being framed by Alice. This is something which happens a lot less often than some people claim. Contrary to what... certain circles... seem to believe, women usually do not go around and accuse men of sexual harassment just out of pure boredom and spite. Taking the step to accuse someone of harassment is difficult. It also bears some risk for Alice, because she might become the target of victim-blaming, victim-shaming and losing reputation because nobody believes her. In the unlikely case that this is actually what happened here, Bob might want to deny and look for motives why Alice would go to these lengths just to harm him.


    • He is actually guilty and intentionally harassed Alice. In this case, Bob needs to make a moral decision and decide what kind of person he wants to be.




      • The smart but unethical move would be to deny, act as if he is being framed and hope they don't believe Alice. It is a he-said-she-said situation, so just as he can not prove his innocence, Alice can not prove his guilt.

      • The super evil move would be to try to capitalize on the situation. He offers his resignation, but demands a huge severance in exchange for assisting with sweeping the incident under the rug. No company wants to get an image of being an unsafe place for women, so paying both sides off in a sexual assault investigation isn't unheard of. When this happens, then the "Bob" is usually someone who has powerful friends in the company who like him too much to just cut him off but don't like him so much that they are willing to sacrifice the reputation of the company for him.

      • The ethical move would be to admit guilt, offer an apology, promise to work on his behavior and offer his resignation.


      Whether to do the right move to restore his moral integrity or the right move to further his own goals would be a personal decision for Bob.



    • It was a stupid misunderstanding. Bob did or said something which he considered normal but Alice interpreted as sexual harassment. In that case the best move would be to seek a dialog with Alice and try to clear up that misunderstanding. Bob should explain what he did and what he meant with it. Bob should keep in mind that misunderstandings are often the fault of both sides. So Bob should go into this dialog with an attitude that he might have miscommunicated, that he wants to learn from Alice what his mistake was and what kind of behavior he should avoid in the future. Such a dialog should happen with a neutral party present so both Alice and Bob feel safe during this dialog.







    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Jane S
      Nov 10 at 22:11






    • 5




      Third option: I'd think if there was a misunderstanding and a formal allegation, it should be noted that Bob should not personally try to arrange a 1 on 1 meeting with Alice, as this could be pretty severely misinterpreted, as well. He should offer to have some sort of moderated or witnessed sit-down with a third party present to hash things out.
      – PoloHoleSet
      yesterday















    up vote
    26
    down vote



    accepted










    The usual response would be for Bob to write down his version of the events, send it to whoever investigates the matter and request that it will be added to his personal file together with the results of the investigation.



    Bob might want to pay for legal assistance when writing his statement, depending on how much he wants to keep his job, how strict the company is about sexual harassment and how likely it is in his country that he might also become the target of a criminal investigation because of the incident.



    There are three possible things which could have happened. Bob's strategy should depend on which of these is the case:





    • Bob is being framed by Alice. This is something which happens a lot less often than some people claim. Contrary to what... certain circles... seem to believe, women usually do not go around and accuse men of sexual harassment just out of pure boredom and spite. Taking the step to accuse someone of harassment is difficult. It also bears some risk for Alice, because she might become the target of victim-blaming, victim-shaming and losing reputation because nobody believes her. In the unlikely case that this is actually what happened here, Bob might want to deny and look for motives why Alice would go to these lengths just to harm him.


    • He is actually guilty and intentionally harassed Alice. In this case, Bob needs to make a moral decision and decide what kind of person he wants to be.




      • The smart but unethical move would be to deny, act as if he is being framed and hope they don't believe Alice. It is a he-said-she-said situation, so just as he can not prove his innocence, Alice can not prove his guilt.

      • The super evil move would be to try to capitalize on the situation. He offers his resignation, but demands a huge severance in exchange for assisting with sweeping the incident under the rug. No company wants to get an image of being an unsafe place for women, so paying both sides off in a sexual assault investigation isn't unheard of. When this happens, then the "Bob" is usually someone who has powerful friends in the company who like him too much to just cut him off but don't like him so much that they are willing to sacrifice the reputation of the company for him.

      • The ethical move would be to admit guilt, offer an apology, promise to work on his behavior and offer his resignation.


      Whether to do the right move to restore his moral integrity or the right move to further his own goals would be a personal decision for Bob.



    • It was a stupid misunderstanding. Bob did or said something which he considered normal but Alice interpreted as sexual harassment. In that case the best move would be to seek a dialog with Alice and try to clear up that misunderstanding. Bob should explain what he did and what he meant with it. Bob should keep in mind that misunderstandings are often the fault of both sides. So Bob should go into this dialog with an attitude that he might have miscommunicated, that he wants to learn from Alice what his mistake was and what kind of behavior he should avoid in the future. Such a dialog should happen with a neutral party present so both Alice and Bob feel safe during this dialog.







    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Jane S
      Nov 10 at 22:11






    • 5




      Third option: I'd think if there was a misunderstanding and a formal allegation, it should be noted that Bob should not personally try to arrange a 1 on 1 meeting with Alice, as this could be pretty severely misinterpreted, as well. He should offer to have some sort of moderated or witnessed sit-down with a third party present to hash things out.
      – PoloHoleSet
      yesterday













    up vote
    26
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    26
    down vote



    accepted






    The usual response would be for Bob to write down his version of the events, send it to whoever investigates the matter and request that it will be added to his personal file together with the results of the investigation.



    Bob might want to pay for legal assistance when writing his statement, depending on how much he wants to keep his job, how strict the company is about sexual harassment and how likely it is in his country that he might also become the target of a criminal investigation because of the incident.



    There are three possible things which could have happened. Bob's strategy should depend on which of these is the case:





    • Bob is being framed by Alice. This is something which happens a lot less often than some people claim. Contrary to what... certain circles... seem to believe, women usually do not go around and accuse men of sexual harassment just out of pure boredom and spite. Taking the step to accuse someone of harassment is difficult. It also bears some risk for Alice, because she might become the target of victim-blaming, victim-shaming and losing reputation because nobody believes her. In the unlikely case that this is actually what happened here, Bob might want to deny and look for motives why Alice would go to these lengths just to harm him.


    • He is actually guilty and intentionally harassed Alice. In this case, Bob needs to make a moral decision and decide what kind of person he wants to be.




      • The smart but unethical move would be to deny, act as if he is being framed and hope they don't believe Alice. It is a he-said-she-said situation, so just as he can not prove his innocence, Alice can not prove his guilt.

      • The super evil move would be to try to capitalize on the situation. He offers his resignation, but demands a huge severance in exchange for assisting with sweeping the incident under the rug. No company wants to get an image of being an unsafe place for women, so paying both sides off in a sexual assault investigation isn't unheard of. When this happens, then the "Bob" is usually someone who has powerful friends in the company who like him too much to just cut him off but don't like him so much that they are willing to sacrifice the reputation of the company for him.

      • The ethical move would be to admit guilt, offer an apology, promise to work on his behavior and offer his resignation.


      Whether to do the right move to restore his moral integrity or the right move to further his own goals would be a personal decision for Bob.



    • It was a stupid misunderstanding. Bob did or said something which he considered normal but Alice interpreted as sexual harassment. In that case the best move would be to seek a dialog with Alice and try to clear up that misunderstanding. Bob should explain what he did and what he meant with it. Bob should keep in mind that misunderstandings are often the fault of both sides. So Bob should go into this dialog with an attitude that he might have miscommunicated, that he wants to learn from Alice what his mistake was and what kind of behavior he should avoid in the future. Such a dialog should happen with a neutral party present so both Alice and Bob feel safe during this dialog.







    share|improve this answer














    The usual response would be for Bob to write down his version of the events, send it to whoever investigates the matter and request that it will be added to his personal file together with the results of the investigation.



    Bob might want to pay for legal assistance when writing his statement, depending on how much he wants to keep his job, how strict the company is about sexual harassment and how likely it is in his country that he might also become the target of a criminal investigation because of the incident.



    There are three possible things which could have happened. Bob's strategy should depend on which of these is the case:





    • Bob is being framed by Alice. This is something which happens a lot less often than some people claim. Contrary to what... certain circles... seem to believe, women usually do not go around and accuse men of sexual harassment just out of pure boredom and spite. Taking the step to accuse someone of harassment is difficult. It also bears some risk for Alice, because she might become the target of victim-blaming, victim-shaming and losing reputation because nobody believes her. In the unlikely case that this is actually what happened here, Bob might want to deny and look for motives why Alice would go to these lengths just to harm him.


    • He is actually guilty and intentionally harassed Alice. In this case, Bob needs to make a moral decision and decide what kind of person he wants to be.




      • The smart but unethical move would be to deny, act as if he is being framed and hope they don't believe Alice. It is a he-said-she-said situation, so just as he can not prove his innocence, Alice can not prove his guilt.

      • The super evil move would be to try to capitalize on the situation. He offers his resignation, but demands a huge severance in exchange for assisting with sweeping the incident under the rug. No company wants to get an image of being an unsafe place for women, so paying both sides off in a sexual assault investigation isn't unheard of. When this happens, then the "Bob" is usually someone who has powerful friends in the company who like him too much to just cut him off but don't like him so much that they are willing to sacrifice the reputation of the company for him.

      • The ethical move would be to admit guilt, offer an apology, promise to work on his behavior and offer his resignation.


      Whether to do the right move to restore his moral integrity or the right move to further his own goals would be a personal decision for Bob.



    • It was a stupid misunderstanding. Bob did or said something which he considered normal but Alice interpreted as sexual harassment. In that case the best move would be to seek a dialog with Alice and try to clear up that misunderstanding. Bob should explain what he did and what he meant with it. Bob should keep in mind that misunderstandings are often the fault of both sides. So Bob should go into this dialog with an attitude that he might have miscommunicated, that he wants to learn from Alice what his mistake was and what kind of behavior he should avoid in the future. Such a dialog should happen with a neutral party present so both Alice and Bob feel safe during this dialog.








    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 9 at 14:35

























    answered Nov 9 at 12:39









    Philipp

    22.2k45388




    22.2k45388








    • 2




      Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Jane S
      Nov 10 at 22:11






    • 5




      Third option: I'd think if there was a misunderstanding and a formal allegation, it should be noted that Bob should not personally try to arrange a 1 on 1 meeting with Alice, as this could be pretty severely misinterpreted, as well. He should offer to have some sort of moderated or witnessed sit-down with a third party present to hash things out.
      – PoloHoleSet
      yesterday














    • 2




      Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Jane S
      Nov 10 at 22:11






    • 5




      Third option: I'd think if there was a misunderstanding and a formal allegation, it should be noted that Bob should not personally try to arrange a 1 on 1 meeting with Alice, as this could be pretty severely misinterpreted, as well. He should offer to have some sort of moderated or witnessed sit-down with a third party present to hash things out.
      – PoloHoleSet
      yesterday








    2




    2




    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Jane S
    Nov 10 at 22:11




    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Jane S
    Nov 10 at 22:11




    5




    5




    Third option: I'd think if there was a misunderstanding and a formal allegation, it should be noted that Bob should not personally try to arrange a 1 on 1 meeting with Alice, as this could be pretty severely misinterpreted, as well. He should offer to have some sort of moderated or witnessed sit-down with a third party present to hash things out.
    – PoloHoleSet
    yesterday




    Third option: I'd think if there was a misunderstanding and a formal allegation, it should be noted that Bob should not personally try to arrange a 1 on 1 meeting with Alice, as this could be pretty severely misinterpreted, as well. He should offer to have some sort of moderated or witnessed sit-down with a third party present to hash things out.
    – PoloHoleSet
    yesterday












    up vote
    3
    down vote













    The following assumes Bob didn't do anything he should not have done.



    I think Bob should ask for a detailed written report of Alice's accusation. Then he can study this in details and then he can chose to react.



    I think Bob should not just go ahead and tell his version of the events. Because he could easily forget parts or describe them in a way which leaves them open to interpretation, etc.



    There is a reason for the Miranda warning: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." And I like to add: It's even worse in the "public" opinion.






    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      The following assumes Bob didn't do anything he should not have done.



      I think Bob should ask for a detailed written report of Alice's accusation. Then he can study this in details and then he can chose to react.



      I think Bob should not just go ahead and tell his version of the events. Because he could easily forget parts or describe them in a way which leaves them open to interpretation, etc.



      There is a reason for the Miranda warning: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." And I like to add: It's even worse in the "public" opinion.






      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        3
        down vote










        up vote
        3
        down vote









        The following assumes Bob didn't do anything he should not have done.



        I think Bob should ask for a detailed written report of Alice's accusation. Then he can study this in details and then he can chose to react.



        I think Bob should not just go ahead and tell his version of the events. Because he could easily forget parts or describe them in a way which leaves them open to interpretation, etc.



        There is a reason for the Miranda warning: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." And I like to add: It's even worse in the "public" opinion.






        share|improve this answer












        The following assumes Bob didn't do anything he should not have done.



        I think Bob should ask for a detailed written report of Alice's accusation. Then he can study this in details and then he can chose to react.



        I think Bob should not just go ahead and tell his version of the events. Because he could easily forget parts or describe them in a way which leaves them open to interpretation, etc.



        There is a reason for the Miranda warning: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." And I like to add: It's even worse in the "public" opinion.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Nov 11 at 6:17









        Edgar

        3,8912719




        3,8912719






















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Assuming that Bob is innocent (I know, shocking these days, isn't it?)



            Bob should take time off immediately to speak to a lawyer about this.



            He should say NOTHING to HR without a his lawyer present, or conferenced in. Not a word to Alice, HR, coworkers or anyone else about this, not even to protest his innocence.



            He needs to get a good employment lawyer versed in the laws of his state. His lawyer should then obtain a copy of the company's policy regarding such matters.



            Things will likely get unpleasant and aggressive. If this is baseless, Alice will likely lose her job for filing a false complaint, so prepare him for that.



            He needs to act fast to protect his reputation. He may be done at this company. A lawyer may negotiate severance and a quashing of the accusation in exchange for not suing the company for a false accusation.



            Bob needs to be ready to go to the mat to defend himself. It's going to be ugly no matter what happens.






            share|improve this answer





















            • Question: does immediately "lawyering up" send an implicit signal of guilt?
              – Chris
              12 hours ago















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Assuming that Bob is innocent (I know, shocking these days, isn't it?)



            Bob should take time off immediately to speak to a lawyer about this.



            He should say NOTHING to HR without a his lawyer present, or conferenced in. Not a word to Alice, HR, coworkers or anyone else about this, not even to protest his innocence.



            He needs to get a good employment lawyer versed in the laws of his state. His lawyer should then obtain a copy of the company's policy regarding such matters.



            Things will likely get unpleasant and aggressive. If this is baseless, Alice will likely lose her job for filing a false complaint, so prepare him for that.



            He needs to act fast to protect his reputation. He may be done at this company. A lawyer may negotiate severance and a quashing of the accusation in exchange for not suing the company for a false accusation.



            Bob needs to be ready to go to the mat to defend himself. It's going to be ugly no matter what happens.






            share|improve this answer





















            • Question: does immediately "lawyering up" send an implicit signal of guilt?
              – Chris
              12 hours ago













            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            Assuming that Bob is innocent (I know, shocking these days, isn't it?)



            Bob should take time off immediately to speak to a lawyer about this.



            He should say NOTHING to HR without a his lawyer present, or conferenced in. Not a word to Alice, HR, coworkers or anyone else about this, not even to protest his innocence.



            He needs to get a good employment lawyer versed in the laws of his state. His lawyer should then obtain a copy of the company's policy regarding such matters.



            Things will likely get unpleasant and aggressive. If this is baseless, Alice will likely lose her job for filing a false complaint, so prepare him for that.



            He needs to act fast to protect his reputation. He may be done at this company. A lawyer may negotiate severance and a quashing of the accusation in exchange for not suing the company for a false accusation.



            Bob needs to be ready to go to the mat to defend himself. It's going to be ugly no matter what happens.






            share|improve this answer












            Assuming that Bob is innocent (I know, shocking these days, isn't it?)



            Bob should take time off immediately to speak to a lawyer about this.



            He should say NOTHING to HR without a his lawyer present, or conferenced in. Not a word to Alice, HR, coworkers or anyone else about this, not even to protest his innocence.



            He needs to get a good employment lawyer versed in the laws of his state. His lawyer should then obtain a copy of the company's policy regarding such matters.



            Things will likely get unpleasant and aggressive. If this is baseless, Alice will likely lose her job for filing a false complaint, so prepare him for that.



            He needs to act fast to protect his reputation. He may be done at this company. A lawyer may negotiate severance and a quashing of the accusation in exchange for not suing the company for a false accusation.



            Bob needs to be ready to go to the mat to defend himself. It's going to be ugly no matter what happens.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered yesterday









            Richard U

            80.6k59206322




            80.6k59206322












            • Question: does immediately "lawyering up" send an implicit signal of guilt?
              – Chris
              12 hours ago


















            • Question: does immediately "lawyering up" send an implicit signal of guilt?
              – Chris
              12 hours ago
















            Question: does immediately "lawyering up" send an implicit signal of guilt?
            – Chris
            12 hours ago




            Question: does immediately "lawyering up" send an implicit signal of guilt?
            – Chris
            12 hours ago










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Bob's attorney should write an appropriate response letter to be added to the personnel file.



            If HR wishes to discuss the matter, then Bob, Alice, and Bob's attorney should be sitting in that office together.






            share|improve this answer

















            • 1




              Why should Alice's attorney not be included?
              – a CVn
              yesterday










            • @aCVn: Mike never suggested that Alice's attorney shouldn't be present. But that is not Bob's call.
              – TonyK
              yesterday










            • Precisely. (Thank you.) And one would hope that Alice had consulted with her legal professional before making her claim. Although sexual abuse absolutely is not(!) "anything that either male or female should tolerate," the present legal situation has definitely become altered by the [apparent ... but, let you alone decide] recent experiences of Judge/Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Alice would have been well-advised to engage an attorney first – before proceeding, without fear, with her claims "if(!) they be true." For, if they be false, she could now suffer grave consequences.
              – Mike Robinson
              yesterday












            • @aCVn it's not Bob's job to provide a noose to hang him with.
              – Richard U
              yesterday






            • 1




              @MikeRobinson The company is not going to require Alice to get a lawyer, and it would be a sad state if you needed a lawyer to file a complaint inside the company. Assuming Alice is not completely making this up, it's highly unlikely that anything will be proven against her. BTW, the #metoo movement predates the Kavanaugh hearings by over a year, minimum.
              – David Thornley
              15 hours ago















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Bob's attorney should write an appropriate response letter to be added to the personnel file.



            If HR wishes to discuss the matter, then Bob, Alice, and Bob's attorney should be sitting in that office together.






            share|improve this answer

















            • 1




              Why should Alice's attorney not be included?
              – a CVn
              yesterday










            • @aCVn: Mike never suggested that Alice's attorney shouldn't be present. But that is not Bob's call.
              – TonyK
              yesterday










            • Precisely. (Thank you.) And one would hope that Alice had consulted with her legal professional before making her claim. Although sexual abuse absolutely is not(!) "anything that either male or female should tolerate," the present legal situation has definitely become altered by the [apparent ... but, let you alone decide] recent experiences of Judge/Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Alice would have been well-advised to engage an attorney first – before proceeding, without fear, with her claims "if(!) they be true." For, if they be false, she could now suffer grave consequences.
              – Mike Robinson
              yesterday












            • @aCVn it's not Bob's job to provide a noose to hang him with.
              – Richard U
              yesterday






            • 1




              @MikeRobinson The company is not going to require Alice to get a lawyer, and it would be a sad state if you needed a lawyer to file a complaint inside the company. Assuming Alice is not completely making this up, it's highly unlikely that anything will be proven against her. BTW, the #metoo movement predates the Kavanaugh hearings by over a year, minimum.
              – David Thornley
              15 hours ago













            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Bob's attorney should write an appropriate response letter to be added to the personnel file.



            If HR wishes to discuss the matter, then Bob, Alice, and Bob's attorney should be sitting in that office together.






            share|improve this answer












            Bob's attorney should write an appropriate response letter to be added to the personnel file.



            If HR wishes to discuss the matter, then Bob, Alice, and Bob's attorney should be sitting in that office together.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered yesterday









            Mike Robinson

            2,1201410




            2,1201410








            • 1




              Why should Alice's attorney not be included?
              – a CVn
              yesterday










            • @aCVn: Mike never suggested that Alice's attorney shouldn't be present. But that is not Bob's call.
              – TonyK
              yesterday










            • Precisely. (Thank you.) And one would hope that Alice had consulted with her legal professional before making her claim. Although sexual abuse absolutely is not(!) "anything that either male or female should tolerate," the present legal situation has definitely become altered by the [apparent ... but, let you alone decide] recent experiences of Judge/Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Alice would have been well-advised to engage an attorney first – before proceeding, without fear, with her claims "if(!) they be true." For, if they be false, she could now suffer grave consequences.
              – Mike Robinson
              yesterday












            • @aCVn it's not Bob's job to provide a noose to hang him with.
              – Richard U
              yesterday






            • 1




              @MikeRobinson The company is not going to require Alice to get a lawyer, and it would be a sad state if you needed a lawyer to file a complaint inside the company. Assuming Alice is not completely making this up, it's highly unlikely that anything will be proven against her. BTW, the #metoo movement predates the Kavanaugh hearings by over a year, minimum.
              – David Thornley
              15 hours ago














            • 1




              Why should Alice's attorney not be included?
              – a CVn
              yesterday










            • @aCVn: Mike never suggested that Alice's attorney shouldn't be present. But that is not Bob's call.
              – TonyK
              yesterday










            • Precisely. (Thank you.) And one would hope that Alice had consulted with her legal professional before making her claim. Although sexual abuse absolutely is not(!) "anything that either male or female should tolerate," the present legal situation has definitely become altered by the [apparent ... but, let you alone decide] recent experiences of Judge/Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Alice would have been well-advised to engage an attorney first – before proceeding, without fear, with her claims "if(!) they be true." For, if they be false, she could now suffer grave consequences.
              – Mike Robinson
              yesterday












            • @aCVn it's not Bob's job to provide a noose to hang him with.
              – Richard U
              yesterday






            • 1




              @MikeRobinson The company is not going to require Alice to get a lawyer, and it would be a sad state if you needed a lawyer to file a complaint inside the company. Assuming Alice is not completely making this up, it's highly unlikely that anything will be proven against her. BTW, the #metoo movement predates the Kavanaugh hearings by over a year, minimum.
              – David Thornley
              15 hours ago








            1




            1




            Why should Alice's attorney not be included?
            – a CVn
            yesterday




            Why should Alice's attorney not be included?
            – a CVn
            yesterday












            @aCVn: Mike never suggested that Alice's attorney shouldn't be present. But that is not Bob's call.
            – TonyK
            yesterday




            @aCVn: Mike never suggested that Alice's attorney shouldn't be present. But that is not Bob's call.
            – TonyK
            yesterday












            Precisely. (Thank you.) And one would hope that Alice had consulted with her legal professional before making her claim. Although sexual abuse absolutely is not(!) "anything that either male or female should tolerate," the present legal situation has definitely become altered by the [apparent ... but, let you alone decide] recent experiences of Judge/Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Alice would have been well-advised to engage an attorney first – before proceeding, without fear, with her claims "if(!) they be true." For, if they be false, she could now suffer grave consequences.
            – Mike Robinson
            yesterday






            Precisely. (Thank you.) And one would hope that Alice had consulted with her legal professional before making her claim. Although sexual abuse absolutely is not(!) "anything that either male or female should tolerate," the present legal situation has definitely become altered by the [apparent ... but, let you alone decide] recent experiences of Judge/Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Alice would have been well-advised to engage an attorney first – before proceeding, without fear, with her claims "if(!) they be true." For, if they be false, she could now suffer grave consequences.
            – Mike Robinson
            yesterday














            @aCVn it's not Bob's job to provide a noose to hang him with.
            – Richard U
            yesterday




            @aCVn it's not Bob's job to provide a noose to hang him with.
            – Richard U
            yesterday




            1




            1




            @MikeRobinson The company is not going to require Alice to get a lawyer, and it would be a sad state if you needed a lawyer to file a complaint inside the company. Assuming Alice is not completely making this up, it's highly unlikely that anything will be proven against her. BTW, the #metoo movement predates the Kavanaugh hearings by over a year, minimum.
            – David Thornley
            15 hours ago




            @MikeRobinson The company is not going to require Alice to get a lawyer, and it would be a sad state if you needed a lawyer to file a complaint inside the company. Assuming Alice is not completely making this up, it's highly unlikely that anything will be proven against her. BTW, the #metoo movement predates the Kavanaugh hearings by over a year, minimum.
            – David Thornley
            15 hours ago


















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122379%2fresponding-to-a-claim%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest
























































































            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Brian Clough

            Cáceres