While reading the paper this morning I noticed this item in Dear Abby. Apparently Hurt and Offended and her fiancé where having dinner in a bar and grill, when a male co-worker approached and asked a rude and personal question..





http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/h...eatures/3222266

While I agree with Hurt and Offended and the female co-worker that the remark was rude, crude, unacceptable or whatever one wants to call it, I have a question:

Does (or should) a private company’s “sexual harassment” division have jurisdiction in cases that arise outside the workplace, in this case in an establishment where people consume alcohol?

Well, that depends.

What counts for sexual harassment these days depends on who is involved in the alleged offense.

If it's a straight man being rude to a woman, it's almost always sexual harassment. If the man happens to be a republican, then this is a felony on top of improper behavior.

If it's a woman being rude to a man, the man just can't handle a "strong woman".

If it's a gay man being rude to a straight man, then the hetero man is a "homophobe".

And if it's a president having sex on the job with an unpaid intern and rewarding her with 6 figure government job offers, and therefore creating a "hostile work environment" for the other female interns who don't put out..... it's a private matter, a vast right wing conspiracy, and certainly not a matter to justify any sexual harassment charges.

Unless the harassment happens within the confines of the office or a company sponsored event, there was no sexual harassment. The company cannot be held responsible for person's actions outside of the workplace (outside of BFOQ's, such as drug use or convictions), nor can it police relationships outside of the office.

Frankly, the sexual harassment cannot apply to external work relationships, as dating in the workplace, etc could cause sincere ramifications. What if Girl X dates Guy Y, and the relationship goes south. Then Guy Y calls Girl X numerous times after work hours and discusses sexually related issues? She could tell him that she doesn't want him calling, but the company could not legally get involved unless it interferes with their productivity/performance.

Even as this incident shows poor judgement and bad taste, the company could be in sincere financial trouble if it intervenes.

The only times that the company could intervene is if :
1. The man said "if you tell me your bra size, I'll give you Friday off" (quid pro quo)
2. The offense happened at a work related event or either person were on company time.
3. The conversation proceeded to be carried out within the confines of the workplace.

I'm sorry suit happy/politically correct Americans, but there would never be a labor lawyer that would touch this with a ten-foot pole. Being a member of a management team for an international company, I might venture to mention it to the gentleman and ask that nothing of this nature happen on company time... but what's next??? We cannot police after 5:00pm....

Does (or should) a private company’s “sexual harassment” division have jurisdiction in cases that arise outside the workplace, in this case in an establishment where people consume alcohol?



Aevans176 thanks for your well thought out opinion. When I was teaching school I always hated any attempt of school administrators to interfere with the private lives of teachers. The first school district I worked in wanted employees to live in the district. When I balked at this, an assistant superintendent told me I should “shop and attend church" in the community where I worked. There was always the implied idea that teachers were to be held to a higher standard than others. So, while the question here is specific to sexual harassment, the ramifications go beyond to the general question of businesses policing off-duty behavior of employees. You answered quite well.



Lordhelmet I appreciate your participation, but I intentionally drew up this question to address the specific matter of whether businesses have jurisdiction in cases of off-duty employee behavior. Aevans176 gave a thoughtful answer, but you went into a diatribe that can only be driven by what I describe as “pity the poor white angry male syndrome” without really addressing the question.

No. We all need to be entitled to our own behavior on our own time, even if some of the off-the-clock behavior is boorish.

I can certainly understand the woman being offended by this. I can also envision this happening in virtually any bar in North America. To borrow a phrase from Mr. T (not one of my heroes, by the way) I "pity the fool" who would come up to me and say something of that nature. He would get back (verbally of course ) some curt instructions for him and his drinking buddies that might possibly offend them as well.

In my opinion, there are very few instances when your behavior outside of work is any business of your employer's. That being said, there is an increasing trend of employers firing workers for their off-duty behavior: smokers, gay teachers, bloggers, an Anheuser-Busch employee fired for allegedly drinking Coor's after work, etc. etc. There is no legal protection or recourse against your employer if they decide to do something like this -- so, right or wrong, be careful who you work for, I guess!

When you first started this topic, BoF, I immediately thought of these threads Blogging and Free Speech and Boss Fires Employee. In those threads there were a number of members who stood by the employers' ability to dictate any and all employment contract terms (none of whom have posted in this debate yet, I believe). If one is to be a purist for an employer's ability to dictate any employment contract terms, then obviously, an employer may have such a jurisdiction if the parties agree.

Reality is, if you agree, employers can pretty much dictate how you spend your private time so long as it doesn't blatantly violate any of your Constitutional rights. Many employers include 'reputation' clauses in employment contracts. These clauses include language to the effect that an employer can terminate an employee if the worker harms the reputation of the company. Clauses are often included for such unique situations like BoF as presented with this case. To truly determine the specifics of this case, we'd have to see the employment contract, which I doubt will surface anytime soon.

I'd like to be clear that I do not like the reality of this situation. In a just world, we would have a right to privacy and this wouldn't be an issue. But in America today, if an employer says they have control over what you say in your private time and you accept the jobs on those terms, they can do whatever they please based on your subsequent actions.

When the alleged offender said "...the guys and I..." was he meaning his friends at the bar or the guys at work? A crucial difference, I think. If it was the guys at work then I can understand the woman feeling uncomfortable back at the office. Are the guys watching her boobs as she works? And then making comments?

If I was the manager I would have had a casual chat with him and told him what a jerk he was and not to repeat it. If I was the woman's boyfriend/husband he would have apologized at the time. She made her opinion clear and that should be the end of it. If he persists, then there is a case. Sometimes one meets boorish people. A crude remark is disconcerting, but we get over it. A continuing pattern of similar behavior is more serious.

"Does (or should) a private company’s “sexual harassment” division have jurisdiction in cases that arise outside the workplace, in this case in an establishment where people consume alcohol?"

I agree with others who have posted that this wouldn't be considered sexual harassment under the law, however I have something to add.

There was nothing in any description of this incident that indicated the woman had sought intervention from the management of the bar. Had I been in her position, this would definitely have been my reaction to being harassed.

I do not think that the fact that this incident happened in a place where alcohol is served should have any bearing on it. The right to drink to excess and act like a boor is not protected under any law I know of.