Quote Originally Posted by Jess_cd32 View Post
Think it out and either approach HR, which will cause further resentment on the jerks part, or have a talk with that individual to stop on a one to one basis (with a friend within earshot).

Let him know HR is already behind you.
I would think HR would rather have it settled this way, then they know it was a mutual worked out change of attitude, not a forced HR behaviour change.
Last week I went to HR after someone had repeatedly told me to get a hair cut. I could have pulled the person aside for a private talk, but applying a LART is not my responsibility.

Think of it this way: if it was a plain case of male "sexual harassment" against a female, then the female is not responsible for trying to trying to negotiate an end to the harassment with the male. And what Kimberly describes sure sounds like a case of gender harassment.

The policy in my (government) workplace is made clear to supervisors: that if anyone reports a discrimination issue to any supervisor, or the supervisor witnesses any case of discrimination, then that that supervisor becomes personally responsible for intervening (if witnessing) and for taking the situation up the line (either way). When I say "personally", I mean that if the supervisor fails to act, then the supervisor is them-self considered to have contributed to the workplace "permitting" the situation to continue, and risks fines and lawsuits and even jail time and the organization will not defend them. Intervention or action on reported or witnessed problems is mandatory for each supervisor, no matter whom is involved -- even if it means taking a complaint about your own boss or about the division head upwards, and even if the offended party is a guest or a contract janitor or works for a completely different sub-group.

Thus, in my organization at least, it is not the offended party's responsibility to talk to the offender and "try to work out the situation": people like Kimberly are not trained in how to talk through such situations -- the other person might get angry or violent or feel personally threatened. And unfortunately, the other person often thinks that what they are doing is "right", and often interprets a lack of management/HR action as tacit support of either the viewpoint itself or of the "right of free speech".


Yes, there is a possibility that the offender might resent that the matter was taken to "the authorities" rather than dealt with "in person". That can be especially an issue in groups such as police officers who may have an "unwritten code" that difficulties are dealt with directly, person to person, and where someone who files a complaint might be seen as violating the code of comrade and might be seen as not being a "team player", especially if there is a perceived disconnect between "management" and staff (e.g., management has desk jobs and the rank and file our out exposing themselves to danger.) I don't have a ready answer for what to do in such situations: I'm not an HR person.