I hate the public shaming. If you're in a position like this, two choices:
1) Leave and get a better job
2) Leave and sue
I've been in companies with claimed harassment. It's gone both ways -- about 50/50. In about half the cases, the victim perceived something that was clearly not there, ranging from:
* Complete delusion, in the case of one person with severe emotional problems
* A case where we had an someone with autism who would treat everyone in the same inappropriate way -- not understanding eye contact, personal space, etc., and one person who interacted occasionally felt targeted and harassed).
* A case where someone was just an asshole and hard-ass. Equal opportunity. But one person felt targeted.
People aren't perfect. This kind of accusation, even unsubstantiated, can ruin a career. I wish people wouldn't pull this shit.
It sounds like reporting the harassment ruined this woman's career at Google, so if that's what you meant, then yes. I doubt the man she named will suffer any consequences. Certainly he's never going to suffer the hateful abuse she's currently getting on Twitter.
It destroys the accuser -- I don't want to hire a liability. She may make a similar accusation at my company.
It destroys the accused -- again, I don't want to hire a liability. He may harass someone at my company.
Quite frankly, in a situation like this, I personally wouldn't take a risk hiring either of them. I have a lot of job candidates, and there's no reason to take a risk. Googling someone before you hire them is universal, and a news story like this basically kills careers forever.
It also hurts the employer -- I don't want to work for for a company where this stuff happens -- but much less so.
I would be happy to hire someone like her! She's shown she has guts, and is not afraid to disrupt a stagnant institution. Basically, everything you could wish for in a startup. But I can see why some in the old Silicon Valley establishment might be hesitant; they have very a conservative mindset, and, in general, don't like rocking the boat.
Ellis' new employer hired her before this happened.
Some people will hire her, mind you. It just reduces the set of opportunities perhaps ten-fold, or reduces the level of those opportunities by one or two rungs on the corporate ladder.
I too think that twitter shaming is an incredibly stupid way to solve those kind of issues. People mistake feeding the mob for speaking out. We've already seen the consequences with Adria Richards.
I don't know. That SV diva Marc Andreesen does it all the time, lashing against the old establishment on Twitter right and left, apparently with no bad consequences.
In case of public shaming, it is important to note that it is a public defamation. If your point wasn't proven (=recognized by a court), then the company can ask for damages, so you may have to go for a trial anyway. Moreover, too many male's careers were broken by illegitimate morale accusations, which doesn't do any good for peace with women. So I agree wich cpks, either sue and prove your point or don't say it.
Edit: klodolph is correct, I didn't think laws of US could be that much opposite from Europe (France in my case).
If your point wasn't proven (=recognized by a court), then the company can ask for damages
This is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. US defamation law is much less friendly to plaintiffs compared to most European countries, especially the UK (for example). This may surprise you, but in the US, it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that a defamatory statement is false. You have to also prove that the defendant knew the statement to be false, or you have to prove negligence by "clear and convincing evidence". This is for private plaintiffs, the standard for "public figures" is higher.
I can recognize the attitude that "if you can't prove it in court, then shut up", but there are always going to be a few really important things that you want to say that can't be proven in court. I'm not saying this is one of those times (it really isn't) but those times exist.
And I'm not taking sides on this particular case, just to be absolutely clear.
If Ann calls Bob a cheat and a liar she has the defences of:
1: truth
2: fair comment (eg, Bob isn't a cheat or a liar but has behaved in a way that would make a reasonable person to think he is)
3: protection (eg Ann could have said it in the House of Commons and is thus immune from prosecution).
To get damages Bob (if he's a public figure) has to show that Ann was malicious -- that Ann knew the comments to be untrue or she recklessly disregarded the truth; if Bob is a private individual he only needs to show Ann was negligent in obtaining the truth. (That's compensatory damages. For punitive damages malice has to be present.)
In the case of a claim of sexual harassment, proving the claim false is that first step, sure. But the second step is almost a fait accompli. Barring a psychotic break, it's pretty hard to made the original claim, about what happened to themselves, didn't know it was false.
For clarity, too, I'm speaking in the genetic, not specific to this incident.
It's not a question about whether you speak out. It's a question of whether you do it through proper channels.
And yes, I'd much rather accusers speak out only through proper channels, at least when those channels work pretty well. In the US, they're not perfect, but they do work pretty well.
No sensible company is going to sue an alleged victim of sexual abuse whose only complaint is that allegations were not probably dealt with. It is more a fault of Google for not resolving the issue in a way that left her not feeling like she needed to leave.
And I am sorry but if you think this will result in some "war with women" then I fear for the IT industry. Professional conduct is what should be expected. It works for every other industry.
If it is true, that engineering manager had another option - don't say something like that. Simple, and the responsibility would be where it should be.
Issues like this generally deserve more attention though, not less - for every issue that is vocalized, there are usually many that are handled in silence, or harassment dealt with by silence. It is not a good environment to be in, where serious problems are swept under the rug.
In the US military, if you are found guilty of sexual harassment/assault, you get hit with a double felony - one for the action, and one for the bad conduct discharge as a result. It still happens, but everyone knows to keep things professional in interactions with the opposite sex since the threat of a discharge under dishonorable conditions hangs high - it is more than a career finisher for the person charged. The mantra in the military for this sort of behavior is zero tolerance, and punishments reflect that - that behavior wrecks havoc on morale, trust in leadership & peers, and overall ability to get the job done.
Unfortunately, the tech industry does not take this issue seriously enough to impose this sort of punishment. What do you do when the company comes to a conclusion that turns out to be incorrect? Suing is not a good solution since you're fighting against a company with a lot of money that can lawyer up easily (and in this case, has lots of internal lawyers). The person in this case did leave and get a different job a little while ago, and only now is making it public after there was an investigation internally. Even worse, I have been told by Googlers that if there is any doubt, Google will not promote a candidate - by following that logic, the person should not have been promoted due to strong allegations of improper behavior towards a subordinate, and apparently he was.
It is a difficult problem for women to have to deal with, and we as men seem to have a problem empathizing with it because we can't understand what it is like to live in a world like that where we don't have control of our destiny because the institutions are set up against us.
The real problem seems to be that women do not have a way to seek recourse against this bad behavior in our industry, and the brutes/bros take advantage of it. Our industry is failing them.
Hiding and sweeping under the rug is exactly the best way to manage something like this. In any conflict negotiation, you want to minimize value destroyed. Swept under rug == no reputations are ruined == minimum value is destroyed.
The way you sweep this under the rug is roughly:
* Victims file law suits. Unfortunately, not all do (but it is their civic duty).
* A portion of the law suits have settlements. A typical one might be a few million. The settlement includes a non-disclosure.
Perpetrator is punished in proportion to the level of crime, and has reason to stop. If you get hit 10% of the time, your expected cost per harassment might be a few hundred thousand. That's expensive.
A random selection of victims get big payouts, and a random selection get nothing at all. Damages are big enough to account for this ($5 million is far more than the damage in a single case, and is set to account for the cases lost or not filed). That's not perfect, but nothing at all is still better than less than nothing (which is what happens with public shaming).
You don't realize what's going on at Google these days, do you?
Victoria Lease was the first to talk about it. She had to leave Google because of how she was treated. HR didn't do shit to help her. Last week it was Narelle, citing similar reasons. Now this.
All we get at TGIF is some vague excuses from Laszlo Bock but no action is taken. So let me be the first to say: Fuck Rod Chavez and everybody who helped him!
That's how we manage things in a civilized society. It's precisely why we have a court system. We want:
1. For Google to follow standards we've agreed upon as a society. There are extremists on both sides for what constitutes harassment. We don't want them duking it out with vigilante violence (whether physical, as 100 years ago, or over Twitter, today).
2. There to be due process before action is taken. It's imperfect, but it's a lot better than going vigilante. For a company like Google, if there is a pattern of sexual harassment, with over 50,000 employees, at least some of them will have an open-and-shut case.
3. In the context of something like sexual harassment, the typical damages are set at a level where only a small minority need to win lawsuits before it is financially painful.
I don't care how bad things are at Google. The way to settle this is within the legal system.
By the way, HR's job is to protect the employer from liability. Going to HR is the last thing you want to do. HR will almost never do anything to help the employee -- that's sometimes seen as tantamount to admitting guilt. Once you go to HR, their primary strategy will be whatever minimizes liability. That's often something not great for the employee. A common strategy is to set you up to fail, destroy your credibility, and work you out of the company. If a lawsuit does come up, they can play the disgruntled worker card.
The way the system is set up, suing your former employer is your civic duty, and does a few things:
1. Applies financial pressure to fix the problem.
2. Is generally confidential, protecting both your reputation and your former employers'.
3. If you have a credible claim, rewards you financially for doing your civic duty.
Until you're ready to file a law suit, you want to act professionally at work, and play the role of a good employee. There is absolutely no upside to doing anything else -- whether to your career, or to your odds of winning a law suit. Think about it. You're on a jury. Case 1: There's a clear rockstar employee, who loves the work, and leaves because of alleged harassment. Case 2: An underperforming employee gets fired after bitching out their employer. They claim harassment. How does that bias you? You're upper management. You get similar claims. How do you behave? You're a future employer, co-worker, etc.
This stuff ain't rocket science. You're not in kindergarden anymore.
Just chatted about this to a bunch of (very) feminist friends. They agreed that this is a poor move, and leaves her open to defamation lawsuits, however, in the case where something cannot be proven it's exceptionally problematic - anyone can say anything to anyone, and effectively get away with it as if nobody else heard anything, there's no proof at all.
Essentially it's a difficult problem, as we need to protect peoples' reputations, but at the same time vindicating victims.
Comments
I hate the public shaming. If you're in a position like this, two choices:
1) Leave and get a better job
2) Leave and sue
I've been in companies with claimed harassment. It's gone both ways -- about 50/50. In about half the cases, the victim perceived something that was clearly not there, ranging from:
* Complete delusion, in the case of one person with severe emotional problems
* A case where we had an someone with autism who would treat everyone in the same inappropriate way -- not understanding eye contact, personal space, etc., and one person who interacted occasionally felt targeted and harassed).
* A case where someone was just an asshole and hard-ass. Equal opportunity. But one person felt targeted.
People aren't perfect. This kind of accusation, even unsubstantiated, can ruin a career. I wish people wouldn't pull this shit.
"This kind of accusation... can ruin a career"
It sounds like reporting the harassment ruined this woman's career at Google, so if that's what you meant, then yes. I doubt the man she named will suffer any consequences. Certainly he's never going to suffer the hateful abuse she's currently getting on Twitter.
It destroys the accuser -- I don't want to hire a liability. She may make a similar accusation at my company.
It destroys the accused -- again, I don't want to hire a liability. He may harass someone at my company.
Quite frankly, in a situation like this, I personally wouldn't take a risk hiring either of them. I have a lot of job candidates, and there's no reason to take a risk. Googling someone before you hire them is universal, and a news story like this basically kills careers forever.
It also hurts the employer -- I don't want to work for for a company where this stuff happens -- but much less so.
I would be happy to hire someone like her! She's shown she has guts, and is not afraid to disrupt a stagnant institution. Basically, everything you could wish for in a startup. But I can see why some in the old Silicon Valley establishment might be hesitant; they have very a conservative mindset, and, in general, don't like rocking the boat.
Ellis's new employer doesn't think the way you do, and is a hot startup.
Ellis' new employer hired her before this happened.
Some people will hire her, mind you. It just reduces the set of opportunities perhaps ten-fold, or reduces the level of those opportunities by one or two rungs on the corporate ladder.
That's a career killer in most cases.
I too think that twitter shaming is an incredibly stupid way to solve those kind of issues. People mistake feeding the mob for speaking out. We've already seen the consequences with Adria Richards.
I don't know. That SV diva Marc Andreesen does it all the time, lashing against the old establishment on Twitter right and left, apparently with no bad consequences.
In case of public shaming, it is important to note that it is a public defamation. If your point wasn't proven (=recognized by a court), then the company can ask for damages, so you may have to go for a trial anyway. Moreover, too many male's careers were broken by illegitimate morale accusations, which doesn't do any good for peace with women. So I agree wich cpks, either sue and prove your point or don't say it.
Edit: klodolph is correct, I didn't think laws of US could be that much opposite from Europe (France in my case).
This is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. US defamation law is much less friendly to plaintiffs compared to most European countries, especially the UK (for example). This may surprise you, but in the US, it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that a defamatory statement is false. You have to also prove that the defendant knew the statement to be false, or you have to prove negligence by "clear and convincing evidence". This is for private plaintiffs, the standard for "public figures" is higher.
I can recognize the attitude that "if you can't prove it in court, then shut up", but there are always going to be a few really important things that you want to say that can't be proven in court. I'm not saying this is one of those times (it really isn't) but those times exist.
And I'm not taking sides on this particular case, just to be absolutely clear.
English defamation law recently (2013) changed.
If Ann calls Bob a cheat and a liar she has the defences of:
1: truth
2: fair comment (eg, Bob isn't a cheat or a liar but has behaved in a way that would make a reasonable person to think he is)
3: protection (eg Ann could have said it in the House of Commons and is thus immune from prosecution).
To get damages Bob (if he's a public figure) has to show that Ann was malicious -- that Ann knew the comments to be untrue or she recklessly disregarded the truth; if Bob is a private individual he only needs to show Ann was negligent in obtaining the truth. (That's compensatory damages. For punitive damages malice has to be present.)
In the case of a claim of sexual harassment, proving the claim false is that first step, sure. But the second step is almost a fait accompli. Barring a psychotic break, it's pretty hard to made the original claim, about what happened to themselves, didn't know it was false.
For clarity, too, I'm speaking in the genetic, not specific to this incident.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
There's only a second wrong if the accuser is just outright lying. Or do you prefer that victims of harassment never speak out?
It's not a question about whether you speak out. It's a question of whether you do it through proper channels.
And yes, I'd much rather accusers speak out only through proper channels, at least when those channels work pretty well. In the US, they're not perfect, but they do work pretty well.
No sensible company is going to sue an alleged victim of sexual abuse whose only complaint is that allegations were not probably dealt with. It is more a fault of Google for not resolving the issue in a way that left her not feeling like she needed to leave.
And I am sorry but if you think this will result in some "war with women" then I fear for the IT industry. Professional conduct is what should be expected. It works for every other industry.
If it is true, that engineering manager had another option - don't say something like that. Simple, and the responsibility would be where it should be.
Issues like this generally deserve more attention though, not less - for every issue that is vocalized, there are usually many that are handled in silence, or harassment dealt with by silence. It is not a good environment to be in, where serious problems are swept under the rug.
In the US military, if you are found guilty of sexual harassment/assault, you get hit with a double felony - one for the action, and one for the bad conduct discharge as a result. It still happens, but everyone knows to keep things professional in interactions with the opposite sex since the threat of a discharge under dishonorable conditions hangs high - it is more than a career finisher for the person charged. The mantra in the military for this sort of behavior is zero tolerance, and punishments reflect that - that behavior wrecks havoc on morale, trust in leadership & peers, and overall ability to get the job done.
Unfortunately, the tech industry does not take this issue seriously enough to impose this sort of punishment. What do you do when the company comes to a conclusion that turns out to be incorrect? Suing is not a good solution since you're fighting against a company with a lot of money that can lawyer up easily (and in this case, has lots of internal lawyers). The person in this case did leave and get a different job a little while ago, and only now is making it public after there was an investigation internally. Even worse, I have been told by Googlers that if there is any doubt, Google will not promote a candidate - by following that logic, the person should not have been promoted due to strong allegations of improper behavior towards a subordinate, and apparently he was.
It is a difficult problem for women to have to deal with, and we as men seem to have a problem empathizing with it because we can't understand what it is like to live in a world like that where we don't have control of our destiny because the institutions are set up against us.
The real problem seems to be that women do not have a way to seek recourse against this bad behavior in our industry, and the brutes/bros take advantage of it. Our industry is failing them.
Hiding and sweeping under the rug is exactly the best way to manage something like this. In any conflict negotiation, you want to minimize value destroyed. Swept under rug == no reputations are ruined == minimum value is destroyed.
The way you sweep this under the rug is roughly:
* Victims file law suits. Unfortunately, not all do (but it is their civic duty).
* A portion of the law suits have settlements. A typical one might be a few million. The settlement includes a non-disclosure.
Perpetrator is punished in proportion to the level of crime, and has reason to stop. If you get hit 10% of the time, your expected cost per harassment might be a few hundred thousand. That's expensive.
A random selection of victims get big payouts, and a random selection get nothing at all. Damages are big enough to account for this ($5 million is far more than the damage in a single case, and is set to account for the cases lost or not filed). That's not perfect, but nothing at all is still better than less than nothing (which is what happens with public shaming).
Which military are you talking about? The US military has a longstanding sexual assault problem.
Meh! If I were disempowered and my superiors treated me like a piece of meat, I'd probably say "fuck it" after some point and hit 'em where it hurts.
You don't realize what's going on at Google these days, do you?
Victoria Lease was the first to talk about it. She had to leave Google because of how she was treated. HR didn't do shit to help her. Last week it was Narelle, citing similar reasons. Now this.
All we get at TGIF is some vague excuses from Laszlo Bock but no action is taken. So let me be the first to say: Fuck Rod Chavez and everybody who helped him!
Disclaimer: I work for the Google hypocrites.
Then:
1. Compile evidence in your existing job.
2. Find a new job
3. File a lawsuit.
That's how we manage things in a civilized society. It's precisely why we have a court system. We want:
1. For Google to follow standards we've agreed upon as a society. There are extremists on both sides for what constitutes harassment. We don't want them duking it out with vigilante violence (whether physical, as 100 years ago, or over Twitter, today).
2. There to be due process before action is taken. It's imperfect, but it's a lot better than going vigilante. For a company like Google, if there is a pattern of sexual harassment, with over 50,000 employees, at least some of them will have an open-and-shut case.
3. In the context of something like sexual harassment, the typical damages are set at a level where only a small minority need to win lawsuits before it is financially painful.
I don't care how bad things are at Google. The way to settle this is within the legal system.
By the way, HR's job is to protect the employer from liability. Going to HR is the last thing you want to do. HR will almost never do anything to help the employee -- that's sometimes seen as tantamount to admitting guilt. Once you go to HR, their primary strategy will be whatever minimizes liability. That's often something not great for the employee. A common strategy is to set you up to fail, destroy your credibility, and work you out of the company. If a lawsuit does come up, they can play the disgruntled worker card.
The way the system is set up, suing your former employer is your civic duty, and does a few things:
1. Applies financial pressure to fix the problem.
2. Is generally confidential, protecting both your reputation and your former employers'.
3. If you have a credible claim, rewards you financially for doing your civic duty.
Until you're ready to file a law suit, you want to act professionally at work, and play the role of a good employee. There is absolutely no upside to doing anything else -- whether to your career, or to your odds of winning a law suit. Think about it. You're on a jury. Case 1: There's a clear rockstar employee, who loves the work, and leaves because of alleged harassment. Case 2: An underperforming employee gets fired after bitching out their employer. They claim harassment. How does that bias you? You're upper management. You get similar claims. How do you behave? You're a future employer, co-worker, etc.
This stuff ain't rocket science. You're not in kindergarden anymore.
Just chatted about this to a bunch of (very) feminist friends. They agreed that this is a poor move, and leaves her open to defamation lawsuits, however, in the case where something cannot be proven it's exceptionally problematic - anyone can say anything to anyone, and effectively get away with it as if nobody else heard anything, there's no proof at all.
Essentially it's a difficult problem, as we need to protect peoples' reputations, but at the same time vindicating victims.
Next time, get your legal advice from lawyer friends, not "feminist friends".
It's not legal advice.