[jneal]

I'm not going to speak directly regarding the way this individual handled this situation, but in general, if you experience any form of sexual harassment I highly recommend you speak with HR immediately following the incident. Don't allow it to escalate, things can only get worse. Even if it's your first day on the job, you should never feel speaking to HR regarding an incident is a bad idea.

[zzleeper]

The problem is that often you might not be entirely sure about what's going on. In her case, the kiss in the cheek might just be cultural confusion (in Spanish-speaking countries we do that even with strangers).

Of course, after the lap thing... I don't even have words... How can you treat other people like that.. you are put in a position of power/responsibility and they use it to degrade others..

[wavefunction]

Well this was in the US, where people do not kiss colleagues on the cheek. I know your intentions are fair in mentioning this cultural practice but that sort of justification also presents a fair amount of minimization of obvious harassment. I mean, do you kiss everyone on the cheek in Spanish-speaking countries or just very close friends?

[y04nn]

I live in France, and it is natural to kiss on the cheek. Recently I was in UK and without even thinking about it I kissed a girl on the cheek to welcome her. After it happened I just realized what was going on. The thing is that it takes some time to reframe your behavior. But I have also been away several months and then it was feeling weird for me to kiss a girl on the cheek.

[Mandatum]

Recently had a French colleague do this to me in New Zealand. Was nothing short of hilarious. I made a warning sign for his desk.

[jacquesm]

In France it can even include the men kissing the men and nobody thinks anything of it. Cultures really differ a lot in this respect.

[yulaow]

Also in Italy, everyone. It is just the standard way to present yourself and/or say goodbye. I would also say I am more prone to do it with those people I don't know at all or very well than with my close friends.

[kentrado]

EVERYONE. In Spain they do it twice. Cause they are gangsters.

[hrbrtglm]

In France, it depends where you live, in some area people do it up to 4-5 times. It can be quite disturbing, even for a french :)

[wdmeldon]

Is that the French version of an awkwardly long handshake?

[SeoxyS]

I'm Swiss, we do it three times.

[Joeboy]

I live in multicultural London, and have no idea how to conduct myself in public.

[dogma1138]

Simple don't make eye contact with anyone who you weren't officially introduced too and only talk about the weather unless it's rugby season.

[gotchange]

You mean a real kiss on the cheek not a symbolic one where people place their cheeks side by side and just make funny sounds resembling a kiss?

Because here we're used to the symbolic ones for close friends and reserve those smooches for intimate or romantic relationships.

[danso]

Just for anyone who reads the comments before TFA, the author does escalate this into reporting it to HR:

> During the HR investigation that ensued, I remember being shamed by a female colleague who thought I was blowing the situation out of proportion. She thought I was being overly sensitive, and that it was wrong of me to report my manager. That hurt. I thought she would’ve naturally supported me.

Maybe you think she should have gone to HR earlier? Hard to say, but there is no hard and fast rule on this... I mean not just that people disagree on what sexual harassment entails, but it's also not easy to see the signs of sexual harassment. For example, let's say on my first day of work, a co-worker asks if I know of any good pho joints. Am I being asked that because I'm Vietnamese? Or is it because this new co-worker has seen me tweet about how much I like pho (and it's just a coincidence that I'm vietnamese)? Or is it because we're in Northern California where there is known to be a decent quantity of pho joints (for America), and asking about pho is not much different than asking about BBQ if you were in the South?

It's possible that such a question is a symptom of deep-seated racism/stereotypes, and that in a hindsight report, I'd be sure to include it as an anecdote to illustrate what was going on even from the first day. But I'd have to admit that I'd be very reluctant to turn this kind of incident into an HR thing -- at that very moment.

In the OP's case...yeah, if she were getting kissed/propositioned on the first day, that would be an HR thing. But if someone were to note how young she was, or what a cute dress she had on...comments that often but not always signify non-professional behavior...I can see why she wouldn't go to HR on the very first day.

[Aeolos]

Can you really trust HR to do the right thing?

[maxlybbert]

HR exists to protect the company. Imagine if you were about to sign a contract and asked to have your lawyer review it; it's obvious that if the company were to say "don't worry, we had our lawyers review it," you would still want your own lawyer.

However, the laws are written to protect employees from abuse, and if they're decent laws, the company should have a strong incentive to do the right thing, and then never give a bad reference when another company asks if they should hire the offender.

[DasIch]

If you can't trust HR to do the right thing or they don't, it's time to leave.

[the_af]

You'll quickly run out of jobs that way. HR can almost never be trusted to do "the right thing". Or rather, the right thing for them is to protect their employer.

You should go to HR anyway as a way to strengthen your case and have a documented precedent, but it should never be your plan A. They cannot be counted on to help you directly, because that's not their actual job.

[lmm]

If you've privileged to have adequate savings and good prospects, sure. For a lower-middle-class graduate on their first job it isn't always that simple.

[ethbro]

It's a good point. From a purely procedural standpoint, "Discuss with colleague, contact HR immediately if it persists (or immediately if serious enough), then hire lawyer" is impeccable advice.

On the other hand, from an outcomes standpoint, this gets a lot more murky. "I see you recently graduated and worked for Google for a month?" "Yes, I had to leave under difficult circumstances" isn't a great conversation to be having career-wise, right out of college, interviewing for a replacement job. So I empathize with the blogger's confusion as to the right course.

Same problem as whistle-blowing.

[baldfat]

You document that you went to HR concerning the situation wait a week and then contact a lawyer. Or contact a lawyer and then documents it.

This is what I told a family friend who also got the sit on my lap request. Well lets say her husband got laid off for a few years and they weren't in any trouble.

[mtrimpe]

Indeed; never trust HR to do the right thing. HR will choose the approach they believe minimizes risk to the company.

If they believe kicking you out instead of your harasser is less risky they won't hesitate twice to do so. I can confirm that from personal experience.

If you can afford it get legal advice first ... and then go to HR.

[ruraljuror]

I would disagree with this advice. Unless you have a good reason not to trust your particular hr department for this situation, you should put in a good faith effort. Perhaps you could argue that most hr departments are incompetent, but I cannot imagine a scenario where retaliating against an employee for reporting sexual harassment would minimize a company's risk.

Also I believe most employment discrimination employees will work on a contingency basis, so you should consider reaching out to them regardless of your financial situation.

I understand the constant refrain from HN of never trust hr, but I think reporting to hr could form a better foundation for a lawsuit. Feel free to contact an attorney first. That is what I would do.

[ethbro]

> I cannot imagine a scenario where retaliating against an employee for reporting sexual harassment would minimize a company's risk.

As the initial point of contact for a sexual harassment complaint, beginning to construct a paper trail that explains the superior's behavior and puts blame for the incident on the employee?

I'm not saying this as pro- or anti-HR, just that as the document-keeper of record they have a lot of latitude to influence the narrative if they choose to. Remember: performance reviews tend to go through them at some point as well.

[ruraljuror]

Good point. My point is that if HR were to retaliate against the employee, HR would open the company to a far greater amount of risk.

I think the point should be not to trust HR with the only copies of any documents or evidence. Again, I would argue that if HR does the steps you suggest, they are exposing themselves to much more risk than if they did pretty much anything else. Not to say they wouldn't do it, but that it would be a foolish thing to do.

[Joe8Bit]

As a note: the above comments advice is probably specific to the US.

In the UK, for instance, terminating someone for reporting sexual harassment is a very good way of losing a lot of money at a subsequent Employee Tribunal and getting your company fined. There's a lot of great precedent for siding with the reporter, even if other flimsy reasons are given for their termination.

However, the point made is a correct one. An HR person has a duty not to you but to the company, so never assume they have your best interests at heart.

[mtrimpe]

The comment was actually based on experience in the Netherlands; which has similar if not stronger employee protection than the UK.

If your case is as clear-cut as the one in this article you might indeed not need a lawyer but if there's any wiggle room; if it's discrimination and not harassment and the accused is sufficiently important to the company and HR judges that you might not have the energy to file a lawsuit etc. etc. etc. then it's still very easy to end up getting kicked out of the company.

[the_af]

The above advice (grandparent post) is also accurate for countries in Latin America. I vouch for that. HR doesn't have the employee's best interests at heart. It's not that they will actively seek to harm you, of course; it's just that they strive to protect the company at all costs, even if that means undermining you. All other things being equal they will help you, but things are seldom "equal", especially in cases of unjust treatment by a manager, abuse, etc.

[yclept]

This is the same case in the US but you can still be out of a job which is a serious problem for many.

[Cthulhu_]

> If you can afford it get legal advice first

And if you can't, join a union (or form one if they don't exist), they can help pay for legal advice and/or have their own lawyers.

[tomp]

In this case, yes. It's in their best interest to protect the company and not the manager; a scandal like this would probably be much more damaging to the company than firing any single executive.

[49531]

The sad part is that at a lot of companies doing this will mean your time at the company is coming to a close. I've seen co-workers who complain to HR go from being an important team member to being managed out of the organization. It seems that a lot of the time a corporation will remove the culprit along with the victim to keep themselves safe.

[switch007]

HR is the company's (i.e. directors'/owners') legal & policy counsel; wouldn't talking to a lawyer be the more sensible option?

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

Since when is HR the same as corporate legal?