[dragonwriter]

> So the company should fire someone that hasn't been found guilty, simply based on one person's complaint?

No, the company should investigate and have evidence, one way or the other, beyond just the complaint before any kind of final action, though there are some interim precautionary mitigations that are might be appropriate, often.

> Where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?

“Innocent until proven guilty” is a maxim of criminal law; a company treating potential harassers as if the company were either the state enforcing criminal law or, worse, as if it could act only following the state enforcing criminal law will eventually find itself in quite deep civil liability for harassment.

[LunaSea]

> No, the company should investigate and have evidence, one way or the other, beyond just the complaint before any kind of final action, though there are some interim precautionary mitigations that are might be appropriate, often.

No, the company isn't equipped for this and this is the role of the police and judicial system.

> “Innocent until proven guilty” is a maxim of criminal law; a company treating potential harassers as if the company were either the state enforcing criminal law or, worse, as if it could act only following the state enforcing criminal law will eventually find itself in quite deep civil liability for harassment.

That's why the company isn't enforcing anything and delegating the task to the competent authorities. In this case the police.

Many people have been victim of wrongful firing and huge damages to their personal life due to rash decisions being taken by companies based on a single complaint from someone.

[dragonwriter]

> No, the company isn't equipped for this and this is the role of the police and judicial system.

It's literally not; sexual harassment is a civil, not criminal, offense. The police have no concern with it at all, except that some sexual harassment is also a crime (e.g., rape, solicitation of prostitution, etc.)

But employers have legal liability for sexual harassment, which only gets more severe as it continues and they fail to act, whether or not there is a crime involved.

They cannot delegate this responsibility to the police.

[LunaSea]

> It's literally not; sexual harassment is a civil, not criminal, offense.

That's why I included the judicial system.

> But employers have legal liability for sexual harassment, which only gets more severe as it continues and they fail to act, whether or not there is a crime involved.

It happening is required to be based on a suite or investigation. Again, a company isn't equipped to proceed with such an investigation on it's own.