Based on the questions that were asked, it seemed as if the Human Rights people had already found me guilty.

---

Al dug right in. We were sure they didn’t have a case, but remember, when dealing with any government agency, it seems like you’re guilty until proven innocent. Al said there was much work to do – several filings had to be prepared.

The State Department of Human Rights sent 18 questions that we had to answer about the charges. This is when I started to worry … a whole bunch. The system was about to test my almost nonexistent company policy on harassment and, in general, our policy on employee rights.

Based on the questions that were asked, it seemed as if the Human Rights people had already found me guilty. But my attorney assured me that the questions were typical in these cases.

They also wanted names of other employees who might have had knowledge of this harassment, who they were, what they did and all personnel records on each employee. They wanted copies of our nonexistent harassment policy, as well as our follow-up procedures if harassment had been suggested. Were the charges brought to our attention ahead of time and did we investigate? Were there any prior charges of harassment? If so, who made them? Had anyone ever been fired from the company? If so, they wanted their names to investigate if any of these people had been harassed.

The form went on and on.

My attorney, Al, interviewed all my employees, and we compiled written statements from them. All the employees – except the accuser – thought the whole thing was a big joke. Everyone agreed that no one had harassed anyone else.

I was raised in a fairly strong Baptist family, eight “perfect-attendance” pins to prove it. Seldom were words referencing sexual acts or references to the human body in a sexual manner used in our family conversations. But in our work world, many employees told jokes of a sexual nature. I personally didn’t care for them, but as an employer, I saw no real harm in allowing employees to speak freely. (Now I know that that attitude can come back to bite you later.)

We all looked at it as kidding around with your fellow worker. For example, I had an administrative assistant who used to flirt with the male workers. I once overheard a co-worker tell another co-worker that my assistant had a “nice butt.” I quickly verbally reprimanded the employee and told him that that kind of comment could turn into a sexual harassment case. My assistant, overhearing my reprimand, came to me and said she viewed it as a compliment. End of case. But if later she had, say, been fired, she might have been able to come back and file charges against us if I hadn’t reprimanded the employee who had made the remark.

Getting back to the case at hand, for the first time in my Protestant life, the words “oral sex” would be used in many future conversations. In fact, they became almost household words for the better part of a year.

The charges went something like this: The accuser said that the shop manager requested oral sex from him over a six-month period and specifically on a day when the employee had asked the manager for a raise in pay. The manager then walked toward the restroom, leaving the door open while he urinated and said to the employee, “The only raise you’ll get is right here.”

This remark was a key statement that our accused was basing his case on because the state said a request for oral sex is a form of sexual harassment. The Human Rights people wanted to conduct a fact-finding meeting among all parties to determine if there was any merit to the accusation.

It also allowed both sides to do what they called “venting.” They say you need to get it out of your system if you’re ever to get over the issues and hopefully negotiate a settlement.

Here they were, talking about settlements, and I hadn’t even been “vented” yet.

Six months after all this started, we received notice of a fact-finding hearing to decide whether there was a basis for proceeding with the charges. Only certain people would be allowed to speak, and they were listed on the notice. They were the employee who filed the charge, my shop manager and me. My attorney could be there but couldn’t ask any questions or make any arguments.

As the date of the hearing approached, our attorney drilled my manager and me for what seemed like hours, asking all kinds of crazy questions just like the ones the investigator from the state would ask.

Month seven, we finally went to the hearing. And I was hoping this would be the end of it. The accusing employee was basically representing himself, with his girlfriend there for “moral” support. But he wasn’t totally representing himself. Using taxpayers dollars, a representative from the Department of Human Resources had put all the paperwork together for him. All of his legal fees up till then were furnished free of charge.

Our investigator was a woman who said she’d had much experience in such matters and usually hears two cases per day. She assured us that all facts would be considered.

We started by our investigator reciting what the Department of Human Rights says constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace: any unwelcome advances or requests for sexual favors or any conduct of a sexual nature when submission to such conduct is expressed or merely suggested; or submission or rejection of the conduct by an employee is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting the employee; or if the conduct interferes with the employee’s job performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

---

We both called each other liars.

---

After reading this statement, our investigator went on to tell us that her job was to define the issues, determine which facts were undisputed, obtain evidence and ascertain whether there was a basis for the charge to go forward unless settled – and that only requested people could talk or answer questions during her investigation. Again with the word “settlement.” But I had no intention of negotiating any settlement because I believed we were innocent.

I also believed that there could never be sexual harassment in an all-male environment. Boy was I wrong about that.

During the hearing, our accuser was allowed to state his case. We weren’t allowed to talk while our accuser was speaking, and we weren’t allowed to interrupt or dispute anything until he was done “venting.” He spent about an hour venting (it seemed like forever).

Finally, my time came. As I spoke, our accuser continually interrupted me, disputing almost every word. He almost had me believing I was wrong. He kept calling it all lies.

Our investigator asked many questions of my shop manager, me and our accuser. By the nature of her questions, it seemed to me she was leaning our way and could see through our accuser’s harassment claim.

Finally, we exchanged questions of each other, you know, face your accuser, and we both called each other liars. The comments were fired back and forth for about another hour. The investigator concluded the hearing with a comment that she doubted there would be any need to proceed further.

I left the hearing feeling very positive.

But my attorney put a damper on my spirits. He told me that it takes very little evidence for an investigator to conclude that a case should go forward and that he wouldn’t be surprised if that were her conclusion. He went on to say that this doesn’t mean we’d lose the case in the end. It would just mean the case would go forward.
I didn’t feel especially comforted.

After three months, we still hadn’t gotten the investigator’s determination. Finally, early in November, almost a year after the charges were filed with Human Rights, we got an “OFFICIAL” letter from the Department of Human Rights called a “Notice of Substantial Evidence.” Our investigator, after carefully reviewing all the evidence, had decided that since all parties, including myself, had allowed jokes of a sexual nature to be told at the workplace with no punishment or attempt by management to stop them, there was substantial evidence.

With substantial evidence, the investigator said that this case was best suited for hearing before a “trier of fact” for a decision. She concluded this because all the evidence was from witnesses who may or may not have been credible.

Again, I felt like I was guilty until proven innocent. After all, I was the big bad employer who didn’t stop my employees from telling off-color jokes in front of our accuser. But I hadn’t thought I needed to stop it since our accuser was telling worse jokes and talking dirtier than the other employees. He’d even describe sexual acts he’d performed the night before just to see if anyone could better his story.

According to the Human Rights people, I should have fired the whole bunch for telling jokes of a sexual nature and for joking about sex, and I agree.

So basically the investigator had concluded that there might have been some truth to the accusations. I, however, couldn’t understand why the investigator hadn’t thrown this case out.

I found that I was now obsessed with these accusations. I couldn’t sleep at night. I couldn’t look at my manager without starting to think how he had made my life miserable. And even though my attorney again told me that the finding of “substantial evidence” didn’t mean we’d ultimately lose, I needed closure.

I didn’t need to “vent” anymore. I needed it all to go away. It was consuming all my time and energy, and everything else was suffering.

After a few weeks, the Human Rights people sent a letter saying that they were ordering us to conciliate this case. Conciliation is a process in which a Department staff attorney facilitates settlement discussions with both parties via the telephone.

This made me blow my stack. No. 1, I didn’t want to settle, and No. 2, I wanted to face my accuser eye to eye, not on the phone.

After we refused to conciliate, they suggested a state mediation with an impartial third party. That didn’t sound too appealing either. I didn’t know who the mediator would be or what to expect. But if we didn’t agree to mediate or if the mediation didn’t result in a settlement, the Human Rights Department would file a “complaint” with the Human Rights Commission for the accusing employee. Then the matter would be set for a trial in the Human Rights Commission.

So my attorney and I agreed to try to mediate, although he had tried very hard to talk me into taking it to trial. He was sure we could beat them if all the facts were presented in the proper light. But remember, I’m going nuts, possessed. I needed closure.

My attorney and I wanted to set up the mediation close to home for all of us. Thanks to state budget constraints, the only place that could handle such a nasty case was in the other end of the state – 280 miles away. We were sure our accuser wouldn’t want to go that far to try to settle, but much to our surprise, he agreed.

Finally, a full 13 months after this started, we tried to “mediate.” Our mediator also was a woman. She explained that if there were a settlement that was agreed to by all, then all the details would be kept strictly confidential. The finding would then be filed with the Human Rights Commission for final approval.

---