HR rejected grievance I made against Colleague

[RockNRoll25]

Looking for a bit of a hand hold. I submitted a grievance against a male colleague for a comment he made about me which was sexual in nature. HR have investigated and closed the case after speaking to him and accepting his explanation that his comment wasn’t sexual. It absolutely was an inappropriate innuendo and I’m really surprised by the response.

Has anyone been in a similar position - would you try to find another job, or ask to be moved teams?

Sounds like the time HR called me in as I told a female colleague she wasn’t good at her job. HR agreed and case dropped, she was furious.

That's quite a stretch you've made.

HiYa. So some background context. I work in a very very large organisation where we have a zero policy on this type of stuff, and one of my additional roles is to act as an independent investigator for HR on such cases. Before anyone starts unpicking my comments, let me say I am trying to provide scenarios that are not directly related to you, as we don't have the full context.

Depending on the circumstances, based on my experience this doesn't cross the threshold for sexual harassment as his comment would be very difficult to prove as he was technically correct. You cant do something about how he said it, but possibly dignity at work, behaviours etc... and if upheld, would probably warrant some form of warning/ advice.

Its often standard process that the complainant doesn't know the outcome of an investigation. Why? I have no idea. Therefore you don't know that they didn't do anything.

I just dealt with a very similar case but this employee also has other cosmetic surgery. However, how it made you feel shouldn't be discounted.

The next are merely comments that an investigator would have to take into consideration.

HR processes can be tackled informally or formally. We now work in a time where everyone seems to report everyone even for the smallest of things. As an investigator, you ask for any witnesses who may have overheard it, was there a history of the employee saying similar things to other employees etc....

I had a similar case. The employee had fillers and a breast augmentation. During the investigation we discovered that outside of work, she also had an only fans page - something which contravenes our policy (disrepute etc..) and also had a bit of a 'reputation'. On top of that, despite the female raising the complaint, I also discovered that she would say "You only get fillers for one reason, and that's to give a good b* job**". Which basically destroyed her argument.

Therefore whilst we found the male employee with a case to answer, he was given advice, and HR took action against the female as other information came out during the investigation, such as having onlyfans and action was taken against her.

All I am saying here is that (a) we dont know the full context (b) We dont know the workplace culture etc... so on the surface it may look like nothing was done but you dont know that.

This is all for wider understanding of HR type investigations.

Ehhh??? You risked someone's job/career over something as trivial/harmless as that? You WERE getting your lip(s) pumped. Surely if a girl had said it you would have just laughed. Unbelievable!

We now work in a time where everyone seems to report everyone even for the smallest of things

No shit!

Absolutely this. Its how the person (you) was made to feel about what was said - regardless of whether it was intended or not. Is your HR dept only staffed by older males perchance?! This is nonsense, don't accept it

That isn’t how employment law works. The comment didn’t reach the standard required to be legally determined as sexual harassment and so that’s the end of the matter. Are you seriously suggesting that the HR department should have opened itself up to a grievance brought by the man who made the comment? Because that’s how it appears.

I agree with HR, it would be difficult to be prove this comment had a sexual connotation. Having said that, as you have reported him, his behaviour is likely to improve.

Nope. There is a standard to be met when considering what is and is not sexual harassment. Intent doesn’t enter into it. And HR rightly decided that this comment didn’t meet the threshold. You have to find a balance between calling out genuine harassment and creating a toxic workplace where everyone is frightened to open their mouths.

You are getting lip filler. Let me guess you wear makeup and also wear revealing clothes (showing cleavage and leg) at work. So who sexualised the workplace? You or him?

The only reason you raised a greavance is that you dont like the fellow and were hoping to drop him in it. It it had been someone else would you have gone to HR?

There are consequences to your actions. People can lose a job, not pay their bills and end up on thr street. Over what? A stupid comment.

Now the workplace is going to be a very uncomfortable place for everyone as it is now apparent that a misplaced comment could land anyone in the hotseat at your request. Well done you for hiding behind the system and trying to get HR to take on a fight on your behalf. Disgusting.

Grow up and have a big girl conversation next time.

Maybe I've just got a dirty mind but I can see what he meant by that, and it wasn't innocent!

I obviously have a dirty mind, much dirtier than most women here, either that or the ones that claimed they "didn't get it" are telling porkies, trying to make themselves seem more innocent than they really are! Because that was most definitely an innuendo! Having said that, I found it harmless and most certainly wouldn't have reported it. But that's just me, I'm easy going for the most part...

But just because you can see that doesn't mean that that's definitively what he meant.

I assumed having lips pumped meant enhanced in some way, like botox, trout pout and all that (revolting). I can't see any sexual innuendo in that. If he'd said she had her mouth pumped, I might.

That’s not how employment law works either.

HR just “chatting” and then reporting back that the guy didn’t mean it like that isn’t sufficient. There should have been an investigation and an outcome which should not have been in that form. If the outcome him this case was no further action the reasons should have been explained and the investigation should have been taken using other witnesses and in context of previous behaviour if relevant.

The OP says HR did investigate - she used that word not “chatting”, she didn’t say exactly how this had been done other than that the person she complained about had been spoken to.

The poster you’re replying to read and understood OP’s posts properly, in which she clearly says HR investigated, decided to take no further action and closed the case. There’s no mention of chatting, there was an investigation, which would have included interviewing witnesses/collecting evidence as you described in your post. The outcome would have been communicated to the parties involved - clearly it was to OP, who didn’t agree with it.

You commented upthread that intent matters - it doesn’t. The main consideration is generally given as to whether the impact on the recipient can reasonably be considered unwanted and creating of a hostile, offensive, or intimidating environment - regardless of the intention of the person who made the comment.

The comment in this case clearly didn’t meet that threshold, as evidenced by the number of posters here who had to have the double meaning explained to them because it’s so obscure.