Evaluating Ms A’s Contribution
Two workmates talking about sex is not necessarily sexual harassment, even if one is senior to the other. The conversations must be “unwanted”. Alan’s conversations with Ms A were a mutual consensual exploration of sexual matters. The offer of sex arose organically.
Alan had given Ms A time to decide on whether or not to have extra marital sex. He had not taken advantage after the threesome.
Even if it wasn’t rape, Ms A’s reluctance to have anal sex might mean Alan had sexually harassed Ms A. Her subsequent continuation in sex acts would indicate that she had “consented”. But this was a moot point since Ms A would flatly deny any sexual relations, let alone anal sex.
The only good thing from Brenda’s point of view was that Alan was using the workplace to chat up women. But Ms A evidence wasn’t going to get Alan dismissed.
Ms B
A few weeks later Brenda chatted with Ms B. Again she went from generalities to asking about Alan. Ms B worked in the same office as Ms A.
Ms A opened with “The office culture is really poor. They all talk openly about sex. You have to join in or are snubbed as a prude. The office manager is probably the worst offender. He is always making sexual comments about his staff. He abuses his position to get women to sleep with him”.
Brenda said “My boss, Alan, has visited your office a few times. Has he seen this clearly inappropriate behaviour? If so, has he done enough to stop it?”
Ms B said “The office is on its best behaviour when he visited. He takes us to the pub after work. I have one glass of wine and then leave. I hear all the details the next day.
Alan allows conversations about sex to take place. He should use his authority to stop staff doing that. Alan did nothing to make the firm a place where all staff are welcomed.
The whole office going to the pub excluded our Muslim man automatically. I am fairly sure that the office conversations is another reason why he left”.
Brenda said “I encourage you to complain about this continuing sexual harassment. You don’t have to put up with it”. Brenda was aware of the irony in her statement,
Ms B laughed and said “And have to put up with an office calling you a sneak and refusing to work with you. They would make my life miserable”.
Brenda asked “Did the man complete an Exit Questionnaire?”. Ms B nodded,
Brenda continued “Then I will ask to see it. It may set the cat among the pigeons without you being subject to harassment for complaining”.
Brenda had drawn a blank in getting dirt on Alan and ended the conversation shortly afterwards.
She was now duty bound to investigate the Exit Questionnaire. The Office Manager had the Quesrionnaire but hadn’t bothered to read it. Brenda asked to see it. He took ages to find it. As Ms B suspected the “office banter” and “excluding him by going to the pub” were mentioned.
The man had praised Alan for his knowledge of Islam. His comment read “Alan had asked the Office Manager to discourage staff from going to the pub”.
It was bad news for Brenda that Alan was getting praise. She emailed Alan to inform him “Serious problem at one Regional office. Notify the Director of HR that immediate investigation is needed”.
The HR investigation led to the sacking of the Office Manager and many Official Warnings were given to staff.
The HR Director wrote a personal letter to apologise to the Muslim man. He Director said that the issues he raised had been addressed. He would welcome him back to work, if that was what he wanted. The Muslim man did return, after 5 years became the office manager and eventually became a Board Director.
Ms C
Ms C (a known swinger) confirmed that Alan and she had discussed having a threesome. Ms C wanted her husband to be the dominant partner and Alan to be his slave. Once Alan heard he would have to suck off Mr C and let him use his bottom for anal sex he lost interest.
Alan never discussed the matter again.
Ms D
Brenda was beginning to think that she would never get sufficient dirt on Alan. As a research assistant she knew that you have to have to work hard to get lucky. Ms D gave her a much needed boost.
In confidence, Ms D revealed that “When he was tipsy after a liquid lunch and no food, Alan suggested that I might like to suck him off. He then grabbed and kissed me. I fled to the Ladies loo in tears. Three workmates saw me and followed me to the Ladies. I sobbed as I described his smelly, beery breath.
They saw the bruises on my arm. They suggested I submit a harassment claim”.
Ms D now had tears running down her face. This was not unusual and researchers come prepared. Brenda handed Ms D a tissue.
Now composed, Ms D continued “I told the witnesses that I would take it no further if he apologised to me. He apologised and promised to attend Alcoholics Anonymous to address his drinking problem. I was glad he recognised he had a drinking problem.
I asked the 3 workmates not to complain about Alan’s harassment”.
Brenda knew that Alan was lucky since he could have been sacked if only one of them had complained.
Ms D said “Alan never again drank alcohol when visiting. I hope that he is now teetotal”.
Brenda confirmed “I have never seen him drink alcohol”. Brenda wondered if Alan had attended AA meetings. If so, did he still attend them?
Evaluating Ms D
This was the motherload. Sexual harassment with 3 credible witnesses. Now a repeated sexual assault. This time Alan couldn’t claim that drink was involved.
Brenda said “There has been a similar event. Please take time to write down as many details as you can. The date, the time, the names of the witnesses in the Ladies, the details, like the smelly breath and the extent of the bruising”.
Then she asked the million dollar question “Would you be prepared to submit your recollection if there is an official complaint?”.
Ms D said “I will write a full report of what happened. I won’t initiate a complaint myself but I will do so if someone else complained”
Ms D now had a strong suspicion that Brenda was Alan’s latest sexual assault victim.
She said “I’ll email you a copy to add to your forthcoming complaint”.
Christmas had come early. Brenda said “Thank you so much. It really will help. Take your time and make the report as comprehensive as possible”.
A week later Brenda received the promised email. Now all she had to do was wait for Darren to give her the okay to submit her official complaint.
Darren’s Revenge
Darren had 3 objectives. The first was to publish a truthful biography of Alan. The second was to humiliate Alan at a public, press attended event and the last was to get him sacked.
The Truthful Biography
Darren sought advice from Felix, a literary friend, about how to get the biography written. Felix said “First, purchase the copyright to Alan’s book. Secondly, employ a specialist biography writer and 3 research assistants. Third, build a friendship with a book publishing company and keep them posted on progress.
The researchers will seek to provide the information that the biography writer wants. He uses their work to decide if a publishable book is possible. You will have invested £20 grand so far. You would be best advised to write this off if the specialist says not to proceed.