chrisc90 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 01:19
dialtone wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 01:15
Redragon wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 00:07
If I receive a message unwanted, I give a note it is not ok to send me that message. If that person does it again I block. To make clear I don't want to receive that kind of messages. If she didn't block she was participating or gathering proof.
So you block your boss at the company?
I think blocks a tough route to go down - certainly one with different avenues to take.
If you just ignore them and not partake in any response - then you (the receiver) keep yourself in the clear.
If you receive and reply - then 2 ‘wrongs’ don’t make a right. Any flirting banter works both ways.
If you block - then I guess it leaves any work discussion to meetings on company premises.
If it’s a personal phone - then by all means I’d say it’s acceptable to block your ‘boss’. But on a works phone then no - but you would expect such messages to be in order (as above). Anything untoward you simply wouldn’t reply via text.
I'm sorry but that's absolutely not how it works. I don't know what happened in this case, and I'm not familiar with the law in the UK, but speaking with USA knowledge.
Your distinctions above are yours only, USA law sees no difference between any of those. The only thing that matters is if at some point the action of the sender weren't welcome and didn't stop. I would be very surprised if this was different in the UK or any western country. And all of this is without the context of being in a work situation where the employee can always claim they had to respond to avoid repercussions to their career, which is fundamentally accepted because it's obviously hard to disambiguate the problem.
If the alleged facts are true, CH was incredibly stupid because he performed all of this nonsense in a work setting. I cannot fathom the level of stupidity involved here if the alleged facts are confirmed, there's basically no way back and it literally doesn't matter what the receiving party did.
EDIT: I will add, the technical name for this type of Sexual Harassment is Quid Pro Quo, and simply the law is meant to prevent the employees to be put in the situation where they don't know if they have to respond to avoid repercussions in the workplace. I'm sure the UK has a similar setting.
https://www.ny.gov/sites/default/files/ ... Slides.pdf Case 02 is pretty much this one, and explains that the use of personal phones is irrelevant. Here's a legal firm marketing layer that deals with quid pro quo cases and explains a bit about the US law:
https://www.wmlawyers.com/oakland-sexua ... ys/favors/