Facilitator Guide Facilitator: The scenarios below are the same copy that the participants received. The Department of the Army responses are in green ink. Further explanation by the State Equal Employment Manager (Lt Col Valerie Mueck) is in blue ink. Scenarios E and H encourage discussion on how the Soldiers would handle these situations. SCENARIO A CPT Robert Jack overheard two of his co-workers, CPT Lisa Gray and 1LT Adam West, laughing quietly, whispering, and flirting with each other. The next time CPT Jack passed CPT Gray, he winked and said, “Hi, sweet thing,” and looked her over, all in a joking manner. CPT Gray was angry and offended and told him so. Did CPT Jack sexually harass CPT Gray? Yes. CPT Jack’s behavior was inappropriate and constitutes sexual harassment. His action has the potential for creating a hostile environment. Although the behavior displayed by CPT Gray and 1LT West is not identified as sexual harassment it appears inappropriate for the work place. Captain Jack certainly thought that Captain Lisa Gray was “fair game” after he witnessed her openly flirtatious behavior toward 1LT Adam West in the work place. However, he was wrong. Her behavior with 1LT West was not an invitation for others to interact with her on an intimate or personal level. CPT Jack’s physical behavior of winking and “looking her over” (or leering) and then verbally calling her “sweet thing” is sexual harassment. It meets the definition of “Unwanted behavior of a sexual nature in the workplace.” CPT Lisa Gray and 1LT Adam West are engaging in consensual, or mutually agreeable communications. If they had been making sexually suggestive comments or touching each other in a sexually suggestive or inappropriate manner, they could have offended others and may have been accused of “third party sexual harassment.” While some of their social behaviors are considered to be normal human behaviors, they should not be engaging in a public display of affection in the workplace. Although their behavior is not “sexual” in nature by the “reasonable person’s standard”, their behavior is unprofessional. As officers, they are not modeling appropriate behavior for a positive human relations climate. SCENARIO B When Tom Bennet, a civilian supervisor of military personnel, gets his work group together for their monthly planning session, he always asks SSG Carol Jackson to take notes and make coffee. His work group consists of three administrative assistants, SSG Jackson, SSG Kevin Bridges and SSG Reginald Gibson. Is Mr. Bennet sexually harassing SSG Jackson? No. There is no rationale given in the scenario as to why Mr. Bennet has SSG Jackson take notes and make coffee. It appears to be discrimination based upon gender role stereotyping, and not sexual harassment. There is not enough information to determine why Mr. Bennet assigned SSG Jackson these specific duties during the monthly planning sessions. There is no “sexual behavior” in this scenario. Thus, there is no sexual harassment. Treating people differently in the workplace due to gender, race, color, national origin, or religion can constitute illegal discrimination (issue/harm + 1964 Civil Rights basis). If SSG Carol Jackson is the “note taker” and “coffeemaker” because she is female, then she is being discriminated against based on her gender. However, we do not have enough information to draw this conclusion. Sometimes situations appear to be unfair but we cannot jump to conclusions without the facts. It may be that SSG Jackson volunteered for these roles, or it may be that she excels at these tasks and has agreed to do them while her colleagues have volunteered for other projects or tasks. It may also be that the person youngest in rank has these responsibilities and she may qualify as the newest SSG. Reminder: In the 21st century, people must remember not to stereotype and believe that women are better note takers or coffee makers because “all females” are better at these roles, or that this “is women’s work.” At the same time, “all men” are not necessarily better suited to be manual laborers, equipment operators, pilots or Soldiers! Keep an open mind and don’t be stuck in an ancient world of misinformation and myths. In your personal life (at home) you can agree to roles based on gender, but not in a place of employment (unless it is a bona fide occupational qualification such as a professional men’s basketball team). Institutional discrimination, such as age limits and disability barriers for military members, and/or combat exclusion positions for men only, are legal examples of discrimination. SCENARIO C Throughout the day, MSG York has to drop by the job site to oversee the work of his crew, which is made up of three women and eight men. When he passes SFC Monica Thomas or SSG Pamela Hey he occasionally pats one of them or gives them a “little pinch” or a hug. He has never said anything really sexual to either of them, and they’ve never objected to his occasional touches. Is MSG York sexually harassing the women? Yes. Based upon the scenario MSG York’s behavior appears to be a physical form of sexual harassment. The question is “pats where and pinches where?” There is nothing in this scenario which would indicate that MSG York’s behavior is either sexual or offensive but his physical touching of his subordinates was neither requested nor asked for, therefore, the potential exists for creating a hostile environment. The behavior is also only directed at two of the three women on the job site. Therefore is appears gender based and inappropriate. His behavior could also be perceived as a form of preferential treatment by the men on the job site and cause for a complaint of treatment that is based on gender difference. Just because the women do not complain about MSG York’s touching does not mean they are not offended. Often men and women tolerate inappropriate verbal and physical behaviors because they are afraid of reprisal by the perpetrator or a supervisor. Also, people who elevate concerns are often called, “complainers”, “whiners” or “troublemakers”. This is wrong. People who raise issues over inappropriate behavior in the workplace are exercising their rights and being responsible. They should raise concerns in an appropriate manner as well with the intent of a “win-win” outcome when possible. No one should tolerate inappropriate behavior at work. In fact, people should work as a team to make their work environment better for everyone. If an employee does not elevate their concerns, they are supporting the continuation of undesirable behavior that can lead to worse actions by the perpetrator. Sometimes sexual harassment gone unchecked or unchallenged can lead to a serial offender committing sexual assault against another Soldier. SCENARIO D MAJ Chong really likes his subordinates and he makes it a point to treat everyone the same. He especially likes to joke and tease in what he feels is a good-natured way. He makes comments like “How’s your love life?” and “Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do”, but MAJ Chong would never be lewd or offensive. None of his subordinates have ever objected and sometimes they laugh. Is this sexual harassment? No. This is not sexual harassment. Though some may view MAJ Chong’s comments as a subtle form of harassment, his actions should not be viewed as sexual or offensive. He treats both men and women the same. However, as the supervisor his comments may be inappropriate. This is not sexual harassment, but it is not professional conduct either. By asking the question, “How’s your love life?” MAJ Chong may be initiating a conversation that will become too personal or sexual nature. Some people are willing to be open about their personal or sexual lives and it is best not to invite that behavior. Unwittingly, he could start something that he did not intend to start. MAJ Chong’s “good-natured” comments are reminiscent of high school level chatter. He is a supervisor and an officer. He should be presenting himself as a professional role model to his subordinates. Soldiers who conduct themselves as mature, professional adults will have greater opportunities for advancement. Those who do not heed this may not advance and sometimes they do not know the reason for their stagnant careers. As they are exposed or “found out”, leaders who cannot be trusted to conduct themselves properly will eventually be stopped from excelling further. This is evident in high profile or public cases where politicians say or do inappropriate things that are not tolerated in today’s society. SCENARIO E Last night MSG Donald Reese went to a business dinner meeting arranged by his boss, CPT Ora Issacs. He expected the whole office staff to be there, but it was just the two of them. The restaurant was dimly lit, with a very romantic atmosphere. After a few drinks MSG Reese realized that the only business to be discussed was CPT Issacs’ attraction to him. Just before suggesting that they go to her house for a nightcap, she mentioned MSG Reese’s upcoming Non- Commissioned Officers Evaluation Report (NCOER). Is CPT Issacs sexually harassing MSG Reese? Yes. CPT Issacs’ behavior is a “quid pro quo” (this for that) form of sexual harassment. Although she has not mentioned sex in her conversation with MSG Reese, she has made it clear that there is a direct connection between his response to her suggestion for a nightcap at her place and his next NCOER. Danger, danger MSG Reese. He has just been sexually harassed by CPT Issacs. He may be getting the message that if he doesn’t “perform”, his performance will be rated badly. Now, what should he do? What would you do? Should he call the Sexual Harassment Hotline at NGB-EO? Should he tell her that he is a professional Soldier and doesn’t mix business with pleasure? Can this E-8 handle his O-3 boss who is on a personal mission? If he reports her conduct, will his story be believed? Should he report her anyway? As a first-rate NCO, discuss how this Soldier might handle this situation. Is there any win-win situation possible? What should he say and what should he do? Soldiers will come up with multiple answers on how they would handle this. Doing nothing or going home with her, are bad options. He could get her to clarify or qualify her statements. He could be direct and ask her if she is implying that he will get a better rating if he has a personal relationship with her. Then when he reports her, there will be further indication that he is a victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment. He should tell her that he is a professional Soldier and does not fraternize. Then, he should bid her farewell and leave. He should document the incident immediately while he recalls her exact words and note any witnesses. He should inform her supervisor and the EO officer of the incident. Sometimes issues get swept under the rug so it is best to report a potentially high profile case to the EO Office to be addressed and/or monitored. SCENARIO F SGT Martha White is very attracted to her supervisor, SFC Dan Black. Since they’re both single, she asked him over for dinner one Friday evening. After a very pleasant evening and a few too many drinks, they ended up spending the night together. Is this sexual harassment? No. However, it is clearly inappropriate for supervisors and their subordinates to get involved romantically. This behavior can damage unit morale and discipline. This is also a possible UCMJ violation -- fraternization. Dating people at work poses risks for relationships as well as for the workplace climate. Even when civilian supervisors and subordinates date, there are risks to the workplace morale. If it is consensual or wanted, it is not sexual harassment. SCENARIO G Connie, a staff attorney for her organization, has known for some time about the affairs between some women in her office and their bosses. Furthermore, these women have received perfect performance appraisals, cash awards, and promotions while other, more deserving employees, were denied such rights. When Connie comes up for a promotion, it is made clear that “socializing” will be part of the new job. She rejects the offer and lost an opportunity for an increase in pay. In the next month, she received a poor performance appraisal. Is Connie being sexually harassed? This is not a Department of the Army scenario but comes from the civilian EEO sector. Whether in a military or civilian setting, workplace sexual harassment is against the law. If all of the allegations can be proven, this is a case of third party sexual harassment. The culture in Connie’s workplace is clearly dysfunctional and inappropriate if there are (obvious) affairs between supervisors and subordinates. There is favoritism occurring based on sexual behavior if the supervisors are rewarding sexual affairs with cash awards and promotions. The supervisors have made sex a condition of employment promotions and awards. Those who do not “socialize” will be treated in a disparate fashion. In other words, they are discriminated against. Connie is an attorney. She will soon be eligible for a cash award if she files an EEO complaint! SCENARIO H Clare and Mark work for a public relations firm. They are often teamed together on special projects and spend a considerable amount of time together. Mark is attracted to Clare and has asked her out on several occasions. Clare repeatedly rejects his offer, but Mark believes in the theory that persistence will win out, so he keeps asking. Is Mark sexually harassing Clare? This is not a Department of the Army scenario but comes from the civilian EEO sector. Whether in a military or civilian setting, workplace sexual harassment is against the law. Mark has obviously not been listening during the EEO training provided at his public relations firm. He missed the part about forms of sexual harassment and specifically that “pressuring for dates” is a prime example. O. K., what would you do if you were Clare? What are all of your options? What is your style for handling your teammate, Mark? Should you let him down easy? Should you file a complaint? Is there something else you could do? There are multiple answers for this. Clare should tell him in a firm but friendly manner that she wants him to stop pressuring her for dates. She should tell him that she is interested in a professional work relationship only! She should also tell him that if he does not stop this harassing behavior, that he will leave her no other option but to take further action (report him to her supervisor and possibly file a sexual harassment complaint). It is a good idea for her to also report this informally to the EEO office so they will have record of the incidents. She can also mention this to her boss so that they can be aware of the situation and offer any support or guidance she might need. It is always best to handle issues at the lowest level for a win-win outcome. Mark may be a really good work partner and she may not want to completely tarnish their partnership by threatening to file an EEO claim against him. He is being inappropriate, but this is a low level harassment on the scale. If he keeps pressuring her after she has warned him firmly, then she needs intervention by someone in her chain of command. Another outcome to consider is requesting another work partner. If Mark is hopelessly enchanted with Clare, he may never be able to act professionally around her all the time. If he displays obsessive characteristics, Clare needs to report everything to her supervisor and request a new partner immediately!