On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners.
On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario for at least one of the parties, though we don't know for sure yet who it is.
But even if things don't shit the bed quite this bad, you're just asking for awkwardness and trouble in most cases.
I'm not sure if this impossible position is given: he fucked up. He was C-level executive, his partner got hired, but he did not tell a word to HR (or company) about their relationship. Now, you have impossible position.
If the company and HR knew about their relationship then his position might not be so impossible.
Sometimes it feels like even talking about a relationship to other people can effect the state of that relationship. It's easy in hindsight to say, hey, you shouldn't have done it this way. But maybe at certain points it looked like it was about to dissolve itself, but didn't... who knows. I can see a few reasons why I wouldn't want to say anything, especially if this person wasn't a direct report.
(This is taking the story at face value – who knows the truth and if there was a more nefarious reason behind the withholding of that information.)
It's a spectrum. Consider two extremes:
Smart and clean: Don't form relationships at the office, period.
Dumb and messy: As CEO, have sex with the office manager of your small startup.
This sounds like something very much in the gray area in between.
> I can see a few reasons why I wouldn't want to say anything, especially if this person wasn't a direct report.
Really?
The guy was the COO, almost by definition everyone else in the company reports to him through some direct line.
The guy admitted to having a physical relationship. There is absolutely no gray area here as far as HR would be concerned.
Your a C level exec, you have a physical relationship with someone else at the company, whether or not it stopped before that person arrived, you report it the first moment you know that person starts working at your company.
I agree relationships are messy and life has lots of gray areas. This, however, is not one of them. This is HR 101 and if your still not convinced he admitted he knew this and should have reported it.
Wouldn't want to say anything isn't the same as wouldn't say anything. We do things all the time where we know it's the wrong call, but we want to do it a certain way anyway.
I doubt there's anyone who believes he should have said something more than he. I just get the mindset that clouded things.
I know I should have gone to the gym this week. I didn't. You can probably understand the thinking, moods and circumstances that made that true, but we'd still agree I made the wrong call. That's all I'm saying.
The proper HR response is to remove the higher ranking officer from an "evaluatory role" and put someone else in charge of determining future promotions, demotions, bonuses, team role, etc.
Let's imagine a horribly messy situation. A professor and a graduate student that works in her lab want to become intimate. That's perfectly fine, so long as the professor gives up the ability to determine if they can graduate, dictate what classes they take, dictate pay, etc. Even cleaner because there is a record that the professor is to not be asked to evaluate performance in the future, so there's less likelihood that the other professor could be influenced.
You at some point do have to assume that people are trying to do things correctly, of course. But the more people there are who are aware of the situation the less likely it is that a conspiracy to cover up abuse of power will occur.
There is a straightforward way to address this situation. It is unfortunate that he either was not aware of it or did not avail himself of it.
Basically any sexual harassment training will tell you that yes, it is in fact okay to have a work place relationship so long as you disclose the relationship, and do not have a "evaluatory position" (meaning that either person is allowed to evaluate the performance of the other).
This was like stuff I was told on day one of working a real job. This sounds like an awful situation, so I hope anyone else in a similar situation realizes that disclosure is the only thing that disarms these sorts of situations.
HR is required to keep such things confidential, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with a work place relationship. And if you do this, what can really go wrong? If your relationship explodes into some dramatic fireball, sure, it sucks, but that's the reason you're in a non-evaluatory role. You may have to work in the same building, but at least you don't have your career path impacted by your ex.
Wrong order. He had a romantic relationship, THEN recommended him to Square for a job (without disclosing the relationship). Not an impossible position at all-- more of an abuse of trust.
That seems an overly salacious interpretation. You're reading from the same text that said he had nothing to do with the hiring.
Recommending someone with technical skills work at your startup only crosses a line when you're both porking them and directly making the hiring decision, which if we're taking this at face value, didn't happen.
True, but I think the point stands: it's not an impossible position, because the partner never had to work at Square in the first place. If he can get a job at Square, he could most likely get a job anywhere in SF/the Valley.
That's not quite his story either -- his claim is that he suggested to his romantic partner that they apply at Square, and was not involved at all in the actual hiring.
Doesn't it seem likely to anyone else that Keith Rabois was not openly homosexual or bisexual, and that is the reason he didn't report the relationship to the company?
All very true, but this needs to be handled in-house. I think that's the big issue here. Square should have the right to enforce its own policies, not be subjected to legal harassment.
There's so much implicit wrongness in your statement my mind doesn't know where to lock on to respond. Sorry.
edit: I figured it out.
You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs.
If something happened here that is against the law, I am heartened that a legal framework exists to provide remedies. If it did not, I am similarly heartened to note that the accused at least has resources sufficient to mount a defense. We can argue the injustice of a false accusation, if indeed it turns out the accusation was so, but the accused admits maintaining a physical relationship was in poor judgment. This is one of the realities that comes from that level of success. It's a cost of doing business that you must be much, much more cautious in the deployment of your genitals.
I guess I just don't see who, other than the couple in question, was harmed here. Is the author being intentionally vague about what really happened? Was Square harmed? Was a third party harmed?
You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs.
Why would it be a horrifying state of affairs? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand!
> Why would it be a horrifying state of affairs? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand!
Well.
It would mean that corporations would exist outside of laws to govern their behavior. And we've already figured out that's a bad idea.
Society, generally, wants it to be illegal to force people to fuck you to keep a job, in an extreme example.
Generally, it wants it to be legal to blow the whistle on illegal activity.
Generally, it wants it to be illegal to prioritize profits over the safety of workers.
Being successful and making lots of money shouldn't relieve your company of accountability under the law.
> Was Square harmed?
Square's reputation would have been harmed by a protracted and public legal battle.
> I guess I just don't see who, other than the couple in question, was harmed here.
There's not a couple here. There's an accuser, who claims that Rabois sexually harassed him and that Square covered for it.
Where it gets complicated for Rabois, I suspect, comes with this line:
"exchanged intimate, personal information, as people in similar relationships often do."
This suggests to me that the accuser has sufficient proof that Rabois can't deny a sexual relationship continuing after the hire. Given the asymmetry of power between these two sexual partners, consent starts to get very muddy to sort out.
So he had to leave, given the very real legal issues this opened for the company.
Imagine a company with the official policy that feeding your kids is not important. Can employees off that company now starve their children without fear of legal consequence? How about beating up fellow employees - oh too bad, you should have worked somewhere with a policy against assault?
So managers should be allowed to require their employees to have sex with them as a condition of their continued employment?
I'm not saying that's what happened here; rather, the laws against this sort of arrangement are what the alleged "victim" is invoking to bring a case against Mr. Rabois.
You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs.
Well, we seem to have done that with sports. Or, has Lance Armstrong been indicted yet?
Yours is a remarkable position. The accuser asserts that he was coerced into sex by Keith, who (simplifying slightly) ran the company and set the policies. Do you think someone like Keith should have the authority to set policies that allow him to coerce his employees into sex? Like a US slave owner before the Civil War?
I'm not asserting that Keith did what he's accused of. But many, many other people have, and if we have to choose, I'd rather see the state monopoly on violence used to protect the victims, not the perpetrators.
Even if they do know, it's still an awful decision to take.
The less likely outcome is that everything will go fine forever after.
It will very likely either become a mess (awkward situations, loss of job even for third parties, etc.) or a disaster for everyone involved (like a sexual harassment lawsuit.)
Espcially if you are the boss.
And even more if the person wasn't working there to begin with!
I don't understand. Maybe we have different professional cultures. Why is having an undisclosed relationship with another employee the worst possible business decision? (Certainly in my culture I can think of much worse decisions one person could make).
3. "You're the boyfriend of the COO? Congratulations, you're hired into my group as advisor for internal strategy. Can we three have lunch together some time?"
Yes, I was trying to dramatize a conflict of interest that was more relevant in this scenario, where the romance is not between a manager and his direct report. (Assuming the OP is correct.)
Again, this is a situation where there is a conflict of interest that could happen whether there is a romantic relationship between the two employees. Would HR really have the ability to stop such a promotion knowing that at the same time they must keep and relationship confidential?
In the UK, I've never been asked by a company to disclose any office relationships. Usually such relationships are had in the open even between different level employees.
Significant promotions have input from far up the management chain, as well as from HR (independently). There will be a board that meets to debate the qualifications of this year's crop of promotion candidates. As the promotion gets more senior, the board will be less ad hoc and more formal, with members from farther across the organization, chosen by highly placed engineers/managers.
So, the board has considerable power. If the relationship is not open, the board may end up with members with conflicts of interest (COI).
The promotion process at my large (5000 employees) California-based organization was changed a few years ago so that HR has input into every promotion, even junior developers. The board used to have pretty much the last word, but now HR has independent input into the decision, partly to put a check on potential COIs like the one I mentioned above. (There are other reasons too.) There was considerable grumpiness from engineering management, and there is foolishness resulting from the change.
HR: "From what you sent us, it seems like the candidate has a significant role in project X, but not a highly significant role...could you provide additional material to document a highly significant role?"
I assume lawsuits from unhappy employees were the reason for these changes. Large organizations are really afraid of large settlements and bad PR from employee lawsuits. All these questions would be decided by a jury, in a setting ripe for David vs. Goliath thinking.
As for your own experience, note that you've observed open relationships between different level employees. Keith's was not open....so not sure what point you're trying to make.
Put it this way: if everyone knows that senior manager Alice is in a relationship with first year employee Bob...how easy do you think it is for Alice to pull the strings to make sure Bob gets promoted past his merit? Sure, it can happen, but people aren't as likely to not notice it. And so Alice just may not try to pull the strings.
OK, so you are saying that in the situation where there is a conflict of interest then HR should be involved so that the matter can be dealt with fairly. In that case why not bring the matter to HR when there is an issue to be resolved. This is a situation of a higher level employee abusing their power over a lower level employee and could happen whether a romantic relationship exists or not. What does HR having foreknowledge do to help prevent such a situation?
For one, it leaves a paper trail. Assuming that HR says "OK, thanks for telling us"...now you have a third party that can nominally monitor the situation. Right now, it's just Keith's word (he claims to not have any impact on his partner's fate at the company, but how can we ascertain that he's not being misleading?) against his accuser's.
This is wildly dogmatic and not really based in reason. The risks of a relationship are evident, but what about the upside? Imagine the chance to vet someone over time for cultural and professional fit for a role that they might excel in. When a company gets large enough where there is zero interaction day to day are there no possibilities that this might work? Setting aside a lack of disclosure, is the leverage so great that someone is a liability having a social context? It just seems like people are pretty black and white on this.
Wait...let me get this straight. You're asking "..is the leverage so great that someone is a liability" for having a relationship? And you're asking this in a thread in which the OP describes how his ex-lover's attempt at extortion (if we believe the OP) has forced him out of the company?
Nope. The leverage was in his lack of reporting it, not the action of hiring a sig' other. The only thing that would serve as leverage would be emotional grief supposing that professional protocol was followed.
I knew Thiel was gay - and until today had no idea Rabois was as well. The story you linked to is the first time I've seen this and to see that they were some ultra conservative bible toting rebels is... Bizarre.
Are they Tech's equivalent of the anti-gay senators caught in rest-stop bathrooms?
> to see that they were some ultra conservative bible toting rebels is... Bizarre.
Or Mother Jones is trying to set up a strawman of them as being homophoboic bigots without realizing that they were actually protesting [1] the then-controversial Stanford speech code, which prohibited much more speech than the government could prohibit. Lawsuits [2] were underway against the speech code and it was a bit of a topic of the day.
As others have pointed out, the safest way to protest a speech code that bans certain slurs against protected groups is to attack your own group. Rabois standing around using anti-gay slurs can easily prove that he's actually protesting the speech code by saying "look, I'm not homophobic, I'm actually gay myself." A bunch of white guys standing around dropping the n-word would not work out as well.
I looked through your links and don't see anything about Keith Rabois being gay. That he was might be common knowledge, but it's not intimated on those sites.
"As others have pointed out, the safest way to protest a speech code that bans certain slurs against protected groups is to attack your own group. Rabois standing around using anti-gay slurs can easily prove that he's actually protesting the speech code by saying "look, I'm not homophobic, I'm actually gay myself.""
Also, if he were a closeted homosexual it would make sense as to why he didn't tell Square about the relationship.
Except that Rabois (and Thiel) were both in the closet at the time. In lieu of "look, I'm not homophobic"...
first-year law student Keith Rabois - refused to answer their questions, but sent a letter to the Stanford Daily confirming the allegations. "Admittedly, the comments made were not very articulate, not very intellectual nor profound," Rabois wrote. "The intention was for the speech to be outrageous enough to provoke a thought of 'Wow, if he can say that, I guess I can say a little more than I thought.' "http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html
Because obviously, the world is a poorer, fundamentally less free place if we're not allowed to harrass people by shouting we hope they die of AIDs. Thiel at least later admitted embarrassment over the whole episode.
Am I the only one that was confused about that last line of "already working on something new and hope to announce that in February"...
He's gone through something as traumatic as a lawsuit, a resignation, potential for trial, potential embarrassment of family, friends, colleagues all in the last two weeks... And his sign-off is that he has, in the midst of it all, already begun to work on a new startup?
I can totally understand if it's his therapy, it would likely be mine... That doesn't answer the confusion in a teaser of a big work/unrelated announcement being in there though.
>No, but a quiet, brief, wander in the woods is generally what people expect
People expect stupid things. Everyone copes with adversity differently. Having something to occupy your mind is something I would expect. It doesn't matter as much what it is.
I honestly felt that statement to be out of place, too. It caught me off guard. While it's admirable that he's not going to let the lawsuit prevent him from continuing his life, I think he could have saved that line for a separate blog post. Not a big deal, just found that it took a bit a way from the serious message he was delivering.
When life gives you devestating sexual harassment shakedown lawsuits which require you to suddenly resign from a prominent position at a prominent industry company, make the best of it and use that traffic to tease the audience on the big things to come!
Yeah - that was a really weird thing to end it with.
Almost as if this post was written under the intense emotional stress that such things can cause - and make you do and say weird things.
Samstave, I agree with this ^. Can't imagine the emotional stress, and writing a note under such stress can easily make you do/say strange things. And as strange as it was to read, this could very well be the case.
It feels like his way of saying "Don't worry, I'm ok, I'll be back..."
I agree that it feels tacked on there. Probably would've been better to close with a "thanks for all of the support and understanding..." and wrap it up.
I would imagine one of his primary concerns through this ordeal is that it has a long-term negative impact on his career. I just see it as his way of trying to maintain some amount of career momentum.
It's interesting that he says Square had no knowledge of the relationship until the lawsuit. I've heard of companies requiring that you tell HR if you are in a relationship with another employee- seems that level of disclosure would be very smart for someone at the top of the company, at least.
That struck me as odd too. When I saw someone I had a single date with was interviewing at the company I worked for, as she left the building I went to HR and told them so that there would be no surprise later. And that was just a single date, not an ongoing relationship.
Yeah, Keith mentions this fact in an understated way...but it really is a huge part of this drama. From the reading of the news articles, you could argue that even if the sexual harassment charges were dropped, Square would be justified in pushing Keith out for not disclosing this personal conflict-of-interest.
I'm from the UK and that strikes me as bizarre although I understand there is greater concern about these areas in the US. Unless you have hiring responsibility or they are on your direct reporting line I would see no need to report anything (even an ongoing relationship). That may change in the future if things are reorganized and a more direct business relationship is established.
Even then with a single date I wouldn't feel any need to report a single date unless they were reporting to me fairly directly and I was covering my ass.
A CEO is on everyone's reporting line and is also potentially a target so there is more of a reason for them to be careful and to report things.
None of this matters to me know as I'm married and am currently a one man company with no plans for staff growth.
The need is to prevent a situation as described in the post -- one where the party in a lower power position can charge that the party in a higher power position abused that power to force them into a relationship they did not consent to.
The more disclosure, the less likely that it would escalate. At the very least, there would be records that either party could use if something improper happened. For instance, there would now be written records if later on the person with more power did attempt to influence promotions that they should have explicitly not been allowed to be involved in that process.
I don't know why the UK would be different from the US from a legal standpoint, except perhaps just generally that the US is a more litigious society lately.
It strikes me as odd that a company should be automatically given privilege to the personal relationships of its employees. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situation here but I cannot see any reason for why an employee's relationship with another employee should be of any concern to the company.
OK, but I still don't see what HR could do in those cases with prior knowledge that they could not do with knowledge at the time an issue is raised.
For example, if I have just been fired by the manager who I just dumped, I go to HR and have them resolve the situation then and explain the conflict of interest given that we were in a relationship. The manager is given a talking to, I keep my job and the situation is resolved. Please explain how this situation plays out differently under your rules.
COO is "an employee", but not really "just another employee". i.e. there is an entirely different level of responsibility (legal and moral/professional) for a corporate officer at that level, vs. a regular employee.
I would counsel against but not fire engineers who were dating each other within a group (and, in a larger organization, if it's outside of a specific group, wouldn't be a problem. I think a good manager would give them each an opportunity to change roles so they're not directly working together.)
In the intermediate case of a manager dating a direct report, the problem is with the manager, not the direct report.
COO/founders/etc. don't get any slack for things like that, though, even if they are not directly managing the other relationship party.
I don't fully understand why this makes me so angry, but it does. The company you work for has no right to know anything about your personal life. To be expected to disclose things to HR is ridiculous.
Are you serious? Did you read the OP? Did you read the part where he describes encouraging his lover to apply for a job -- and oh, what a coincidence, his lover happens to beat out numerous applicants for a job at a highly respected startup -- and how his lover has just filed a lawsuit accusing the OP of sexual harassment and even attempted, according to the OP, to extort millions from the OP?
And if you read that, you're still asking why HR has any right to know if their executives are in a possible enanglement with a subordinate?
OK, maybe you have a reflexive hate of HR. don't fixate on them. Instead, pretend you were in the shoes of Square's founders or major investors, and you're reading a lawsuit that accuses your COO of sexual harassment, the kind of sexual harassment allegation that can only come from a COO who broke standard operating procedure (I.e. not informing HR of this)
Would you think the investors and partners are more angrier or less angrier than you right now?
Agreed. If I was one of Keith's C level colleagues, or a major investor, I'd be livid with Keith right now. Not reporting this to HR is bush league stuff.
Someone who is sexually harassing another employee is not exactly in what I would call an ordinary romantic relationship. Who in their right mind is going to go to HR and say hey you know me and that employee over there well he's giving me sexual favours in return for his position at this company.
A person no matter what level he is at who has a genuine consensual relationship with another employee should not cause the company any issues which HR would need to resolve so I still don't understand the need to declare all such relationships to them.
For what it's worth, in the UK it's perfectly OK to have a secret office romance and such things are not required to be declared. It could be that our cultural differences are the main reason for this difference in opinion.
Or the person he's dating. I don't think that absolves what is obviously some poor decision making, but I think it makes things a little more complicated than some are perhaps considering.
“The first we heard of any of these allegations was when we received the threat of a lawsuit two weeks ago. We took these allegations very seriously and we immediately launched a full investigation to ascertain the facts. While we have not found evidence to support any claims, Keith exercised poor judgment that ultimately undermined his ability to remain an effective leader at Square. We accepted his resignation.”
I totally agree that most news sites do a poor job of verifying information before parroting information, but several sites are quoting a statement from Square that seems to verify this (e.g. http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-square-e...)
That tells us nothing, except that TC copy and pasted some content off a blog. Unless they're quoting an email from Square or Keith that at least confirms its his blog (they are not), then it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical here.
There are many tweets at https://twitter.com/rabois that seem to indirectly acknowledge authorship of "the message". People sent him tweets of encouragement based on this article, and he is replying with a variation of "thanks" to many of them.
I don't understand your reactions. Maybe because I am not from the US.
People say: you should NOT hire your partner.
So, you should NOT hire friends?
So, you should NOT hire people you like?
So, you should NOT hire people for who you have any opinion?
So, you should NOT have any hobbies other employees can have?
Our decisions are obviously biased by our feelings, and it's normal, we want people reliable, people we can trust! What's wrong with that?
In some cases, we want objective decisions. In these cases, you should just recognize your incapacity to be unbiased and let other people take the decision.
When I read the blog post, Keith didn't seem to have faced a such case, so non-disclosed his relationship seemed to have been the best decision to avoid to influence other people decisions.
It's common to meet the "love of our life" where we work, I don't understand why it should be forbidden to those who have a management role.
I think the general accepted idea that the victim of said offenses should remain anonymous while the accused is outed is very sad and makes little sense. It makes the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea a joke given the ample data that show permanent damage that mere accusation can cause even if you are proven innocent later.
When I was in my very early 20s I had a very bad false accusation made against me. It was the most awful time of my life, an ex who had issues and needed better support than I was able to give made the decision to go to the police with a made up story. I was interviewed and spent the next two weeks on a knife edge but ultimately everything was okay. I was very angry with her for such a long time but now now realise that it wasn't her falt and that the illness she suffered from was to blame.
If he is in the same situation that I was in, I can only feel sorry for both parties as it is such a terrible thing to happen.
I have been refusing to recommend my otherwise perfect-fit girlfriend for a position at my company for precisely this reason. You never know what might happen; and while I love her, I know it's best to keep professional and personal lives apart. You don't shit where you eat. It might sound cliché, but there's truth to it.
To this, I would add that it's difficult to determine when this has taken place. Often it's a case of "he-said she-said," unless the harasser manages to leave evidence (or in this particular case, "he-said he-said").
The large potential financial payoff from a successful lawsuit gives the accuser a motive to lie or misremember.
Also, people are notoriously bad about communicating with each other about relationships. So it's possible that the accuser genuinely thought he was being coerced, when this was not actually the case. I.e. if he'd simply broken up with Mr. Rabois instead of filing a lawsuit, there might have been no work-related consequences whatsoever; but he didn't believe this.
Sad to see things like this happen, but I can't wait to see what he is able to come up with and bring to the world next. He has done amazing jobs in his previous roles and I am excited to see what he brings next from the PayPal Mafia.
OMG, that is so fucked up. I can't imagine what Keith is feeling right now. I am sure this will get resolved as well as possible, but even if everything is dropped, it's a huge distraction for him.
Keith is an excellent human being and I am confident he acted appropriately (with the exception of being too trusting of this guy, and recommending him for Square, which was probably a mistake, but not a malicious act, rather an overly-generous act).
I am confident I would react much more poorly in this situation.
Can anyone explain why Keith leaving the company absolves Square of a potential lawsuit? If the company actually did something illegal, isn't the damage already done and still punishable? Seems there are quite a few missing pieces to this story. In any case it's a shame for all involved.
Huh? From what Keith says, his accuser is claiming that non-consensual acts occurred. Whether that is the case will be up to the courts to decide, but this is not just "Sex happens"
Yes, you're right. The suit apparently alleges that the relationship itself was not consensual. However, that almost necessarily means that acts within that relationship, if they were seen as "necessary to keep the relationship going", would be non-consensual.
I don't mean rape (or else I think Keith's response would have a different approach). How Keith describes it, it could be anything relationship-related, just as sexual harassment does not necessarily involve sex.
Again, in any sexual facet not pertaining to rape, I find this news saddening.
If I were to enter into a relationship with you, and I said that the only way I would continue the relationship is if you kept it under wraps, then is that really qualification as sexual harassment?
The fact that we provide legal representation for people who have the choice to discontinue a relationship is beyond me.
Actually, I think in many corporate environments, it's OK for pre-existing relationships to continue if both partners end up having jobs at the company...provided they let HR know in advance. I think that this pertains also to relationships that occur during the employment time...because sometimes love just happens.
But Keith, according to his note, did not let Square know. And as much as you want to say "what, can't someone's love life be their own business?"...well, not when such an engagement presents legal liabilities and possible conflicts of interests. Even if Keith did nothing wrong toward the accuser, the company can understandably be upset that he did not notify them of the relationship...because stuff like this happens...
It could very well be the opposite, the case is probably alleging that in order to get / keep the job the accuser had to continue a sexual relationship.
I don't think your example is really what's allegedly happening here. Isn't it implied that the relationship was required in order for the accuser to keep their job?
I'm confused about one detail that either I'm reading wrong, or is missing here.
The accuser is claiming that Keith sexually harassed him into interviewing for a job at Square? Or did the harassment start once the accuser was hired? Or both?
I'm not sure how the company fits into the picture until the guy was actually hired and working there.
That's the point - just because the other party is anonymous doesn't mean they deserve less empathy. Of course, we're biased to the more vivid human character, but it's just a bias. Let's try and correct it with reason.
I think you're right, I would just generalize your point. There are human beings on both sides of the story, we must remain moderate and refrain from making too much judgements until more facts are known and the justice has fully investigated this case.
Consider the following, which are presumably objectively verifiable facts:
A. Mr. Rabois doesn't name his accuser. If he was looking to inflict damage on them, he'd publicize it.
B. The accuser is seeking a payment of "millions of dollars."
C. The relationship began several months before the accuser's employment with Square.
D. The two came into relatively little contact at work.
These facts all show a high probability that the relationship was consensual, and also give a low probability that the accuser will be able to produce conclusive proof of coercion, such as:
. Texts or emails from the accuser saying Mr. Rabois's advances were unwelcome or made him uncomfortable.
. Evidence that Mr. Rabois gave the accuser job-related threats and/or rewards in exchange for the continuing relationship.
This does not conclusively show, of course, that Mr. Rabois is innocent. Nor does it mean the accuser doesn't have a solid case that will stand up in court. But based on the available information, this does seem to be the likelier outcome.
One factor is Bayes' theorem and prior probabilities. The probability of being accused of sexual harassment changes when you're a wealthy executive working for a successful company like Square.
That's from criminal law, this seems to be a civil act. Also, while we're there, the burden of proof is different -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities.
(IANAL, I just remember this from an engineering law class)
My point is, at this time we've only just now heard of the accusation. Until the time that I've personally seen all evidence, or it has been determined in a court of law that this man is guilty of the accusations, he has done nothing in my eyes.
I absolutely hate seeing innocent people have their reputations and lives trashed by someone who places a false claim against them. Innocent until proven guilty is a good policy to maintain, especially as everyone contorts a story to fit his or her views and agenda.
I don't disagree that what you point out is the ideal.
Given the 4 word response, I thought I'd mention that standards from criminal law will not apply here and that the case will be decided on a balance of probabilities. I don't know this guy but I do hope he gets a fair shake in court.
On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners.
On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario for at least one of the parties, though we don't know for sure yet who it is.
But even if things don't shit the bed quite this bad, you're just asking for awkwardness and trouble in most cases.
Impossible.