NA0435

Blurred Lines: Happy or Harassed?

Monika L. Hudson, University of San Francisco
Keith O. Hunter, University of San Francisco

“Aiyi, carumba, momi”, he purred in an assumed pseudo-Spanish accent as he chuckled

and repeatedly rubbed her knees. “Oh, popi, you are so funny”, she responded, batting
her eyes and taking another sip from her mixed drink. As he watched the two of them
giggling, Brian Wilson, the recently hired Human Resource Director, thought, “Is one
of these people being harassed? What, if anything, am I supposed to do?”

“UGLY SWEATERS” AND QUESTIONABLE RELATIONSHIPS

Annually, Fred Peters, one of the audit department’s managing directors, hosted an
“ugly sweater” Christmas party, inviting his fellow colleagues at The Accounting Firm
to his home for a casual pot-luck dinner and drinks. As a result, about 30 people had
gathered in Fred’s living room, resulting in a mix of argyle, plaid, checked, and striped
colored sweaters as well as reindeer and Santa Claus headgear. In addition to assorted
dishes, dip and chips, and sodas, Fred and his wife Sally had assured there was a good
sampling of local microbrews as well as an assortment of fine vodkas, tequilas, whiskeys
and bourbons.
As the evening progressed, individuals with young children slipped away and those
who remained gradually relaxed their behavior. The drinking moved from sodas and
beers to scotch and Cuba Libres, and the volume in the room steadily increased.
Conversations were no longer simply about producing year-end reports but changed
to sports, holiday vacation plans and the more general workplace gossip.
Louisa Martinez, a vivacious Panamanian-born attorney from the legal department,
had spent most of the evening engaged in conversation with one of the up and coming
auditors, John Wu. While John, a Chinese-American born in San Diego, was often
reserved, Louisa, with her outgoing personality and company-wide social networks,
always seemed to bring out his more boisterous side. John had spent much of the
evening drinking tequila, exchanging ethnic-related remarks and laughing with her.
Over the past year, some members of the firm had wondered if there was a romantic
undertone to their conversations, particularly since they were frequently in each other’s
office with the doors closed. However, Louisa and John were married to non-firm
individuals and, when questioned by colleagues, both firmly insisted that their
interpersonal relationship was purely professional and platonic.
-----------------------------
Copyright © 2017 by the Case Research Journal and by Monika L. Hudson and Keith O. Hunter. This compact
case was prepared by the authors for use as a basis of an organizational behavior-related class discussion. The
views presented here are those of the authors based upon personal observation of the described incident, a
detailed interview and a mutual review of the anti-harassment and workplace well-being literature. The industry,
institution, ethnicity, and roles of the individuals described in the case have been disguised.

Blurred Lines: Happy or Harassed? 1

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Nivedhitha K S's Organization Behavior, at Indian Institute of Management - Kozhikode from Jul 2023 to Jan 2024.
 Noticing the snack bowls were empty and the beer gone, Fred and Sally went into
their kitchen for more refreshments. A small cadre of ten individuals remained in their
living room, awaiting food reinforcements and discussing the upcoming holidays in
conversational groups of two or three. Louisa and John were occasionally joined by
one or two of their peers but most of those remaining continued in their own
discussions, merely glancing over occasionally to watch the couple and insert an
observational comment or an alternative punch line to one of their jokes.

HARASSMENT TRAINING REVISITED

During his on-boarding orientation, Brian had heard that a Navex Global 2012 report1
indicated that 9 percent of employees said they had been harassed on the job for sex,
simply because they worked together.2 He also knew that US federal law, under Title
VII (1964)3 defined harassment4 and outlined stipulations against individuals engaging
in a broad range of sexual, economic and environmental harassment activities.
Brian had paid particular attention to the law’s delineation of employers’
responsibilities to affirmatively adopt policies and educate all employees and
contractors regularly about workplace anti-discrimination. He was clear that The
Accounting Firm’s adoption of an anti-harassment policy would be deemed insufficient
as a general prevention strategy; rather, he knew the company would need to
demonstrate that it had made a good faith effort to educate all employees about basic
anti-discrimination principles. As the new human resources director, Brian was
concerned about the firm’s implementation of EEOC guidelines that specifically
stipulated it must provide “training to all employees to assure that they understand
their rights and responsibilities concerning workplace harassment”.
The Accounting Firm required that all of its employees complete anti-harassment
training on a biennial basis by participating in either a face-to-face training session or
an on-line educational webinar. Upon completion, each employee had to certify that
he or she had completed the training and understood their behavior and reporting
requirements under the same. Employees’ electronic personnel records noted when
such training had been completed and copies of the signed certifications were held on
file. Supervisory staff members were required to participate in separate, management
anti-harassment training designed to assure they understood their additional
responsibilities to observe, intervene and report.

WILLING PARTICIPANT OR UNWITTING VICTIM?

Although their job titles were very different, both Louisa and John were classified as
peers and neither was considered to be higher ranked than the other. Louisa had only
been employed at the company for a little over a year, while John was going to be
considered for elevation to partner within six months. His five-year performance and
client service records were strong and John had no reason to expect anything but
smooth sailing through the upcoming review process. While there were some
conversations around the company about the fact that he frequently drank a lot at on
and off-site work events, no one ever indicated that John’s alcohol consumption posed
a problem, given the amount of social drinking often engaged in by The Accounting
Firm personnel.
Intra and inter-ethnic jousting was also something in which a small contingent of
the company’s managers regularly engaged. None of the participants ever appeared to
take offense at being teased for liking particular types of food, dressing in a certain

2 Case Research Journal  Volume 37  Issue 1  Winter 2017

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Nivedhitha K S's Organization Behavior, at Indian Institute of Management - Kozhikode from Jul 2023 to Jan 2024.
 manner, or engaging in other types of behavior that might be identified with one
particular culture or another. Senior colleagues never discussed or agreed upon any
norms whatsoever regarding ethnic joking, physical touch, or gender or other
stereotyping practices. As he overheard interpersonal remarks that he found “odd”
compared to his previous workplace experiences, Brian wondered how managers’
conversations and behavior might appear to external observers, given the diversity of
both their client base as well as the firm’s administrative workforce.

A DECISION
Brian realized he might be confronting at least three issues including:
1. Did the physical touching and ethnic joking he observed violate anti-
harassment standards?
2. While this was technically a non-work event, did he have a responsibility
to intervene if he believed any of the behaviors he observed might be
unwanted? Further, if he believed the circumstances rose to the level of
unwanted harassment, what should Brian do about the fact that, despite
regular company anti-harassment training, other employees chose to
observe and not act?
3. Should Brian note what happened in both employees’ eventual
performance reviews? What standards should guide him in making this
determination?

NOTES
1 Navex Global, created 10/2/2012, obtained 11/28/2015 from
http://www.shrm.org/multimedia/webcasts/Documents/1012harassment_2.pdf
2 Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (11/16/07/As Amended

11/21/14). Code of ethics. Available from https://www.shrm.org/about-

shrm/Pages/code-of-ethics.aspx
3 Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act/ EEOC obtained 01/18/2016 from

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm
4 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (n.d.). Harassment.

Available from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm

Blurred Lines: Happy or Harassed? 3

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Nivedhitha K S's Organization Behavior, at Indian Institute of Management - Kozhikode from Jul 2023 to Jan 2024.