Sexual assault

System

Some of the posts on here were way too harsh.

The OP is obviously distressed and came here seeking help and advice and not to be mocked.

maninthestreet

Walcott wrote: »

Some of the posts on here were way too harsh.

The OP is obviously distressed and came here seeking help and advice and not to be mocked.

But falsely claiming to have been sexually assaulted is unlikely to result in a sympathetic response, is it?

System

maninthestreet wrote: »

But falsely claiming to have been sexually assaulted is unlikely to result in a sympathetic response, is it?

So he got her terminology wrong. Big deal.

I think some people on this thread missed the point of the OP posting. She was posting to seek help on an issue and not on her use of terminology. If the terminology was wrong people could have pointed it out and moved on. Not become overly obsessed with how she has used a term and then abuse her for that and turn this thread into a bandwagon.

I doubt she was seeking sympathy to begin with.

marybelle01

burnleymik wrote: »

OP also stated she needed time off because a previous supervisor had introduced her to some new workers as a !!!!! (not sure what that word was) and although not nice and certainly likely uncalled for, it really looks like is overly sensitive.

Also, as mentioned above, how a legal expert could confuse banter with actualy sexual harrassment is beyond me.

Looks to me like the OP is a bit of a drama queen. Just my opinion garnered from what has been written so far.

I am sorry but I must disagree. This is "blaming the victim". I do not accept that ANY form of unacceptable or offensive language is banter - there have been far too many justifications of racist, sexist and other discriminatory behaviour as "only a joke". Discrimination is not funny. Offensivce language is not funny. And nobody should have to be a victim of it. It is unacceptable to suggest that the OP is a drama queen, or overly sensitive - that is making a judgement about the person and not the situation. We do not know what was said or done, true - but an employer has a legal duty of care to ensure that the workplace is a comfortable and safe place for all employees, and if anyone perceives that the behaviour of another makes this less so, the employer has a duty to act. Whilst I do wonder why a solicitor would confuse "assault" and "banter", I would also have to point out that I am quite surprised that a solicitor, especially one affiliated to a trade union, considers "banter" appropriate when one party finds it offensive. Finding itr offensive doesn't make it "actionable" in law - but the employer should act to ensure, at the very least, that employees are under no illusions that such behaviour is neither accepted nor tolerated.

That is an entirely different matter from whether the OP should receive sick pay - that is a contractual matter quite seperate from any alleged unacceptable behaviour.

ValHaller

marybelle01 wrote: »

I am sorry but I must disagree. This is "blaming the victim". I do not accept that ANY form of unacceptable or offensive language is banter - there have been far too many justifications of racist, sexist and other discriminatory behaviour as "only a joke". Discrimination is not funny. Offensivce language is not funny. And nobody should have to be a victim of it. It is unacceptable to suggest that the OP is a drama queen, or overly sensitive - that is making a judgement about the person and not the situation. We do not know what was said or done, true - but an employer has a legal duty of care to ensure that the workplace is a comfortable and safe place for all employees, and if anyone perceives that the behaviour of another makes this less so, the employer has a duty to act. Whilst I do wonder why a solicitor would confuse "assault" and "banter", I would also have to point out that I am quite surprised that a solicitor, especially one affiliated to a trade union, considers "banter" appropriate when one party finds it offensive. Finding itr offensive doesn't make it "actionable" in law - but the employer should act to ensure, at the very least, that employees are under no illusions that such behaviour is neither accepted nor tolerated.

That is an entirely different matter from whether the OP should receive sick pay - that is a contractual matter quite seperate from any alleged unacceptable behaviour.

While I agree with you that whatever happened is most probably unacceptable in the workplace, I think it is entirely fair to be thinking that she is a drama queen.

As far as we know, she was not touched. So why did the solicitor dismiss it as banter? My feeling is that OP misleadingly headlined an undoubtedly unpleasant incident as 'assault' when the details do not bear this out. Effectively she exaggerated and the solicitor came to the conclusion that if it ever went to law, OP would be vulnerable to having strips torn off by an opposing lawyer - probably breaking down in the witness box and storming out of court if the headline of 'assault' was challenged. Which is exactly what happened here.

If OP had not been a drama queen and described the incident for what it was, she might have had a more favourable response from the solicitor and certainly would have had more sympathy here. She should have let the incident speak for itself rather than giving it what appears to be a false headline.

marybelle01

ValHaller wrote: »

While I agree with you that whatever happened is most probably unacceptable in the workplace, I think it is entirely fair to be thinking that she is a drama queen.

As far as we know, she was not touched. So why did the solicitor dismiss it as banter? My feeling is that OP misleadingly headlined an undoubtedly unpleasant incident as 'assault' when the details do not bear this out. Effectively she exaggerated and the solicitor came to the conclusion that if it ever went to law, OP would be vulnerable to having strips torn off by an opposing lawyer - probably breaking down in the witness box and storming out of court if the headline of 'assault' was challenged. Which is exactly what happened here.

If OP had not been a drama queen and described the incident for what it was, she might have had a more favourable response from the solicitor and certainly would have had more sympathy here. She should have let the incident speak for itself rather than giving it what appears to be a false headline.

I really don't want to prolong this since the OP is no doubt long gone and not surprisingly, but we are hanging the OP for a word. If she had used the word "offence", would that have made a difference. There are many sexual offences in law which do not involve physical contact - does that mean that those offences aren't serious, or that the victim is being a drama queen for reporting, say, indecent exposure or grooming? The OP may have used a word incorrectly, but she was explicitly clear that an offensive sexual incident took place or is alleged to have taken place. And we here appear to have found her guilty. It requires no judgement about the incident or her to answer her question about sick pay. It wasn't necessary to know the details of the incident. Had someone come on here saying that they had been raped, and wanted to know how to make a claim for criminal injuries, would it have been necessary to have the details of the rape before answering the question asked? Would we have insisted on knowing the gory details, in case they were being overly dramatic?

ValHaller

marybelle01 wrote: »

I really don't want to prolong this since the OP is no doubt long gone and not surprisingly, but we are hanging the OP for a word. If she had used the word "offence", would that have made a difference.

Yes. I think the word would have made a tremendous difference. OP had ample opportunity to clarify and was, IIRC, invited to do so from the outset.

It is more than just a slip of language giving the wrong word, it appeared to be, as I said, headlining the incident into something it was not. I rather think that if she had let the incident speak for itself to the solicitor, OP would not have felt the need to post here.

As it is, I felt from the outset that access to the problem hinges on the word. Even if we had overlooked the obvious internal discrepancy in her opening post, any advice or help would have been undermined away from here by OP's misleading presentation of what happened.

burnleymik

marybelle01 wrote: »

I am sorry but I must disagree. This is "blaming the victim". I do not accept that ANY form of unacceptable or offensive language is banter - there have been far too many justifications of racist, sexist and other discriminatory behaviour as "only a joke". Discrimination is not funny. Offensivce language is not funny. And nobody should have to be a victim of it. It is unacceptable to suggest that the OP is a drama queen, or overly sensitive - that is making a judgement about the person and not the situation. We do not know what was said or done, true - but an employer has a legal duty of care to ensure that the workplace is a comfortable and safe place for all employees, and if anyone perceives that the behaviour of another makes this less so, the employer has a duty to act. Whilst I do wonder why a solicitor would confuse "assault" and "banter", I would also have to point out that I am quite surprised that a solicitor, especially one affiliated to a trade union, considers "banter" appropriate when one party finds it offensive. Finding itr offensive doesn't make it "actionable" in law - but the employer should act to ensure, at the very least, that employees are under no illusions that such behaviour is neither accepted nor tolerated.

That is an entirely different matter from whether the OP should receive sick pay - that is a contractual matter quite seperate from any alleged unacceptable behaviour.

Slow down a little. I am not blaming the victim as such and there is no excuse for what her colleague did, but I think needing time off on the sick for it seems a little excessive, he called a single name and that is all.

Yes report him and he should be taken through disciplinary, but it's not really that traumatic, is it?

I also agree that she seems to have been very misleading with what actually happened. I honestly can't believe a solicitor would explain a genuine case of sexual harrassment as "banter", do you?

I do think the OP has every right to feel aggrieved for being called a name or in the face of workplace banter, but to go on the sick with it everytime and try and get other people sacked on the back of it, not to mention she clearly wants to sue this company, just seems ridiculously excessive and overly sensitive to me.

I think of it kind of like a football analogy... footballer gets a tap on the face, goes down and rolls around for 5 minutes like he has just been 10 rounds with Tyson!

If am I wrong about OP then this is my apology to her, I am sorry, but I can only go from the information posted by her on here.

marybelle01

burnleymik wrote: »

Slow down a little. I am not blaming the victim as such and there is no excuse for what her colleague did, but I think needing time off on the sick for it seems a little excessive, he called a single name and that is all.
.....

If am I wrong about OP then this is my apology to her, I am sorry, but I can only go from the information posted by her on here.

I think you might wish to re-read what the OP actually said. The incident regarding name calling was six years previously and was a prior matter. There is actually nothing to say that he used a "single name" - in fact she states something quite different. We have no idea really what happened or why it has upset her this much - but upset her deeply it has, and that does not make her weak, overly sensitive or a drama queen. We are not her GP - that would be the person who properly decides whether she needs time off sick. Not us. And obviously he or she thinks that the OP does need time off sick.

My point is that the OP's question was not "what do I do about this incident?". It was "what do I do about getting my employer to pay me full pay for my period of sick leave because I have exhausted my full pay". That is the question asked, and so dissecting whether we think she should be off sick, or what happened, really isn't relevant - it's a question about sick pay. No different than the oft repeated question "I slipped at work, shouldn't my employer pay me for my time off sick". The answer to both questions is the same - no; they only have to pay what the contract states. Whether there is or isn't a separate legal claim for injury in either of those circumstances isn't relevant to the question - and wasn't what she asked about or wanted to know.

The OP didn't want to discuss the details (and that is very common in such circumstances, and they were not relevant, but many people ganged up on her and judged her just the same, based on no information. If this was your wife or your daughter, or your mother, would you genuinely expect her distress to be greeted with derision and "suck it up"? I am not taking sides here - I made it clear originally that my answer was based on the employer doing the right thing by all parties concerned in accordance with the law and their contractual terms. Which appears to be the case. But simply because you or I or someone else may be tough enough to face it out (whatever it is), and without knowing the full circumstances (how do we know this wasn't the last straw in a series of incidents or a workplace culture), I don't think we should be saying that the OP is too sensitive, dramatic, or shouldn't be off sick.

Anyway, I have made my point and unfortunately we have an OP who will no doubt never be back - so we will neither find out any more information, and nor will we be able to advise her on this or any other matter troubling her. Great result, heh?

ILW

Going around accusing someone of sexual assault (which can carry a ten year plus prison sentence) should never be done unless it is true. It is not something that should be used for something like squeezing cash out of an employer unless the perpetrator has been found guilty in a criminal court.