What is the theory behind this? (employee, references, employer, reputation)

[rlrl]

In our employment manual under the sexual harrassment section there is a sentence that reads to the effect that of any employee who engages in sexual harassment will be terminated and that any employee who brings about false allegations of sexual harassment toward another emplyee will be terminated as well

i understand perfectly the first case (that someone who sexually harasses another is a danger to the victim and others) but in the second case, can an employee who files baseless and false allegations of SH considered a threat to the acussee (that the accusee can sue the employer for the false allegations)? or is it just such an employee is no longer considered an honest credible employee?

[NJBest]

both.

[manderly6]

Do you really not understand why a company would want to fire someone who makes false accusations about other employees?

[rlrl]

i was simply asking if what i posted was accurate and i got the right to ask for clarification whether i know it or not

maybe you could follow NJ best's example and just say it in one word if you don't care to elaborate

[mash potato]

Originally Posted by rlrl

....and that any employee who brings about false allegations of sexual harassment toward another emplyee will be terminated as well....but in the second case, can an employee who files baseless and false allegations of SH considered a threat to the acussee

What kind of threat? I would consider the person more of a nuisance. If the false accuser didn't get fired then the falsely accused would have to work with the false accuser as well as try to repair the damage to their rep.

Originally Posted by rlrl

(that the accusee can sue the employer for the false allegations)?

If the employer was the false accuser they could be sued. Oh, I see where you're going with this. If it was one of the employers who falsely accused, then the company would want to fire the person so they don't get sued. But if it was an employee, I wonder if an employee could sue based on the grounds that it happened while there at the employer's site?

Originally Posted by rlrl

or is it just such an employee is no longer considered an honest credible employee?

I think it would be your second choice, that the false accuser would be untrusted and also because they violated the SH policy so the company is making a statement that if you SH someone or make up a story, you get fired because in both cases, the person is a troublemaker.

I think they also have to fire the person to protect themself, oh, I guess you're right then about what you said about suing. The company would ditch the liar just to say, we were not in cooperaton with this person, we did something about it. If they did nothing to the false accuser, maybe they would somehow be responsible for not taking action. Maybe you should be a lawyer!

[kodaka]

Having someone around who makes false allegations could pretty easily be construed as a hostile work environment. Everyone is going to be afraid to work with someone who makes false sexual harassment allegations. At the same time, it has the potential to create an atmosphere where real sexual harassment isn't taken seriously. It's a mess for the employer all the way around. Most employers would fire someone who makes false allegations, regardless of whether or not it is written in the handbook (remember, most employment is at will--they don't need to itemize every potential cause beforehand).

[rlrl]

mashed potato--in other words, once an accusation is made, legally it's not between the accusee and the accuser but instead between the accusee and the employer

the accusee can't sue the accuser but instead it becomes a matter of possible slander/defamation because it can affect job references, professional reputation if a positive judgement is found (when it wasn't true to begin with)

[Alaskan Mutt]

Originally Posted by rlrl

mashed potato--in other words, once an accusation is made, legally it's not between the accusee and the accuser but instead between the accusee and the employer

This probably would only be the case if the employer did not have or did not enforce a sexual harassement policy and the unfounded accusations continued. Then the accusee would have grounds to go after the employer. In any case I would think the accusee has the legal right to go after the accuser.

Most employers have a sexual harassement policy and signed documentation from the employees that they have been made aware of it. Terminating an employee that makes unfounded accusations of sexual harassement is just as much to protect the employer as it is to protect the accusee.

[STT Resident]

Originally Posted by Alaskan Mutt

Most employers have a sexual harassement policy and signed documentation from the employees that they have been made aware of it.

And usually the signature attests to the fact, and is written such, that the employee has not only received the copy of the policy but has read and understood it. If the OP is in any doubt about the wording or intent of the policy he's perfectly within his rights to go to HR and ask for clarification.