you are too sensitive. No one else is upset about it.

This victim blaming statement sounds like this: “It was just a misunderstanding, a simple miscommunication. They didn’t mean that.” Those who say statements like this intend to rewind time so the survivor and general public is gas lit into accepting a different version of what took place. The survivor hears the message that their “experience was not really that big of a deal. No need to report it legally.” The public, meanwhile, hears it was not sex discrimination, but something less offensive like a simple misunderstanding.

My sexual harassment narrative includes one episode where an employee came to my workstation while I was seated, stood over me, looked down my shirt, and told me he had to sit down before people saw his erection. When I formally reported my sexual harassment to my company, their internal report concluded that my perpetrator did not mean he had an erection from looking at my breasts, but rather communicated his need to sit down, away from me, because he could see down my shirt. In other words, he was saintly removing himself from my “inappropriate” clothing and was “kindly” informing me about my shirt so I could pull it up after he left. I was the problem, not him. I needed to hear some sort of “you should not have worn that shirt” warning. And the company agreed with his version of “the facts,” not mine. Their report did not say what I heard or what I experienced. Without contacting my two witnesses, they accepted his narrative, not mine. They intentionally wanted to disempower me by rejecting my truth and suggest instead a new version of what took place.  Fortunately, I was strong enough to identify the utter foolishness of their conclusion and recognized their attempt to protect themselves rather than discover what actually happened. 

I do understand the power of “it wasn’t really harassment” statements, however.  “It wasn’t harassment” statements disempower survivors as it makes them question their memory of what actually took place. It is an attempt to introduce self-doubt. “It was just a joke” or “you are odd socially” implies that the survivor does not perceive social cues correctly and cannot, therefore, accurately judge what is and is not sexual harassment.  “Stop being so sensitive,” meanwhile, signals that the survivor is emotionally touchy and weak compared to the rest of the workforce majority. They just need to get thick skin and ignore the negative experience.  

Victim blaming statements like these cause the survivor to feel social rejection, shame, and embarrassment. They hear their harassment is not real and their personality is to blame. To cope, many survivors avoid sharing their story and facing criticism. They are disempowered to seek justice, leaving their perpetrator and the company that protects them intact. The survivor, meanwhile, risks a downward spiral into low self-esteem, depression, and toxic relationships that lack healthy boundaries, both inside and outside the workplace.

Indeed, a sexual harassment investigation can conclude the reported misconduct was not sexual harassment. To protect the company’s time, resources, and workforce, employers should be trained ahead of time on the difference between sexual harassment and sexual misconduct as well as the four outcomes to any sexual harassment investigation (substantiated, unsubstantiated, baseless and unfounded). Employees should also understand the company’s discipline policies for sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. This should be more than a two-minute explanation where legal definitions are read and then the annual policy review goes ahead to the next legal issue. Examples or scenarios should be given to check employees’ understanding.  Those who fail these assessments should be given remedial policy training to ensure mastery. Procedures should be explained so employees understand ahead of any mental and emotional distress how to navigate the system and what to expect regarding possible outcomes. 

Finally, internal reports should allow the evidence to speak for itself. Every piece of evidence the accuser and accused reference must be examined and reviewed. When there is not enough evidence, companies should rule the report as “unsubstantiated” versus “not sexual harassment.” The latter signals disbelief while the former acknowledges there simply was not enough evidence to rule gender discrimination. This was not the case in my narrative, as school district ruled my narrative was not sexual harassment despite being unable to locate my sole witness and another person I confided to about the harassment.  Findings that rule it was sexual misconduct and not sexual harassment need to explain what elements were missing from the narrative that disqualified it from being sexual harassment. Both sides then have the possibility to appeal the company’s decision.

Companies who adopt these practices signal they desire to decimate the “it wasn’t really sexual harassment” victim blaming statement.