> During this period, I was instructed to delete her contact and the text messages between me and her from my phone. I complied, as I was scared to lose my job. Those messages, which would have been favorable to me on the question of who initiated what, are now gone.
This is so weird. I can't imagine a company instructing their employee to delete their personal correspondence. It's such an overreach, it doesn't comprehend.
> During this period, I was instructed to delete her contact and the text messages between me and her from my phone. I complied, as I was scared to lose my job.
This is so unbelievably naive, I'm flabbergasted. Well, great lesson for OP: Never burn anything that could help you, and if instructed to do so, make backups or lie that you did so.
It's interesting how hostile the top-level comments are toward the writer, and that everyone assumes they're a man, even though they don't specify. Is that telling? Who's to say.
People are characterizing them as though they're completely unaware of their surroundings, manipulating a system in their favor based on a petty and imagined grievance, even imagining their own depression. Empathy does not seem to abound here.
I read it as an account of contending with the system they're in, embroiled with at least a passive aggressive irritant of a co-worker after attempting a date. Communication degraded to the point where the writer seemed to feel alienated and was seemingly pressured into a situation that made it worse for them, until such a point where they were fired without just cause and rightfully took them to court in order to get the minimum they should have.
Sounds like an awful situation, and entirely plausible given the ways that big corporations tend to try and protect themselves. It's deeply unfortunate that this likely happens to many people, leaving them with no recourse, as well as potentially emotionally and financially vulnerable.
> At the beginning of the year, a coworker on my team asked me out on a date. I was hesitant, as I knew better than to mix my professional and romantic life, but in an effort to not step on any toes inadvertently, I accepted the invitation. The date went fine: a bit awkward, mainly just small talk, but nothing notable. Afterwards, she texted me saying that she had decided that she wasn’t comfortable seeing me outside of work, which I said was fine.
Agreeing to a date that you're hesitant about in order not to step on any toes strikes me as incredibly female-coded behavior. Learning that the writer went on a date with a woman updates me more in the direction that they're a lesbian than that they're a man.
Anyway, the rest of the story does seem like a pretty standard account of an unscrupulous woman manipulating white-collar workplace HR anti-sexual-harassment procedures in order to get the system to harm someone they dislike. I've certainly heard plenty of accounts of this kind of weaponization of HR happening to men, and of course the ideological basis behind HR anti-sexual-harassment-policies is feminist advocacy intended to protect women from predatory (or perceived-as-predatory) men. But American civil rights law is generally worded in a gender-neutral way and there's nothing preventing a woman from bringing malicious sexual harassment accusations against a woman they went on a date with.
On the other hand, the fact that at the end of their account they mention "credible legal theories on retaliation, gender-based disparate treatment, and disability retaliation" but not some kind of queer-related disparate treatment, updates me back toward thinking they might be male rather than a lesbian. I'm willing to be agnostic about the OP's gender, and it's not morally relevant anyway.
(And of course, I'm aware that we're only seeing one side of the story; I honestly do find this account to be a plausible instance of a malicious sexual harassment accusation, and a lot of American sexual harassment law as applied to corporate environments really does encourage kafkaesque treatments of the accused. Still, if I were actually passing judgement about this rather than just commenting on a forum thread, I'd want to hear what the other person had to say.)
If the story is as presented, that's a shame and I'm sorry that happened to you.
That said, it's really a story of doing the wrong thing at nearly every turn. Why date someone on your team, you admit you knew better.
HR is not your friend or there to help you, they are there to protect the company from litigation. A coworker being short is not going to raise any flags. Her claims of harassment, in a company known for it, absolutely is - regardless of whether it's actually true or not.
For clarity, we did not date. It was a "one-off" instance where she invited me out and then changed her mind shortly after. The events that had me get my manager / HR involved were months after the fact.
I definitely agree that HR is not your friend and not there to help you. Once they contact you about a complaint, your first move should be to get an employment lawyer. That lawyer will help you document everything and respond to situations (especially in the case where coworker contacts you again). You will still be terminated by the company, but getting the lawyer involved early will get you a severance package instead of terminated for cause.
This is rarely worth it, especially in a case that's so incredibly devoid of evidence like this one. The lawyers will also take a huge cut of a severance obtained this way.
OP can't even articulate what exactly justified his original complaint in the first place, even if he didn't voluntarily delete the evidence.
Uber is generally in the right here. Maybe he was owed unemployment (which he eventually received), but companies are not obligated to deal with employees who appear to be the constant source of friction. This was all 100% instigated by OP and he didn't document in any way to the company that he was legitimately disabled (if he had a pre-existing diagnosis he wouldn't have needed to go to the company tele-therapy service).
The company even accommodated his HR complaint by moving him away from the person he filed a complaint about to a different office...and of course that's when he starts complaining about the commute.
IDK, sometimes people who are the victim are just not actually the victim. I'd love to hear the coworker's side of the story for how that date went.
I hypothesize that, from the coworker’s perspective, OP made an HR complaint out of left field and maybe it was her mission to get him fired after that. As we can see from the article, he has a deep misunderstanding of how corporate HR works, and he almost certainly isn’t realizing that HR has already determined that she is the victim, not him - through this process they have “probable cause” to not trust anything he says related to the subject.
Think about it, he’s even trying to make an ADA reason to be assigned back to the SF office. I think HR didn’t buy the reasoning behind that at all: it looks like he’s trying to get close to her again.
> OP can't even articulate what exactly justified his original complaint in the first place, even if he didn't voluntarily delete the evidence.
I made it pretty clear in my post that she was consistently disrespectful towards me, even going so far as to say in front of coworkers at a team event that she was "surprised that I read." Reverse the gender roles and see if your opinion changes.
> He didn't document in any way to the company that he was legitimately disabled (if he had a pre-existing diagnosis he wouldn't have needed to go to the company tele-therapy service).
I provided evidence to HR/ER that I had been previously in-patient hospitalized for OCD and severe major depressive disorder, and that I had been seeing a therapist outside of Uber for the last four years. I only transitioned to the Uber therapist around the time HR got involved because it made more sense financially.
> The company even accommodated his HR complaint by moving him away from the person he filed a complaint about to a different office...and of course that's when he starts complaining about the commute.
This was because of her HR complaint, not mine. I did not want to commute two and a half hours round trip to Sunnyvale. That's absurd.
Severance package potentially would include salary, partial bonus, immediate vesting of RSU, employment search assistance, healthcare PLUS access to employment insurance. Legal fees would not be more than that.
Even if severance received was $100K but legal fees cost $99K, you’re still ahead. Does not matter most went to lawyers.
Lawyers wouldn’t be expensive anyway (probably less the $10K). Not even a lawsuit, it’s just assistance negotiating.
I know someone who went this route and it didn’t really beat out a sympathy severance (a lot of people who are fired for low performance are technically laid off since it lowers the risks for the company).
It was like an 8 weeks severance minus legal fees.
> During this period, I was instructed to delete her contact and the text messages between me and her from my phone. I complied, as I was scared to lose my job. Those messages, which would have been favorable to me on the question of who initiated what, are now gone.
This is so weird. I can't imagine a company instructing their employee to delete their personal correspondence. It's such an overreach, it doesn't comprehend.
> During this period, I was instructed to delete her contact and the text messages between me and her from my phone. I complied, as I was scared to lose my job.
This is so unbelievably naive, I'm flabbergasted. Well, great lesson for OP: Never burn anything that could help you, and if instructed to do so, make backups or lie that you did so.
It's interesting how hostile the top-level comments are toward the writer, and that everyone assumes they're a man, even though they don't specify. Is that telling? Who's to say.
People are characterizing them as though they're completely unaware of their surroundings, manipulating a system in their favor based on a petty and imagined grievance, even imagining their own depression. Empathy does not seem to abound here.
I read it as an account of contending with the system they're in, embroiled with at least a passive aggressive irritant of a co-worker after attempting a date. Communication degraded to the point where the writer seemed to feel alienated and was seemingly pressured into a situation that made it worse for them, until such a point where they were fired without just cause and rightfully took them to court in order to get the minimum they should have.
Sounds like an awful situation, and entirely plausible given the ways that big corporations tend to try and protect themselves. It's deeply unfortunate that this likely happens to many people, leaving them with no recourse, as well as potentially emotionally and financially vulnerable.
Gross reactions.
> At the beginning of the year, a coworker on my team asked me out on a date. I was hesitant, as I knew better than to mix my professional and romantic life, but in an effort to not step on any toes inadvertently, I accepted the invitation. The date went fine: a bit awkward, mainly just small talk, but nothing notable. Afterwards, she texted me saying that she had decided that she wasn’t comfortable seeing me outside of work, which I said was fine.
Agreeing to a date that you're hesitant about in order not to step on any toes strikes me as incredibly female-coded behavior. Learning that the writer went on a date with a woman updates me more in the direction that they're a lesbian than that they're a man.
Anyway, the rest of the story does seem like a pretty standard account of an unscrupulous woman manipulating white-collar workplace HR anti-sexual-harassment procedures in order to get the system to harm someone they dislike. I've certainly heard plenty of accounts of this kind of weaponization of HR happening to men, and of course the ideological basis behind HR anti-sexual-harassment-policies is feminist advocacy intended to protect women from predatory (or perceived-as-predatory) men. But American civil rights law is generally worded in a gender-neutral way and there's nothing preventing a woman from bringing malicious sexual harassment accusations against a woman they went on a date with.
On the other hand, the fact that at the end of their account they mention "credible legal theories on retaliation, gender-based disparate treatment, and disability retaliation" but not some kind of queer-related disparate treatment, updates me back toward thinking they might be male rather than a lesbian. I'm willing to be agnostic about the OP's gender, and it's not morally relevant anyway.
(And of course, I'm aware that we're only seeing one side of the story; I honestly do find this account to be a plausible instance of a malicious sexual harassment accusation, and a lot of American sexual harassment law as applied to corporate environments really does encourage kafkaesque treatments of the accused. Still, if I were actually passing judgement about this rather than just commenting on a forum thread, I'd want to hear what the other person had to say.)
This reassures me that I am much better off working in a company without HR.
If the story is as presented, that's a shame and I'm sorry that happened to you.
That said, it's really a story of doing the wrong thing at nearly every turn. Why date someone on your team, you admit you knew better.
HR is not your friend or there to help you, they are there to protect the company from litigation. A coworker being short is not going to raise any flags. Her claims of harassment, in a company known for it, absolutely is - regardless of whether it's actually true or not.
For clarity, we did not date. It was a "one-off" instance where she invited me out and then changed her mind shortly after. The events that had me get my manager / HR involved were months after the fact.
Dating people at work is very common.
I definitely agree that HR is not your friend and not there to help you. Once they contact you about a complaint, your first move should be to get an employment lawyer. That lawyer will help you document everything and respond to situations (especially in the case where coworker contacts you again). You will still be terminated by the company, but getting the lawyer involved early will get you a severance package instead of terminated for cause.
This is rarely worth it, especially in a case that's so incredibly devoid of evidence like this one. The lawyers will also take a huge cut of a severance obtained this way.
OP can't even articulate what exactly justified his original complaint in the first place, even if he didn't voluntarily delete the evidence.
Uber is generally in the right here. Maybe he was owed unemployment (which he eventually received), but companies are not obligated to deal with employees who appear to be the constant source of friction. This was all 100% instigated by OP and he didn't document in any way to the company that he was legitimately disabled (if he had a pre-existing diagnosis he wouldn't have needed to go to the company tele-therapy service).
The company even accommodated his HR complaint by moving him away from the person he filed a complaint about to a different office...and of course that's when he starts complaining about the commute.
IDK, sometimes people who are the victim are just not actually the victim. I'd love to hear the coworker's side of the story for how that date went.
I hypothesize that, from the coworker’s perspective, OP made an HR complaint out of left field and maybe it was her mission to get him fired after that. As we can see from the article, he has a deep misunderstanding of how corporate HR works, and he almost certainly isn’t realizing that HR has already determined that she is the victim, not him - through this process they have “probable cause” to not trust anything he says related to the subject.
Think about it, he’s even trying to make an ADA reason to be assigned back to the SF office. I think HR didn’t buy the reasoning behind that at all: it looks like he’s trying to get close to her again.
> OP can't even articulate what exactly justified his original complaint in the first place, even if he didn't voluntarily delete the evidence.
I made it pretty clear in my post that she was consistently disrespectful towards me, even going so far as to say in front of coworkers at a team event that she was "surprised that I read." Reverse the gender roles and see if your opinion changes.
> He didn't document in any way to the company that he was legitimately disabled (if he had a pre-existing diagnosis he wouldn't have needed to go to the company tele-therapy service).
I provided evidence to HR/ER that I had been previously in-patient hospitalized for OCD and severe major depressive disorder, and that I had been seeing a therapist outside of Uber for the last four years. I only transitioned to the Uber therapist around the time HR got involved because it made more sense financially.
> The company even accommodated his HR complaint by moving him away from the person he filed a complaint about to a different office...and of course that's when he starts complaining about the commute.
This was because of her HR complaint, not mine. I did not want to commute two and a half hours round trip to Sunnyvale. That's absurd.
Severance package potentially would include salary, partial bonus, immediate vesting of RSU, employment search assistance, healthcare PLUS access to employment insurance. Legal fees would not be more than that.
Even if severance received was $100K but legal fees cost $99K, you’re still ahead. Does not matter most went to lawyers.
Lawyers wouldn’t be expensive anyway (probably less the $10K). Not even a lawsuit, it’s just assistance negotiating.
I know someone who went this route and it didn’t really beat out a sympathy severance (a lot of people who are fired for low performance are technically laid off since it lowers the risks for the company).
It was like an 8 weeks severance minus legal fees.
> Why date someone on your team
Because I am there all day every day.