I was once part of a case of alleged sexual harassment at a large tech company. I had worked closely with both the accuser and the accused and was interviewed multiple times as a witness.
The scenario: we were working on a prototype project that would yield preferential standards for implementation around a certain set of components. Our team consisted of 7 people. Roughly 2 months worth of effort, given the systems involved. Our objective was to present a unified opinion for implementation standards of said components, with everyone on the team supporting the opinion. I was the lead engineer of the group, and we reported to a VP/Eng.
At the conclusion of the project, we had evaluated multiple approaches as a group and prepared to make a suggestion for presentation to the eng group as a whole. In the process of doing so, one engineer pushed for an approach that had been rejected by everyone on the team. Despite our reasons for rejection, this engineer refused to advocate for another approach that the rest of the team had coalesced around. We went to our VP for support, who agreed with the findings of the rest of the team. Decision made, presentation made, and the project is completed.
Two weeks later, I receive a call from an HR representative to schedule a "deposition" (their words, but no lawyers involved.) They ask a ton of questions, which progressively become more ambiguous.
- "Have you observed anyone on the team making racial or sexist comments?"
- "Is anyone on the team overtly driven by race, religion, gender, or a personal cause?"
- "Have you observed anyone receiving preferential treatment on the team?"
- "Have you noticed any problematic or contentious interactions across members of your team?"
It was difficult to answer definitively to these types of questions, but it was completely intentional. The company was going out of it's way to assess whether the accuser's claims held any merit. The company did find the accuser's claims as meritless, but not without close examination from every angle.
The accusation: the engineer complained they had been discriminated against by the VP because of their gender, sexual orientation, and nationality. And the proof, per the accuser, was that the engineer's suggested approach from our project had been rejected. Oddly enough, the HR representative never asked me about that aspect.
One thing I learned from that experience is that public commentary about harassment situations isn't so simple as it is often described.