the company I want to work for employs a guy who’s abusive to women on dating apps

by Alison Green on October 16, 2024

A reader writes:

I have a tricky situation involving prior sexual harassment/creepy behavior by a potential future coworker at a job I’m applying for.

A year ago, I matched with a man on a dating app who works in my (very small) field. The conversation was pleasant but we never met up and eventually lost touch. Months later, he added me on social media and messaged me, essentially saying he was masturbating to my photos. I blocked him. I also belong to one of the “Are we dating the same guy?” Facebook groups in my city and he was also posted there for saying extremely vulgar, demeaning things to women on dating apps. At least six women shared similar interactions with him (with screenshot evidence). Since then, he attempted following me from a different account, which I also blocked.

Through LinkedIn (we have mutual connections), I saw that he started a job at a company that’s doing a lot of innovative work in our field. I’ve always dreamed of working there eventually and a recruiter from that company just contacted me for an amazing role on the same team he works on. I don’t know what to do. I’m so icked out at the idea of working with this disgusting man. On the other hand, I hate that I’m letting this man stop me from going for a job I really want.

Is there any way I could report him for harassment and anonymously send the screenshots to their ethics hotline before even starting? Or if I turn down the job, could I share this information with them? Is creepy behavior to women outside of work even something companies can take action on? It all just feels unjust.

Ugh, I’m so sorry. It’s not right that you’re reluctant to go after a job you want because a creep works there.

Most companies won’t act on evidence that an employee is a disgusting jerk on dating apps. I’d argue that they should, and your situation is a prime example of why: it will affect who’s willing to work with them (and not just prospective employees, but prospective clients too) and it raises questions about his ability to deal with female colleagues respectfully and professionally. But still, most companies won’t consider it their business unless it shows up at work in some way.

However, if you’re offered the job and turn it down, you could certainly tell them why. They should be aware that employing this dirtbag is driving away good candidates (and it should make them question how he might be interacting with the women he works with as well).

You could also be up-front with the recruiter that you’d love to work for the company but you and other women have been harassed outside of work by one of their employees, and ask how closely the position they’re hiring for works with this guy.

Or, of course, you could go for the job, accept it if you want to, and after you’ve been there a while discreetly let other women know about the jagoff they’re working with.

I’m sorry there aren’t better solutions.

You may also like:
{ 284 comments }

{ 284 comments… read them below }

  1. Green great dragon*

    If you take the job, and he says anything out of line to you or anyone else, I think you could then add this background to any complaints

    1. JSPA*

      Yeah, if you have the stomach for it, and if you think there’s any way you can pretend you didn’t know it was him, or that he obviously would know better than to pull it at work, I guess you can wait for him to corner you and do a Louis CK, and then…dunno…yell really loudly, “Hey everyone, Joe Twerpy is yanking his dick at me in the office, can someone snap a picture, and call HR?”

      And maybe he does keep it in his pants (and out of his conversation) in the workplace.

      But frankly, all “uck factor” aside, I would not willingly work with someone who was stalking me, or whom I knew was stalking others, even if it was “only” to talk dirty. Somone who ignores boundaries and consent (and the law!) in that one way, is someone who rejects the basic concept boundaries and consent and there being any sort of social contract. Period. That’s scary; and there’s no way to know how bad the details could get.

      1. Ellie*

        I know that I couldn’t stomach working with him. I’d tell the recruiter that the opportunity sounds interesting but this person is known for stalking multiple women online including yourself and you’d want to know how closely you’d be working with him. It’s possible a reply like that might make them re-evaluate, especially if there’s been any issues at work with him already. It also might lead to an opportunity in another part of the business. But if this jerk turns out to be the CEO’s brother in law, you probably want to know that before going any further.

  2. NothingIsLittle*

    I think a really important question that can guide you is, “How closely am I willing to work with this man for any length of time if I do not see similar behavior at work?” and “if I do see similar behavior at work?”

    Since you’re excited about the company, it’s probably worth it to go through the interview process, even if you know you’d never work with him, to familiarize yourself in case a role that wouldn’t put you in his path opens up. But if you’d be willing to deal with him indefinitely and the interviews click, I’d keep a really close eye on his behavior and possibly dig into how HR has handled similar issues if you can find someone trustworthy who’s worked there a while.

    1. GDUB*

      For all OP knows, maybe she’s interviewing for this creep’s job. Maybe he’s on the way out! This take is too optimistic, but my point is that she should at least take the interview.

      2. Sacred Ground*

        And if she decides not to take the job, turning them down at the offer stage will likely be taken seriously. They’ll know they’re losing out on someone they wanted to hire because of this guy.

  3. Pastor Petty Labelle*

    Just ewww.

    Wanna bet he complains no one will date him even though he’s a nice guy with a well paying job?

    It’s not fair you miss out on your dream job because this guy is so disgusting. But look at this way, given how blatant he is, he is probably doing it to women at work too. Which means it wouldn’t be your dream job to work for a company that is cool with employing this guy.

    1. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

      It sounds like he was just hired though so it’s a little early to say the company is letting him get away with it at work. I agree that it’s got to be affecting how he interacts with women at work, just don’t know if it’s at a level yet that the company should be aware of.

      1. Bast*

        Even once someone is there awhile, it’s entirely possible he’s completely aware that how he acts is scummy, and is good at covering it up in places where it matters. I’ve known more than one guy who was abusive/had SA’ed women before, that was married and appeared to the office to be a Mr. Joe Average, if not an outright Prince Charming.

        1. Anne Shirley Blythe*

          Was going to say the same, and of course that doesn’t make it all ok. I hope the OP can find out how closely she would work with the guy.

          There’s an outside chance the dude won’t even recognize her. I was on dating apps and would often hear from guys I’d previously communicated with who did not remember me. (no drastic changes to my appearance) One had even stood me up! Guys who objectify women to this degree often cast a wide net.

          1. Greg*

            Totally tangential to the OP, but years ago I connected with a woman on a dating app and we spent a week or so sending flirtatious texts back and forth. When I tried to set up an IRL meeting, though, she bailed. I was a little bummed because I thought there was something there, but whatever.

            A few years later, after I was married, I discovered that she had gone to college with my wife, and they had a very good mutual friend in common. We were considering moving to NC at the time, and when we went down to visit we stayed with her and her husband. I recognized her name as soon as I heard it, but she either didn’t remember me or also chose to stay quiet. (To be clear, neither of us had done anything particularly embarrassing, so it wasn’t like there was some dark secret to hide). The funniest part was when the four of us were sitting at dinner and I looked across the table at her and my wife and realized how much they looked alike

  4. not like a regular teacher*

    Ugh, this is terrible. Why are men??

    OP, I hope the job turns out to be a great fit and you take it and do awesome there. I also hope that this man feels SO MUCH SHAME when you start, and never dares to talk to you at work (let alone harass you). I don’t know if that’s what will happen, but I hope so.

    You (and all of us) deserve awesome jobs and to not be held back in your career by creeps.

      1. Bearish*

        Indeed. That’s one that even many genuinely smart and perceptive men don’t seem to get; they just start explaining that bears are super dangerous. Yeah, we know.

        1. Bob the Sourdough Starter*

          You can lead a man to thousands of MeToo female perspectives, but you certainly can’t force him to listen or care.

      2. Laser99*

        Team Bear forever. “But bears are dangerous!” “You mean like one would hang around parking garages?”

        1. Elizabeth West*

          My answer: “The bear would go after the tidbits in the dumpster before it went after me.”

        2. Emily of New Moon*

          I’ve heard that if you see a bear in the woods, you should lie down on the ground on your stomach until it goes away. They’re only threatened by people standing up, and they aren’t going to bite your butt.

      3. Llama lamma workplace drama*

        And guys don’t seem to get the point that it’s not a literal bear… it’s statistics! We are more likely to be attacked by one of them than by a bear in the woods. We aren’t literally going into the forest and finding a bear as our mate!

        2. applesandoranges*

          The original question didn’t even say anything about picking a mate. It was “which would you rather run into in the forest?”

          It’s the men who immediately equated “run into” with “have a relationship with”. Yet another reason we chose the bear.

      4. Indolent Libertine*

        We know for sure what the bear is going to do, and if we somehow manage to survive the encounter, people will be inclined to believe that a bear did that and it wasn’t because it was socially awkward.

    2. Jezebella*

      Guys like this feel no shame. He probably does this to so many women he doesn’t even remember all of them.

      1. Sloanicota*

        I was thinking, TBH the one silver lining for OP is that I wouldn’t necessarily expect him to remember her specifically or press her for any acknowledgement of their past interaction. I would expect plausible deniability.

        1. Starbuck*

          The way he already tried to follow/contact her on multiple different social media apps after they stopped talking on the dating app does not bode well though.

          1. Catabodua*

            This. He may also follow multiple women on multiple platforms with fake names (super, duper creepy), but I wouldn’t assume he doesn’t remember her. For all we know he’s got an excel file somewhere with a list of targets.

    3. hopeless*

      Getting lumped together with this creeps due to broad generiations feels bad; discriminated against. Kinda sexist.
      Oh well.

      1. Na$ty Larry*

        Kindly, this is not it. Nowhere did they say “why are all men on earth including hopeless.” I’ve found that men who aren’t like LW’s potential coworker know they aren’t lumped into this type of statement and don’t feel the need to come onto an online platform and complain when they see them.

        Let’s not pretend that encountering the type of behavior this potential coworker exhibits is not part and parcel of dating for people who date men.

        1. hopeless*

          I respectfully disagree. A statement about a whole group without specification is a general statement.
          Allow me, If you will, an example If I we’re to say “Birds can fly.” and someone would point out that ostriches can’t, I would have a hard time arguing that I didn’t this kind of bird when I said “bird”.

          Not being able to point that out without being considered suspicious… I’ll leave this standing on it’s own.

          1. anon here*

            As an attorney, I would distinguish between making a legal assertion in court of “birds can fly” and stating colloquially in conversation “birds can fly.” While in court, I am extraordinarily careful to couch my language and be precise in order to avoid stating anything that can be picked apart as technically untrue, in conversation, I find that broader assertions can be made without an explicit verbal asterisk for exceptions.

            An internet comment section is not court. Just something to consider.

          2. JSPA*

            You’re misreading the shorthand. This isn’t “why do all men.” It’s, “how is it enough men convince themselves it’s OK, that most women have gotten this treatment at some point?”

            I don’t think I have ever had a friend complain about some rando sending them a wet p#ssy shot apropos of nothing, but the d?ck pix and insistence that one must hear about an essential stranger’s fantasie? That’s as common as dogshit on a French sidewalk, and just about as appealing.

            If when I said that, you went “not all dog owners,” you’re missing the point.

            If when I said it, you didn’t feel bad for those poor maligned french dogs, not all of whose poop is on sidewalks? You’re getting my point.

            And if you thought I was unfairly blaming the french, you have not enjoyed french sidewalks recently.

            Whether the bad actor (in either scenario) is one person in three or one person in seven, there’s still crap on your shoes way, way too often. And it’s OK to point out the problem; the source; and wonder why the good dog owners are not offering a bag (or giving the evil eye) to the bad ones.

            I want to force you to know about my pants-stirrings” isn’t “an all-guy problem.” But that doesn’t mean it’s not “a guy problem.”

            And as a guy, You should probably assume that you have nearly zero insight into the online sexual behaviors of your hetero guy pals, and no window into the scale and scope of the problem.

            I recently posted an ambient noise video of sandpipers. At one point my out-of-focus knee was in the corner of the shot. Before I removed comments and made the video unlisted, someone wanted to tell me about his reaction to the “hotness” of that “flash of bare breast.”

            3. Michelle Smith*

              Yep, it’s “not all” men, but all women (or damn near all) have experienced it from at least one man.

              And if it doesn’t apply, let it fly.

      2. Analyst*

        The fact that you and other men think this grievance is something worth mentioning while discussing literal sexual harassment, which is predominantly committed by men against women is part of the problem. You’re not being harmed by an accurate generalization, but your “not all men” is doing harm. Do better.

        1. 2 Cents*

          Exactly. Considering the OP mentioned she’s part of a Facebook group of “did we date the same guy” where women share these horror stories and 1) I immediately knew what she was referring to and 2) wasn’t surprised says more than any “but what about me!?”

        2. Dandylions*

          I disagree that stereotyping men as overwhelming creepy and dangerous doesn’t hurt them. In fact as a mom of a daughter and wife of a SAHD it hurts them both. When moms rush to pull their kid away from my daughter because dad is nearby, and men are creeps so this dad is a creep right??? Happens All. The. Time. My daughter only ever gets to play with kids when another dad shows up to the play group or an exceptionally open minded woman gives my spouse a chance.

          Stereotyping is bad and harms people. There is this modern idea that stereotyping against traditionally in power groups is just fine and harmless. It’s really not.

          And inevitably anyone who calls out bad behavior when it’s in response to worse behavior will be accused of not caring about about sexism. I’ll call out bad behavior when I see it. I wasn’t there when this creep sent nasty messages to tell him to knock it off. Doesn’t mean I can’t say “Hey this is harmful” when AM or commentors say things like “What is wrong with all the men???” Or “Why do men????”

          1. CG*

            I think there is a line between stereotyping and self-protective behavior. It is not unreasonable for women to take precautions around unknown men, given the frequency of incidents like the one in the letter. I am sorry that your husband feels badly about people taking precautions around him – but his feeling badly does not negate the fact that other people have the right to have their own risk-management protocols.

            I agree that there needs to be a change in our social dynamics, because our current dynamics are hurting everyone. But I think it is the responsibility of men to build relationships and explicitly telegraph that they are not a threat, as well as to encourage *other* men not to be assholes. With current levels of sexual harassment and violence perpetrated by men, the answer can’t be that women are not “allowed” to be self protective, or to suggest that women are somehow behaving unethically by taking reasonable precautions.

          2. CommanderBanana*

            It never fails that at least one “but not all men!” and one “but stereotypes!!!!” commenter shows up in this thread like a fungus after rain.

      3. Remember to center men at all times*

        You’re right. Let’s stop giving the LW advice and commiseration. Instead, let’s pivot to comforting you, a random commenter who didn’t write in. This is about /your/ feelings now.

      4. Elizabeth West*

        If it doesn’t apply to you, it isn’t about you.

        Rather than using your energy to say “Not all men,” use it to tell the men you know who do this (and yes, you do know some of them) to cut the shit.

      5. Matte*

        This kind of comment is why you get lumped in, because you lack the self-awareness and critical thinking skills to understand why this take is pathetic nonsense.

        If you don’t want to be categorised alongside the creepy guys, stop acting like one.

      6. Happy*

        I suggest you channel your feelings of discomfort into making the world more equitable for women – which will also improve things for non-misogynist men.

        It feels kind bad and sexist for the rest of us when discussions about men behaving badly get rerouted to #notallmen.

      7. Broadway Duchess*

        It never fails.

        Every time women speak about our experiences with men in general, someone comes around to “not all men” the comment. If you’re feeling bad at being lumped in with your brethren, perhaps consider the women who are actually dealing with this on a regular basis. Your feelings are not the ones which need to be centered right now.

      9. Mini Moose*

        No, not all men. But enough. Enough that feel the need to make comments about “smiling.” Enough that talk over women, to show they “know” more than the women do. Enough that feel they have the right to give unsolicited advice, take up more than their fair share of space on public transport, ignore the words “no,” “stop,” and “please leave me alone.” Enough that women’s rights and bodily autonomy are things to be debated, legislated on, and demonized.

        So, you’re right. It’s not all men. But it’s enough.

      12. N C Kiddle*

        I’m a man who isn’t complaining about being “lumped together” even though I wouldn’t dream of doing that crap. But then I’m a bi man who has experienced creepy men on apps, so perhaps I find it easier to empathise with “Why are men”

      13. Media Monkey*

        can we not #notallmen here? yes not all men, but some men and enough men. and there’s no way to know if one particular man is #yesthatguy until things go south.

      14. Not Jane*

        I am a man. I’m not like the creep OP is talking about – but I’m well aware that OP wouldn’t be able to know that without the risk of finding out the hard way that I am. So, yes, it’s not all men – but it’s far too many men and very difficult to tell the difference without getting hurt.

      15. Fluffy Fish*

        yeah no. if it’s not you then you don’t need to take it personal. when people are talking about white people being racist i don’t feel discriminated against. because i am part of a system that perpetuates racism even if I personally do not discriminate against people.

        womens literal personal safety is more important than your feelings.

        dont want to feel discriminated against? then maybe start actively doing things to hold your fellow men accountable so the culture toxic men changes.

      16. Sacred Ground*

        Dude. One idea that helped me a long time ago: if it isn’t about you, it isn’t about you. You don’t have to take it on.

        Listen to why women feel that way rather than focus on how it makes you feel.

  5. Not on board*

    This is tough. I can understand why you’re reluctant to take a job at this place. Personally I can be very confrontational when need be, so if I wanted to work there, I would take the job and very closely monitor his behaviour and take the first opportunity to report him. A guy who operates like this is very likely unable to reign it in at the office so it’s only a matter of time before he does something that will lead to him getting fired.
    Another option is to wait until you receive an offer and then ask how closely you would be working with this person due to a negative personal experience. You can say that you just came across the info that he works there and wanted to get ahead of the situation.

    2. learnedthehardway*

      Yeah – agreeing. Don’t let this individual prevent you from pursuing a role you really want. Do go in armed, though.

    3. Jessica*

      I like this except for the “negative personal experience” which I think is completely the wrong framing. That sounds like it could be a painful breakup. This experience is NOT “personal” to OP (though on another level of course it is very personal) in the sense that it only affects her and is some quirk of her specific history. She’s not the problem! She’s not even half the problem! The problem is Harassing Predatory Creep and the fact that this company employs him. He is 100% the problem, and when it reaches that point she should make them aware of it with as many receipts as are necessary. This isn’t some unfortunate flaw in her personal history that makes OP incompatible with this company. He’s the flaw in their company that is making them incompatible with good job candidates, and he’s incompatible with basic human decency.

      1. White Squirrel*

        Agreed. I’d be afraid a negative personal experience would translate as a break up or something similar. Maybe “due to his behavior online.”

      2. Ellis Bell*

        I didn’t have that reading of “negative personal experience” myself, because the word experience suggests “encounter” rather than “history”, but I suppose it’s always possible someone can misinterpret these things. If OP wants to distance themselves further from ‘being the problem’ another option might be: “I’m afraid he has a reputation for harassing women, and although I don’t know him at all well, unfortunately I can corroborate that reputation, based on just a few encounters with him myself”.

      3. Not on board*

        Okay, maybe “negative personal experience” isn’t the right phrasing but I think you need to be somewhat matter-of-fact when you approach the situation. It’s unfair, but you don’t want to be seen as someone who creates drama, etc. So, some other neutral language indicating that he’s been inappropriate towards you in the past and you’d like to figure out the logistics of working there while protecting yourself.
        For all we know, by the time the whole interview process is over and OP has an offer letter in hand, this creep might not even be working there anymore.

        1. Ellie*

          Huh… I’d be inclined to state, without drama, exactly what he did, like OP did in the letter here. Too many people are willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, imaging something relatively innocuous, and are then horrified when you tell them exactly what happened using plain facts. I’d stick to the facts without speculating further and see what happens.

    4. Kat*

      If he’s unlikely to rein it in then he’s likely done it already to someone else. Which doesn’t bode well for the company’s track record at catching it/dealing with it. I can understand why Op would just want to stay away altogether. It puts too much mental burden on her to worry about

    5. Unkempt Flatware*

      Shit, I’m the level of vindictive that I’d take the job just for the chance to ruin him.

      3. CommanderBanana*

        I am extremely petty (I try to channel my natural pettiness for the Greater Good and it’s honestly very helpful when navigating deliberately byzantine aid organizations on behalf on clients at the shelter where I volunteer) and honestly….I would too.

    6. Shiny Penny*

      I think Ellis Bell’s phrasing is closer to a better bet.
      Because many people are definitely quick to “misinterpret” these things, since it leaves them personally comfortable in their denial.
      Dismissiveness and miss-attribution of responsibility is too often the default response. It’s essential, sadly, to plan ahead re your word choice/framing, to carefully head off responses like “sounds like you have a personal problem there” or, “you need to try harder to get along.”
      Using key words like “online stalking” and ”online sexual harassment” would be safer (and more accurate) framing.
      “I was eventually able to shut down contact, but he tracked me down again months later to continue the abusive messages.”
      (Also, rage.)

  6. Sloanicota*

    TBH, if it was me and I wanted the job, I’d go for it, and take it if I was offered. Be cool and distant to this guy if you run into him (but nothing reportable, obviously – perfectly civil). Sometimes guys like this have different rules for different sets of women, and he may have the self-interest to know that being a jerk to his coworkers doesn’t work out as well for him as being a semi-anonymous troll jerk. Think of it this way, this coworker is the one you actually *know* is a jerk online … most of the others you just don’t know … I understand that other people would make other choices and I think that’s fine. If you are truly sick at the thought of having to work alongside such a person that might be your answer.

    1. CommanderBanana*

      ^^ This. None of this makes it ok, but I have definitely known men who were ok to have as acquaintances but were absolute shite to the women they dated.*

      *I would not be friends with someone I knew was like this, but it seems like in every friend group of any size there’s always That One Guy in the periphery that everyone is just like…yeah, whatever, he’s ok to see once a month at trivia but I would never want anyone I knew to date him.

    2. BigLawEx*

      This is the way! In one of the books about abusers (maybe Why Does He Do That? by Lundy Bancroft), the author points out that the behavior can be curbed because men (can and sometimes do) control where they act out. Take the interview. Take the job if offered. Keep an eye out and protect yourself.

    3. Wendy the Spiffy*

      I like this too. I don’t think there’s a wrong choice, but my mind goes to “the best revenge is living well.” Take the job, kick ass at it, and keep blanking him (always with the option to report later).

  7. londonedit*

    For me, I think ‘I’m not going to let this twat stop me from getting a job I really want’ would override the rest of it, but it’s your choice. I’d at least go down the road with the recruiter and find out more about the role. Then if you get an offer, you can make a decision at that point.

  8. Stuart Foote*

    I’m not defending what this guy is doing, because it is wrong, but it’s pretty obvious that suggesting that companies fire people for unpleasant stuff they do in their personal life is the slipperiest of slippery slopes. A lot of people online seem unaware that not everyone has the same values and priorities they do.

    That being said, I can understand not wanting to work on the same team as this person. That being said, if the job is that great, go for it, and LW can let it be known she doesn’t like this guy based on past creepy interactions with him. Maybe it will be a wakeup call for him.

      2. Rebecca*

        It’s a pattern of behavior. Everyone has a bad moment or makes a stupid decision or has a weak moment or makes a ridiculous mistake or sends a drunken text and so on.

        But most of us manage not to repeat that same stupid moment or drunken text over and over and over again. Let alone repeat that same stupid moment with multiple other people, multiple times.

      3. TheBunny*

        I’m not sure we’re quite at that bar. I hate that I’m saying this. And my own comment is making me hate it even more. But we’re assessing behavior in one context and deciding if this means OP shouldn’t accept a position if offered or should tell anyone what they have discovered.

        Dating aps are notorious for exactly this type of behavior and it’s accepted as cool and funny. By men and honestly by some women. I’m married and not on any, but I’ve definitely been part of conversations with women friends discussing (and often rating) the things they have been sent in the app conversations.

        Especially those apps more focused on hookups… you sort of have to invite sexual conversations if you are discussing sex.

        Is this awful? Yes. But it’s like complaining you saw a coworker drinking at a club. It’s not far enough outside of the accepted “norm” for the area where it happened for this to feel actionable to me.

        Now, if he’s anything but 100% professional at work, that IS actionable as it stops being in an environment that it’s at least tolerated.

        1. Dawn*

          Months later, he messaged her on Facebook to tell her her was jerking off to her pictures. I’m not sure how you’re putting that in the same bucket as “he behaved sexually on a dating app” (many of which, by the way, aren’t “focused on hookups” at all, and in fact explicitly ban this sort of behaviour.)

        2. Eo*

          This is NOT like complaining you saw coworker drinking at a club. it’s like complaining that you ran into a coworker drinking at a club and bumped into them by accident, and they spit on you in retaliation, and when you complained to the bartender, he said “yeah that guy does that all the time, third time tonight.” And a couple other patrons at the bar said that it happened to them too.

          Drinking somewhere drinking is allowed as victimless. OP was sent harassing messages by this guy. It’s not the same thing.

          1. Ellie*

            Worse than that. It’s like your analogy, and now the guy is stalking your online profile in order to visit other places that you frequent so that he can spit on you again.

            If it had ended with the first interaction, and the first blocking, I could see the point (although its still not normal, IMO), but he’s gone beyond that. He’s tried to follow her on other platforms. Being blocked sends a very clear message that OP is not up for this kind of talk. He’s ignoring that, and waving a giant red flag in the process.

      4. Peanut Hamper*

        Very much this. If he does it in the workplace (and there’s a strong possibility he does), it’s illegal and he could be (and should be) fired for it.

        This is not like “my coworker likes to hunt cute animals on the weekend” territory.

    2. bamcheeks*

      Oh hey, I literally just saw your name when I went and read the “men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman’s name”! What a coincidence.

      A lot of people online seem unaware that not everyone has the same values and priorities they do

      As we get closer to the US election, the number of women who are unaware that not everyone thinks “basic level of respect for women” is a shared value approaches 0.

    3. Sloanicota*

      I agree, I probably actually don’t want to work in a world where my boss seriously investigates accusations of wrong-doing by people I met on dating apps that have nothing to do with work. But I understand why this sucks for OP.

      1. Czhorat*

        But what about *actual* wrongdoing?

        The flip side is “I don’t want to live in a world where women’s job choices are restricted by the presence of repeat sexual harassers”, but here we are.

        In other words, you could look at this as employer overreach or you could look at it as choosing to value the rights of the victim over the harasser.

        1. Sloanicota*

          Well, I mean, the most comparable example that comes to mind is vengeful exes sending in a woman’s nudes or videos to her bosses to get her fired (not always gendered, mind you – I’m pretty sure we had a letter here where the victim was a gay man). Some people consider making that kind of videos very wrong. Personally I don’t, but many do. I would like the company to ignore the vengeful ex and probably delete the files without viewing them, stating that this is not a work matter and they aren’t going to follow up on it. So I think that’s the standard I would probably follow here.

          1. Dawn*

            I mean, I do think that’s a bit comparing apples to oranges.

            I suppose one could argue for having a complete blanket rule about reports of outside behaviour, but I don’t know that I’d consider that the best or wisest solution – just the one that requires the least thought.

          2. foofoo*

            No, that’s not comparable.

            Someone can have the opinion that making sexy/dirty videos is wrong, but the people who made them participated willingly in the making of the videos and didn’t force or impose them on anyone that wasn’t part of it (ideally, we’re not getting into the weeds of hidden video cameras or someone being forced into it). Sure, someone can disagree with the making of it or think it’s wrong, but there was no wrongdoing in the creation of said video.

            On the other hand, someone being a sexist, abusive asshole is intentionally treating unwilling participants/victims in a borderline illegal way and making life miserable for them. This is someone who is taking active steps to hurt someone.

            They’re not even comparable… and yes, people *should* be held responsible for behaviours that are hurting others.

          3. Czhorat*

            That isn’t at ALL a comparable example.

            An actual comparable example would be someone posting nudes of an ex without their consent. What you’re doing is comparing harassment to legal, private activity. It’s like saying that you can’t fire someone who beats their spouse because then you’d also have to let people get fired for participating in MMA in their free time.

            Some slopes aren’t that slippery.

          4. Jackalope*

            Completely different situation. Harassment of other people is different than just making mutually come denying videos. Just like you could choose to fire someone who has a hobby of shoplifting or assaulting people, you can also choose to fire them for harassment. If an employer can’t see the difference between that and revenge p*rn then that’s an issue with them, not the victim.

            1. Dawn*

              I am sure that you didn’t mean to write “mutually come denying videos” but it is a fascinating typo in context

          5. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

            I’m in despair that you consider those situations in any way equivalent, because you are comparing a victim with a perpetrator as if they are the same because oooh, sex. In both cases, there is a pretty clear bad guy.

            Also, until you find the letter where the woman sent in revenge porn, it’s still gendered.

          6. Jennifer Strange*

            Okay, but in that example the employee is the victim of the sexual harassment (even if she willingly participated in the actual photo/video, she isn’t participating in the sharing of them). In the letter here the employee is the perpetrator of sexual harassment. Do you not see why people would want an employer to treat those situations differently?

          7. Rainy*

            If the woman’s state has a revenge prawn law, it’s not a comparable example at all, because the vengeful ex is committing a crime. And even if they don’t, it’s still not apples to apples, because the vengeful ex is doing something that is actually immoral and wrong, whereas the woman or person so targeted just engaged in a private act that has now become public.

          8. a trans person*

            Wait, are you comparing “man sends unsolicited harassing sexual content to woman” with “man sexually harasses woman by sharing her sexual content” by equating man 1 with *woman* 2???

            I literally have no idea how you can justify this analogy.

          9. Been There*

            That’s revenge porn, and illegal in a lot of places. The vengeful ex is breaking the law in your example.

    4. Elbe*

      I don’t think it’s any more of a “slippery slope” than firing people for what they do in the office. In both cases, the company needs to draw a line and then gather evidence that an employee has crossed it. It would be the same with online harassment, too.

      The odds that this guy genuinely doesn’t know that his behavior is hurtful to people is basically zero. This is not a “people have different priorities” issue.

      1. Stuart Foote*

        It is definitely a slippery slope. First, how much do you trust HR (or whoever does it) to gather evidence? And who decides what is unacceptable harassment? This website has examples of people making terrible judgements every day.

        Second, a lot of people here seem to think that this guy is obviously in the wrong. I agree! I don’t act like that, to my knowledge none of my friends do, I don’t respect people who do. The issue is that objectively, not everyone does. I know a lot of people who wouldn’t have a problem with this, but might have a problem with LW bringing it up. Do you really want the average manager deciding who to fire and who not to fire based on stuff in their personal life?

        Clearly people do already get fired for stuff they do in their personal life, and very often it is not for stuff they should get fired for (at least in my opinion and the opinion of most people on this site). Is that something we really want to normalize?

        1. Jennifer Strange*

          Do you really want the average manager deciding who to fire and who not to fire based on stuff in their personal life?

          When the thing in their personal life is sexual harassment? Yes, 100%. Let’s not pretend this is a morally grey area, please.

          1. anon here*

            How about doing meth? I am thinking of a case in my city where a semi-prominent person was the victim of a serious crime and it came out that the person had been abusing meth (and, likely relatedly, engaging in personal activity that was possibly abusive to the person who ended up committing the crime (and it is being argued that way in court) (I have sanitized this but it is possibly still google-able, sorry). If this person had been reported to their employer (before the crime) just for the meth, I can see both sides of the argument that they should/should not have been fired.

            1. Jennifer Strange*

              This would depend on so many factors (if they person went to work on meth, the type of work, etc.) but I think the employer would have been within their right to stipulate that the person had to receive rehab services for their drug problem or face termination.

              1. anon here*

                Sure, but I guess my point is: normatively, would that be good or bad? Definitely in the realm of meth-user-beware and “many reasonable companies would”, sure, but isn’t it punishing people’s livelihood because of their private off-site conduct? And if so…how do we feel about that? (Does it vary by substance, and who’s going to be responsible for that list of dos and don’ts?)

        2. Sparkles McFadden*

          I think what you are trying to stress is there are degrees of difference in each situation and you cannot have a blanket policy of policing people’s non-work actions. But you must acknowledge that there is *always* a line of what’s acceptable and what’s not. If the guy was on LinkedIn saying “I like to look at photos of my coworkers while I masturbate” – yeah, he’d get fired (and I hate that I am not sure that would happen even then). I also would argue that someone behaving like an idiot on social media is showing, at the very least, poor judgment, and that it is valid that management look into that.

          Let’s take a less volatile example of the guy who was obnoxious to the CEO’s wife on a train (he didn’t know who she was), and didn’t get the permanent position he was sure he was going to get. He didn’t understand why his non-work behavior mattered. It mattered because that gave the CEO a glimpse into the guy’s true character. That’s the point Alison is making in her answer.

          BTW…In her answer Alison never says to fire the guy. She says companies should “act on evidence that an employee is a disgusting jerk on dating apps.” “Acting on evidence” may mean looking at how the employee interacts with coworkers. It may mean giving him coaching. It may mean someone puts two and two together and says “Oh, maybe that’s why we’ve had five people quit in that department this year.” If someone sent in screenshots of the guy saying “It only makes sense that people steal from their workplaces on a regular basis” you can bet that *every* company would make a point of looking into that.

        4. Dawn*

          “Objectively, not everyone does.”

          Ok, but objectively, sexually harassing women is wrong, and people who don’t agree with that are wrong. We decline to take their “opinions” on board, just as we decline to take on board the “opinions” of people who think that being gay or trans is wrong in 2024.

          I’m perfectly happy with normalizing firing people who sexually harass women, yes. I’m thrilled for that to become normalized. Let’s, in fact, bring back ostracization for sexual harassers – the original kind, where they’re exiled from society. I have exactly zero issues with that happening.

        5. Workerbee*

          “…a lot of people here seem to think that this guy is obviously in the wrong. I agree! I don’t act like that, to my knowledge none of my friends do, I don’t respect people who do. The issue is that objectively, not everyone does. I know a lot of people who wouldn’t have a problem with this, but might have a problem with LW bringing it up.”

          I guess I’m not sure why you’re trying to make an _objective_ case for not bringing it up, just because some other people somewhere would be totally fine with being actively harassed, and then (I guess?) turn on the LW for calling out a harasser.

          This guy has chosen of his own free will to harass people. It doesn’t / shouldn’t matter if it’s one person or multiple. What matters is how it has affected each person he harasses. What doesn’t matter or help is a vague assertion that a bunch of people a stranger on the internet purportedly knows are totally fine with it.

          OP, if you’re reading this far – don’t get caught up in the “What abouts” and false equivalencies and vague assertions about “lots” of people. That’s all bullshit. What matters is how YOU feel about it. Trust your gut. There is excellent advice here, but the Stuart Foote kind is not it.

        6. Rebecca*

          Some people put on hoods, burn crosses and go out lynching. I have a problem with it, and my friends and family don’t like it, but I know there’s people out there that are ok with hoods and lynching. I know some of those people. Those people would be really upset if you brought up lynching at work. We can’t just fire people for going our lynching over the weekend, it’s a slippery slope. The next thing you know, they’ll be firing guys for being rapists or beating their wives. It’s such a slippery slope.

          Do you hear yourself? Stop excusing unacceptable behavior by a man. There is no excuse. There is no slippery slope. That man deserved to get pushed off the slope the second or third time that he sent a harassing text to someone that didn’t consent.

        7. Elbe*

          I think that you’re really missing the point here. Most company policies are open to some amount of interpretation and all of them require enforcement by reasonable professionals. Having company policies about attitudes expressed outside of work are no more inherently “slippery” that those that apply to employees. In fact, most company policies apply to employees even when they are outside of work.

          Most companies draw the line at things that are a work issue. But that still includes prejudices and behavior that is so bad that the company cannot trust the employee to act with respect toward certain groups. For example, if someone tells a mildly offensive joke in private, among friends, most companies would not action that even if they found out about it. But if someone is going on a racist tirade, shouting at people on the street in public, that’s something that the company would likely action even though it took place outside of work. The differences is that the behavior crosses a line to the point where the company cannot trust the person to behave properly toward employees of color, and employees should not be expected to have to interact with someone who holds them in such contempt. The issue is similar here. The level of disrespect and boundary crossing is above and beyond reasonable standards.

          And there are options besides just firing the guy. At the very least, he should be ineligible to be in a management position.

          1. Java Guy*

            You’d think they would fire someone for doing that but I work with a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. He was one of the family members. The company knew and they did nothing. I never have had to work directly with that person and if they asked me to I would have refused.

        8. Salty Caramel*

          Do you respect the people who would have a problem with bringing it up? I sure don’t.

          How is the behavior supposed to be stopped if the issues can’t be raised and addressed?

        9. Pita Chips*

          The definition for what is considered harassment has been pretty clear for a while now and HR people are especially required to know and understand the rules around it.

          What I think needs to be normalized is supporting the people who report the disgusting behavior, and the people in charge addressing it. If that means termination, so be it. Someone with a record of harassment is a liability to an organization from outside and within it.

      2. TM*

        As someone who takes part in extracurricular activities that can incur a lot of social judgment and are in fact illegal in plenty of jurisdictions – and also having come out before gay sex was decriminalized in my country – it sounds like a slippery slope to me.

        Sure, throw the book at the guy if he steps 1 mm out of line in the office, is convicted of a crime, or is behaving publicly in a way that could bring the organisation into disrepute (that better be in their contracts). No problem at all. But as it is, it is one person’s horrible experience (of sadly pervasive but non-criminal behaviour) plus hearsay.

        I’m of the school that the OP s best revenge is to take the job, be uber-professional, then gloat at the likely scenario he will slip up. Depending on her relationship with the future boss, I would be tempted to indicate there was a history of harassment from that individual, by way of a heads-up. But only if the relationship is very good and she feels the boss would have her back. It’d definitely be worth asking about workplace harassment policies during interviews (the second round, if that’s a thing).

        1. Dawn*

          Actually – and not that this should be the measure of what is morally right, but – it is criminal behaviour in most jurisdictions and I am more than happy to see this guy held responsible for it.

          Again, one must stress, he was sexually-harassing women. Explicitly. There’s no grey area here.

          Also, US-based employers basically never have employment contracts.

          I’m sorry that your country took so long to change its laws, and that (likely) prevailing attitudes there are still making your life difficult. But you’re comparing apples to oranges here.

    5. Agent Diane*

      I think there is “tolerating different values” and there is “not being willing to work with a guy who felt the need to get in touch to say he masterbates over photos of you”.

      It sucks that only the woman in this situation is having to make her career choices over his boundary violations.

      1. Ilima*

        As Allison wrote, this employee’s behavior is already driving potential hires away and could be doing the same for clients. I think that makes it the employer’s business.

        1. WellRed*

          But it’s only one job applicant that we know of and because OP doesn’t work there they are less likely to listen. If she worked there and then HE applied, I’d say shout it out to hiring committee.

          1. MsM*

            There’s a Facebook group out there with at least six women who’ve had issues with this guy. Maybe OP’s the only one they’re interested in actively recruiting, but I can’t see how that’s good for business.

    6. Dawn*

      People get fired for unpleasant stuff they do in their personal life all the time when it trips over the line from just unpleasantness to harassment, bigotry, etc. And that’s not really a slippery slope at all; businesses can fire you for any reason at all, and “their behaviour has risen to the point where it is a liability for us” is a pretty reasonable one, actually.

      “Don’t be a creepy jerk who sexually harasses women” should be a fairly shared value and priority. I don’t know what to tell you if you think otherwise.

      1. learnedthehardway*

        Agreeing. Arguably, if this individual was recently hired by the company, it may very well be in the company’s best interests to find out that he’s a sexual harasser now, rather than later.

        One of my clients summarily fired a new hire because they found out the individual was a racist bigot. Now, he was stupid enough to make racist comments to employees of the company, so it was definitely within the work environment, but moving fast to remove the individual created a LOT of goodwill and I used to use that example to assure female and racial minority candidates that the company (which was in a really rough and tumble industry) took discrimination very seriously and genuinely supported DEI. It made a real difference in their ability to attract and retain good candidates (including white males – the vast majority of whom don’t want to work with racists or misogynists, either).

    7. bamcheeks*

      I’m trying to put my finger on why this comment pisses me off so much and I think it’s because of the way Stuart Foote positions themself as more enlightened and better informed than people who “seem unaware that not everyone has the same values and priorities they do”.

      I mean, does he really think that we are unaware that there are lots of men who see us as tools to masturbate to rather than people?? Really? That would be an impressive level of ignorance for us to maintain. Like, I personally would really have had to put a LOT of effort over the last forty years to remain ignorant of that fact. I estimate that my 9yo daughter has about 3 years before she is forced to learn this fact. It would be utterly delightful if I could let her live in the world of blissful ignorance that Stuart Foote thinks I live in for a few years longer, but I’m pretty sure men will make that impossible.

      Like, we are not ~~unaware~~. We are fighting to get other men to realise that they could PERHAPS play a part in making “women are people” are more broadly shared value. Guess we won’t be counting on Stuart Foote to help with that.

      1. Starbuck*

        It’s also weird and very minimizing to frame a guy serially sexually harassing women as just someone who has “different values.”

        1. Stuart Foote*

          This comment is exactly what I was referring to in my original comment. This guy DOES have “different values” than the people here. Many, many people share those values.* That doesn’t mean that they are good values, but they are common, and that is why I feel that we shouldn’t be too eager for employers to make hiring decisions based on things people do in their personal life, because the values the organizations come up with might be very, very different from what they should be.

          1. MsM*

            I think the thing you’re missing here is that if an organization sees one of their peers fire a guy for being a creep to women outside of work, and goes, “cool; guess that means we can fire anyone who volunteered for a cause we don’t like,” that’s still the other organization making a shitty independent decision they wanted to make anyway. It’s not based on some kind of ironclad legal precedent established by the other example.

          2. Jennifer Strange*

            Sexual harassment isn’t a value, it’s an action, and one you really seem to be tying yourself in knots to shrug off.

          3. skadhu*

            So the obvious answer is for a business to have no values at all! /s

            If someone is an asshole in their private life that’s one thing. But if someone ACTIVELY SEXUALLY HARASSES women on a dating app and persists in trying to do so after they block him, that person is demonstrating that they see boundaries as not applying to them, not that they’re unclear about what is acceptable behaviour. Maybe they silo their boundary crossing activities so that those don’t impinge on work (for themselves, obviously they impinge for others), maybe not. At the very least, HR should know that there is a documented boundary-crosser so that they can keep an eye on him with regard to his behaviour at work.

            As for “who decides” and “oh no it’s a slippery slope” I’m pretty sure HR and the law would have clear rules on things like sending unsolicited dick pix and refusing to take blocking as “no”. It’s not exactly a grey area. Extrapolating from a very specific and particular situation to say “oh but what about” imagined scenarios of other kinds is not helpful, and I read it as concern trolling.

          4. Cantresist*

            We have agreed as a society that holding certain values AND acting on them (which this guy did), has consequences. There are consequences for harassing people, starting with those people not wanting to hang out with you and escalating potentially to jail time. Consequences at work fall somewhere in the middle, and it’s totally appropriate for a workplace to decide they will enforce consequences whenever they want, honestly. The good news is if YOUR values don’t align with a workplace doing that, you can go find someplace else to work.

          5. bamcheeks*

            If you’d started out here by saying that you had a principled stance against employers taking action against people for actions that happen outside work because of significant racial disparities in who is fired for things like traffic and drug offences, I would totally respect that. But you miss out alllll of that and come in like there’s a bat signal saying, “warning! man in danger of experiencing consequences for mere disrespect of women!”

          6. Eldritch Office Worker*

            Organizations have values alignment. They have their own values and value statements. There’s a good chance this behavior goes against those values, being gendered and quasi-illegal. People and companies that have contradictory values often should part ways.

            All of that aside – this isn’t about values, it’s about behavior.

          7. Elbe*

            This could apply to literally every standard that we have in our society. Most values/rules/laws are subjective in some way.

            Shoplifting is relatively common, but that doesn’t mean that rules against theft are a “slippery slope” because some people have “different values” that allow them to take things that aren’t theirs.

            The fact that, in general, harassment is common makes it worse , not better. It means that more workplaces should take it seriously, not that they should ignore it. I think that you should ask yourself why “but some people want to do things that hurt others” seems important when the topic is harassment, but not when it is any number of other things.

            1. Eldritch Office Worker*

              This is actually a great example – I have zero issues with people shoplifting from large corporations. That doesn’t mean I can just do it and expect no consequences.

          8. Elbe*

            This is a truly bizarre (and not very good) argument.

            Just because someone has “values” doesn’t mean that a company has to allow them to act on those without consequences. There are plenty of people who have values systems that support all kinds of wrongdoing, and those people get fired or demoted or put on a PIP every single day. Most rules are in place specifically because someone wanted to do the opposite.

            Do you honestly think that any time an employee says, “Well, I personally don’t think this is wrong” a company has to demure, or else they are on a slippery slope to tyranny? Or is it only when women are being harassed?

          9. Pizza Rat*

            More like this dude lacks values. He doesn’t value women as fellow human beings, he doesn’t value someone else’s rights to have boundaries. He doesn’t value objectively decent standards of behavior like, “don’t randomly message someone who rejected you and say you’re masturbating to their picture.”

            and shitgibbon behavior like the LW can be a liability to an organization.

          10. Cranky Old Bat*

            Many many people share those values.

            That doesn’t give them the right to act in a predatory or harassing manner to people who might not share those (despicable) values. The law is pretty clear on that.

        2. 1-800-BrownCow*

          Yeah, I found that very disturbing. Sexual harassment is always wrong and has nothing to do with differing values.

        3. Vipsania Agrippina*

          The “different values” are about if women are people with rights or not.
          (I’m being sarcastic, of course)

      2. not nice, don't care*

        Most women know that many men have ‘values and priorities’ about women that are vile. Stop mansplaining male vileness to us.

      3. Nonsense*

        It probably pisses you off because Stuart loves to excuse men’s bad behavior as “a difference of values” every time a woman writes in about it and it just wouldn’t be right for a company to punish the poor man for his ~values.~

    8. CheesePlease*

      Being ok with personally harassing people is not a “different value” like believing in essential oils over vaccines. Respectful interactions with people is pretty core to a functioning business environment.

    10. ragazza*

      If nothing else, Stuart, this incident should show you the effect that men treating women badly in their personal lives can have on the professional sphere. The two are not always siloed. And the way men view women is not always siloed either.

      1. Jay (no, the other one)*

        It’s not siloed, full stop. Men who view women as objects outside of work will not relate to women appropriately in the office, and eventually that will show up somewhere.

        2. Anne Shirley Blythe*

          It often comes down to how skilled the men are at suppressing their Mr. Hyde personality–case in point, Dominque Pelicot.

    11. Eldritch Office Worker*

      “But it’s pretty obvious that suggesting that companies fire people for unpleasant stuff they do in their personal life is the slipperiest of slippery slopes”

      Nope, it’s not. For one thing – that’s perfectly legal. People who do things like post hateful speech or lewd content online are regularly fired if their employers find out. You aren’t creating a slippery slope when the reality is already common and operationalized.

      If you do things in your personal life that impact your employer – like being such a creep people don’t want to work at your company – that is absolutely a work related issue.

      This is a lot of bending over backwards to excuse this guy from the consequences of his actions.

    12. Strive to Excel*

      As much as we’d like to think so, it’s impossible to fully separate our ‘work’ and ‘personal’ lives. What we do in the one will impact the other. I get it – I keep my online persona strictly away from my real name, because I don’t want the first thing employers to see about me be my silly dragon drawings and minecraft debates. But the company is actively losing an applicant because of the behavior of this guy in his personal life. I would not be surprised to hear that this isn’t isolated. That’s no longer something that’s isolated to his personal life.

    13. linger*

      A slippery-slope argument should not prevent an org from taking action against perceived reputational threat. This employee’s actions arguably meet that bar, given we know potential hires like OP are hesitating as a direct result. But the org would need to have that information available, and from a relevant source: i.e. they should act on complaints from existing employees or clients, but are less likely to consider complaints from random members of the general public. So OP would likely only be heard after being hired herself, and probably only after some further abusive behaviour is documented, unless this employee is already under scrutiny. Which, by the same token, OP would not be party to. So we don’t yet have evidence either way of whether this org treats complaints seriously. Still it’s understandable if that’s something OP would rather not risk.

      For comparison:
      One former colleague was forced out because of something he did in his personal life.
      I’ll omit details except to be very clear that in this case no humans were directly affected,
      but (a) it was something that, in that jurisdiction, resulted in a criminal conviction,
      and (b) it made the news, so the org could not claim ignorance,
      and (c) the news coverage mentioned the org name. I suspect this was the deciding factor.

    14. Losing faith in humanity*

      You are, however, considering sexual harassment and “unpleasant stuff” people do in their private lives as equivalent, which, is certainly a take! An ugly, nasty, discriminatory take.

      Is this really who you want to be?

    15. Coffeebreak*

      For you it’s unpleasant, for all the women he’s harassed, it’s sexual harassment and traumatizing.

  9. Justin*

    I disagree with but understand why HR might ignore what would presumably be screenshot evidence from someone they don’t actually employ – they could say it’s doctored etc (I’m not saying this is a good argument, but I also know they wouldn’t want to be sued, even if they’d win the suit). If you wanted to do this without applying there, I think you’d need to work collectively with others, etc etc.

    Shameful this is potentially impacting your own trajectory professionally (let alone personally obviously)

    1. Olive*

      I think that it’s fair that the LW let it be known about how he treated her in the past – to HR, to her manager if she’s hired, to anyone she wants.

      I don’t think it’s fair to report him based on unvalidated Facebook posts made by people she doesn’t know. Not because it’s likely to be untrue, but for the LW, it’s hearsay from strangers that doesn’t directly relate to her or her job.

      While I do believe he is as much a creep to other women as he has been to her, I’d be very cautious to fire or even discipline someone for an online report that can’t be verified and can be faked. I had a vindictive person photoshop some information about me online and use it to try to threaten me. It’s easy to say “well he’s guilty and Olive is innocent so the response should be different”, but a company doesn’t know that and can’t necessarily resolve that.

      1. TheBunny*

        I think I line up closer to you on this. Do I hate it? Yup. Do I think we have to consider that online behavior on dating/hookup apps is potentially a different enough scenario that we can’t automatically say that is how he always behaves? I do.

        And FWIW I’ve seen women on those sites objectify the men they are talking too. I don’t think the way he behaves on those sites is 100% the end of the conversation…but it is something to consider.

        1. Hannah Lee*

          “And FWIW I’ve seen women on those sites objectify the men they are talking too”

          Apples – Oranges

          There’s a difference between “objectifying” someone … ie in your own space, gazing at a picture on the internet with your own thoughts, etc

          and

          Sexually harassing someone, sending them sexually explicit images, lewd comments they did not request, repeatedly and continuing to do so even when they tell you to stop, including creating new sock-puppet accounts to continue lobbing your home grown porn at them after they have blocked you.

          One of those two things is not just gross, mean, obnoxious, it’s illegal.

  10. Czhorat*

    That he followed her from multiple accounts makes his already terrible behavior even worse. I wish I had advise; the part of me that believes in justice doesn’t want OP to lose out on an opportunity for this creep, but I have no idea if having to face him would be worth it, and I have zero faith that a complaint would accomplish anything.

    I’d be inclined to *still* make the complaint so the jerk at least has to sit through one uncomfortable chat with HR, and maybe finds himself on thinner ice if he has a future transgression.

  11. Dawn*

    This is utterly unrelated but I don’t know where else to put it, but I just wanted to register that I’m actually finding the new grey font for questions really difficult to read, and I’m wondering if it’s just me.

      1. Dawn*

        Ah! It looks like this one is my fault(ish) – the font colour changed a while back, but my dark mode extension just updated and it’s not handling the lighter grey the same way it did previously. I only spotted it when I tried with a different browser (where I use a different extension to accomplish the same thing.)

        I should be able to tweak that myself, and I apologize for not checking it first. I woke up, loaded the site, and went, “Things are different! What gives?”

      1. Dawn*

        Thanks! I was curious if it was just me as well or if other people were also experiencing difficulties.

        My vision is kind of unique.

    3. Pippa*

      Not just you. It seems like a lot of sites are moving away from black text and I’ve been slowly dropping sites from my daily must-read roster as my eyes are no longer up to the grey text challenge for long.

      I’ve adjusted all the settings I can think of on my device: improved contrast, larger text font, bold text. Anyone have other tips for settings I can change for ease of viewing on an android phone?

        1. I take tea*

          That’s interesting, because I get stressed with dark mode and find it harder to read with my dim eyes.

          1. Dawn*

            Everyone is different, and that’s what’s great about all of the accommodation tools available in browsers nowadays – and also why my extension flipped out on me when nobody else’s did, because I have my settings very customized for my personal eyesight issues.

        2. TM*

          Dark mode does not help everyone, including me, alas. It can be a slight improvement if it increases the contrast value significantly compared to the original style. But otherwise, I find walls of light text on dark hard to read at length.

          I really wish more web/template designers these days paid attention to basic W3C and other accessibility guidelines – stark black on white isn’t great, but there’s plenty of scope before you end up with medium gray text on barely-lighter backgrounds.

          For those who prefer it, I do think all modern site templates should provide a user option to enable dark mode. And the reverse – there’s a new media site with dark backgrounds that recommends using browser “reader mode” if you don’t like the wall o’ black. Of course, that then nukes *all* the styles, which is a bit unsatisfying for a “premium” media site. One page also has inline Javascript navigation elements simply fails to load chunks of text in reader mode.

          1. Dawn*

            I use browser extensions to navigate this stuff, but I agree that sites should all have their own toggles, because the extensions are not always perfect (case in point.) I sometimes have to do a lot of tweaking to make a site readable to me personally.

  12. Loose Socks*

    Something to consider is that if he recognizes you, and he likely will, he may block your application. He knows his behavior is unacceptable, and he’s not going to want to bring someone on his team with the receipts.

    1. RagingADHD*

      Given that they never met in person, they last corresponded a year ago, and the same kind of creepiness seems to be his modus operandi, I think there’s at least a 50-50 chance he would have absolutely no idea they’d interacted before. The guys I’ve met who behave similarly don’t tend to remember individual women very well, because they never saw them as individuals in the first place.

      1. cynical sally*

        Wholeheartedly agree that this creep will not remember the OP (or any of the other women he has creeped on).

        I have no two cents to add other than to not let the creep hold you back as he hasn’t given you a second thought since sending his nasty message(s).

  13. Nook Nook*

    I’m so sorry, LW. I understand if you don’t, but I think you should still go for the job since it’s something you would love to do.

    There’s a chance that he might actually panic if he sees you are working there as well. Almost like it’s “too close to home”, and I’m certain he tries to keep his professional and gross personal life separate. This will blur the lines and might make him avoid you altogether.

    Of course creeps are creeps, and he could be this way at work too (bleh). But at that point, I’d document everything and get ready to report if/when things happen. I would think at that point if he stupidly to contact you from a social media account again, you could add that to your documentation. Good luck!

    1. Beverly*

      I’m actually wondering if he recommended you to the recruiter on purpose to get you to work there. I would certainly hope he’s not that “creepy” but it sounds like he could be.

  14. ecnaseener*

    Since this is a small field, do you know any women who work there, who you can ask about the company culture? You don’t have to mention that you know a particular person, but just get a sense of whether or not men are able to harass their coworkers without consequences at this company.

      1. DramaQ*

        I’d also put the company name through Indeed and Glassdoor to see what kind of reviews pop up. While you do have to take reviews on employer web sites with a grain of salt if there is a pattern to the posts I pay attention. See if anyone has said anything about company culture on those forums and I would in this case certainly bring them up if warranted.

    2. Quercus*

      Depending on the field’s culture, and OPs read of the situation, the company culture and tolerance for harassment is something they could bring up in the interview. The interview is for applicant to learn about the company, too, as Allison is always reminding us.

      One option is to say you saw harassment at a previous job directed at someone else (so you come across as someone interested in fair play, rather than someone looking to play the victim card), and wondered how this company handles it. What the interviewers say might let OP learn a lot.
      Of course, only if OP would be OK working at some level with gross dude as long as he behaves to coworkers

  15. HonorBox*

    OP, this sucks and I’m sorry. My advice is to not pass on the opportunity if this if it is something you’d be excited about if this guy wasn’t in the picture. Yes he’s an a**hat. You know going in that you might have to work alongside him. So you can ask questions about team dynamics and how closely people work together to gather a little more data for your decision. You also don’t know anything about how this guy approaches his work. We can assume … but we don’t know. For all we know he might be a crappy employee or hate the job and isn’t going to be around long. I hate that you’re having to think about this, but I also would hate it for you if you didn’t pursue it and found out two months from now that he got fired or moved across the country to become Mayor of Jerkville.

  16. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

    I would personally go for it, I am done allowing the bad behavior of others hold me back.

    Be polite and professional and document even the most borderline things.

  17. Bird Law*

    This makes me so mad- this should not be something that prevents a woman from working in a field or for a company that she wants to be in!

    I would go for the job, but with caution.

    First, I would remove as much location and personal contact information from my application materials as possible. Sharing an email address probably cannot be helped, but don’t put a home address on anything. If it would not stick out, I would also get a google voice number. We do not know what this sicko will get access to.

    Second, I would make sure that I would not be interviewed one-on-one by the sicko. It’s common in my industry to have .5 hour interviews in sequence with one or two interviewers. You need to confirm the names of the interviewers ahead of time. If this is scheduled, then it might be time to disclose in a very matter of fact way… “I see you have a half-hour scheduled one-on-one with John Sicko. I know Mr. Sicko because he once sent me inappropriate messages on social media, and attempted to contact me again after I blocked him. Can we remove him from the interview line-up?… Great! I really look forward to meeting the rest of the team!”

    Third, if offered the job is the first time I would ask about the position’s coordination and collaboration with Mr. Sicko would be, if I had not had to decline a one-on-one with him. I feel like Alison’s advice picks up everything I would do in addition to this list.

    1. Well-wisher*

      I like this script for setting up interviews to avoid a harrasser because it notifies the company of their harrassing employee subtly, and it lays out that this wasn’t just a matter of inappropriate wording on his part, but potentially stalking behavior. This is a reasonable step to protect yourself!

    2. anon here*

      I like all of this too. Make sure to hit the stalking angle.

      That said, LW, trust your gut. If the stalking (“keeps trying to contact me on a variety of platforms”) angle is giving you nerves, I think that’s very reasonable and you should honor that feeling. I can, unfortunately, see that being the initial red flag in a Worst Case Scenario Gavin De Becker version of this story.

  18. nameity name name*

    I would ask in the interview. How much I would want the job would be very different if I would be on a close knit, collaborative team of 4 and he’s one of the 4, vs if he’d be in a different department in a building with 200 people who I would only interact with occasionally.

  19. ElastiGirl*

    Try flipping the situation in your mind: You hold all the power here. You know about his skeevy behavior, and you have all the receipts. The second he steps out of line at work, you can bring him down.

    Don’t let this a**hole keep you from a potential dream job. Don’t let him have that power over you. You hold the cards, and he is playing a dangerously weak hand. Go for it, and see what happens. Good luck.

  20. Clearance Issues*

    my concern if you take it is if he then starts harassing you on a work platform.

    I saw a guy like this at my company (who did get fired for harassment) who messaged women repeatedly demanding coffee dates disguised as “networking.” HR intervened when he was finally reported. If you do interview and take the job, document all interactions with him in writing and get ready to go to HR.

    1. HonorBox*

      If he does harass her on a work platform, it is a hell of a lot easier to go directly to HR. At that point, the other harassment is germane to the conversation, too, showing ongoing harassment. That makes HR’s move even more clear cut.

    2. Dawn*

      We had a new employee join us once in a semi-supervisory role, and every interaction we had at first had some sort of sexual mention in it. Nothing direct, but after the first few times I was starting to get skeezed out.

      I brought it up to my manager – hesitantly because it’s so easy to doubt what you’re seeing in these situations – and it never happened again, fortunately.

  21. Sleeplesskj*

    You’re excited about the job. About let this idiot stop you from going for it. I’m willing to bet he’s a lot braver about being creepy to women online than a woman standing in front of him. And if he does or says anything remotely inappropriate, you’ve got plenty to go to HR with as backup. I’d say you actually have some power here.

  22. Bird Law*

    This makes me really mad. Bad behavior by a man costing the innocent person something. F this.

    I would go for the job with some extra caution, and adding to Alison’s comments:
    1. Remove as much contact information (especially your address) as possible. Maybe even get a google voice #. We don’t know what the team will have access to.
    2. Make sure that this creep will not be in a one-on-one interview. It’s common in my field to have six short interviews conducted by one or two people in a row. Get the lineup and if he’s there, you might have to say something. I would go matter of fact. “I see you have me scheduled alone with John Sicko. I know Mr. Sicko because he has sent me inappropriate sexual messages on social media and continued to contact me after I blocked him. Can we reschedule that block with a different colleague and remove him from the lineup?”
    3. You’re not the one whose behavior is embarrassing or shameful or potentially illegal. I would be matter of fact with bosses and HR about the circumstances after the offer is in. You should not have to work with him and it is HIS behavior that presents a potential liability issue for the company. Not you.

  23. Colette*

    I’m going to disagree with most of the commenters. This is a man who contacted you unprompted to sexually harass you, and then, when you blocked him, created another account to contact you.

    I don’t think you should take a job working with him under any circumstances. Maybe you want to go through the process to confirm you would be working with him, but if you are, that should be a hard no. He has repeated ignored boundaries; giving him more influence over your life is a terrible idea. It sucks that his behaviour would cost you a job opportunity, but I don’t think it’s worth the risk.

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      This is definitely a matter of personal risk tolerance. I wouldn’t let this stop me from pursuing a job I was otherwise interested in – men have been harassing me at work my whole career, it’s not something I can give up opportunities over – but I can absolutely see the argument for not inviting that into your life.

      You’re correct about the red flags, but whether or not they’re deal breakers is really a personal calculus.

      1. Colette*

        To me, what moves it from creepy to danger is the fact that this happened over months. That’s pretty disturbing, particularly when it’s someone you’ve never actually met.

    2. Helewise*

      I agree with this. It’s unfair, but I’m concerned about your safety if you were to work with him.

  24. Bunny Girl*

    Personally, I’d just be upfront with the recruiter and see where it takes you.

    “Sorry I’m really interested in working on the team, but one of the members is someone that has personally harassed me, and I have been given proof that he’s harassed others in a similar way, and I just don’t feel safe working with him.”

    I would definitely mention you had proof though, because hey, the recruiter might take that back to the team lead and it could turn into something. I definitely know there is value in being of the opinion that a jerk like this shouldn’t keep you from your job, but these predators often escalate their behavior, and I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable working with someone like that.

    1. Ana Maus*

      I like this course of action. Better to address it early in the process to see if it’s worth getting more engaged.

      I wouldn’t want to be in the same space as the man.

    2. Boof*

      Maybe I don’t really understand how recruiters work, but I thought usually they are third parties and I’m not sure it makes sense to bring it up to the recruiter? It makes more sense to me to bring it up at an interview stage when it’ll be more direct with the people they’re potentially working with.

  25. bamcheeks*

    LW, first question: are there any circumstances under which you’d take this job, short of That Guy leaving? If the company could minimise your interactions with him, would that work for you? Or would you not want to work there full stop whilst he’s there?

    I personally wouldn’t invest time and energy in applying and interviewing if there was no way I’d take the job short of him leaving, because that just seems too unlikely. However, if there was a reasonable expectation that I could ask the question, “How much interaction would I have with That Guy?” at a point in the interview and get the answer, “Oh, minimal”, OR, once offered the post, I could say, “I am very excited about the job, but my biggest concern is working with That Guy. Would it be possible to minimise my engagement with him?” and get a positive response, it could be worth applying.

    I’m thinking about the pregnancy letter from yesterday, where the company bent over backwards to reassure the LW that she wouldn’t be working with Pregnancy Phobic That Guy. If there is any chance that something like that could work for you, and you’re really excited about the company, I’d apply. If you don’t think there’s any realistic prospect of that, I wouldn’t bother. (But I might still feel very entitled to say at industry conferences, “Yeah, I saw that job and it looked amazing! I have had some very bad experiences with That Guy, unfortunately, and I didn’t want to apply for a job where I’d be working with him. C’est la crappy vie!”)

    1. HonorBox*

      The only thing I’d add… and it is something that I hate having to think about and suggest… at the point of the offer and asking about minimizing engagement with him, it should be worded in a way that the OP isn’t setting up some scenario in someone’s mind that makes the company think there’s going to be drama with both of them there. That shouldn’t have to be a consideration, but throwing in a caveat of “I’m of course going to do the job and work with my colleagues to the best of my abilities…” and then “but if there are ways to minimize interaction, at least 1:1 with this guy, I’d sure appreciate it.”

      1. bamcheeks*

        I think that depends on whether it’s a deal-breaker or not. If you are willing to turn down an offer if they can’t give you assurances that you won’t be working closely with him, I’d be upfront about that the same way I would be about salary requirements.

        (To be clear, my strategy here would be “How closely will I be working with X team” before an offer, and only, “Can you give me assurances that I won’t be working closely with X” after an offer. I wouldn’t ask that until the point where the company has made an offer.)

    2. Boof*

      If it’s a job LW would otherwise want, but creepy guy is indeed a dealbreaker, I do think LW should apply (for their own sake) but clearly state if interviewed their reservations about creepy guy. Then if the company doesn’t address it in a way that LW would feel good about working there, LW can walk away, but at least they know for sure it would be an issue and maybe puts the company on notice too that they have a problem employee.

  26. NoScrubs*

    Ugh. Gross.
    This might be somewhat helpful and another way to go.
    A few years ago I was on line dating and started talking to a guy. Before we even met up, he went WAAAAY stalker-y and made my very uncomfortable and a little afraid. He would NOT stop creepily messaging me.
    I looked up cyberstalking laws in my jurisdiction, and all I would have had to do is file a police report for cyberstalking, and then the police would do a whole bunch of awesome things, like go to his workplace with a subpoena for his internet use records (to see if any of the stalking had occurred there). I emailed him the law, with appropriate sections highlighted, and said that if I ever heard so much as a single word from him from now on, I’d file the report and the police would show up at his workplace. Dear readers, it worked! I never heard from him again.
    If the OP lives somewhere with similar laws, I would 100% do this. OP has standing from the dude’s previous actions to claim cyberstalking and have the police show up at the workplace–whether OP ever works there or not. I can’t imagine a decent workplace ignoring this kind of red flag–and hopefully either getting rid of the dude OR putting him under such scrutiny that he leaves.

    1. Strive to Excel*

      Fun fact: there’s an organization called the ACFE (association of certified fraud examiners) that puts a report on financial fraud out every two years. They break frauds down by a ton of different factors. One of those is how the fraud was discovered – internal audit, external audit, anonymous tipline, etc. One of the categories is “brought to attention by police”, which usually translates to “the police showed up for an unrelated thing and when we were examining this person’s stuff we found financial fraud as well”. Common comorbidity.

      As an aside, the anonymous tipline is by far the most bang-to-buck of all fraud discovery methods, and I recommend it *highly*.

      1. Christopher Davis*

        Reminds me of the “Al Capone theory of sexual harrassment”: https://hypatia.ca/2017/07/18/the-al-capone-theory-of-sexual-harassment/

        The short version of the theory: much like Capone was convicted of tax evasion rather than murder or smuggling booze, it can be easier to fire someone for employee misbehaviors like fudging expense reports than for sexual harrassment — and the two often go together because they’re reflections of that person’s sense of entitlement.

  27. Aggretsuko*

    I agree with Alison that I’d bring this guy up with the recruiter and say I’d love to take the job, BUT this guy is already harassing me outside of work and I’m concerned he does the same thing to female coworkers. Pointing out that working with this guy would dissuade you and probably others from taking the job may be as good as it gets.

    I would not take the job with a known sexual harasser. He already can’t stop himself (nor does he want to) from harassing, I’m sure he’d do it to her starting from day 1 at the job. Not worth it.

  29. DeskApple*

    This makes me think it would be an appropriate time for an anonymous submission of the screenshots to all their HR but I could see a smarmy guy saying it’s AI/edited.

  30. Madame Desmortes*

    If you take the job, OP — and I know you’re not nearly at that stage yet — there’s one other option you might try. It goes something like this:

    New colleague: … And this is Mr. Sicko, our associate llama groomer.
    OP, noticeably coolly: We’ve met, actually.
    New colleague: Have you?
    Mr. Sicko: Have we?
    OP, with a level stare at Mr. Sicko, still coolly: Why, yes. On social media. I’m sure you remember. I certainly do.

    Basically, you’re communicating “I remember you, Sicko, and I will take no crap from you here, so don’t try it.” In a way that does not force you to bring up the exact circumstances and is entirely work-acceptable. (Just don’t mention the dating site — say the generic “social media” instead.)

    1. cynical sally*

      omg, I love this but I have a take no prisoners attitude and am a fan of making it clear to people that I notice their wrongdoings

    2. I should really pick a name*

      Wouldn’t that just give him the chance to tell whatever version of the story he wants to tell first?

      1. Madame Desmortes*

        Possibly. But Sicko also knows that OP has (or at least could have) the goods on him — OP could easily have whatever screenshots or other evidence of it when it happened. Sicko doesn’t know about the Facebook groups, but he knows OP has direct evidence he was a gross jerk.

        From that Sicko can surmise that if he pulls crap on OP at work, OP will coolly gather evidence for HR.

    3. Tippy*

      I think this is one of those exchanges that sound better in our heads than in the real world. If I saw this as a third party observer all I would take from it is that the new person is weird.

      1. anon here*

        Agree, unfortunately, especially if I already knew and liked Sicko. (Which is theoretically possible; some creeps mask quite well.) Even if it all comes out to HR etc etc one day and Sicko is thrown out on his ear, it might not come out to the colleagues.

        1. Lizzie (with the deaf cat)*

          And predatory people groom supporters, as well as victims. Creepy guy may have already made friends with other blokes, and been nice to the women he works with. This is where he earns his living; his behaviour may be quite different there. Nevertheless the LW will always, justifiably, be on alert.

      2. Peanut Hamper*

        Or return this awkward to sender.

        OP, with a level stare at Mr. Sicko, still coolly: “Why, yes. On social media. You said you were masturbating to the head shot I posted to a dating site. Look, I still have a screen cap of it. Want to see it?”

    4. RagingADHD*

      Oh, no. I really don’t think that would come across IRL the way you envision it. It’s going to weird out the coworkers, and the creep is going to take it as encouragement – “Oooo, she remembers me!”

      (Like that meme of Jack Sparrow saying, “But you have heard of me!”)

      If he were vulnerable to embarrassment about his behavior, he wouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

      Either tell people what happened, or don’t tell them. Hinting around that you and he had a secret together isn’t going to accomplish anything positive.

    5. Rainmakers*

      I mean, if life were a movie then yes, this would work perfectly. But in all likelihood, bystanders would think the LW is the weirdo since she’s the unknown entity there and they wouldn’t automatically assume that the guy was being a creep to her on a dating website or other places. This scenario also doesn’t take into account that Creep Guy is an actual human (as opposed to an actor working off a script in someone’s head), who can and will respond however he’s going to respond. Up to and including everything from “I don’t know what the heck this crazy chick is talking about, I’ve never met her before” to “oh yeah I remember you—are you still obsessed with me??? Nice!!!”

      Scripts are nice when they’re in Hollywood but part of the what makes movies enjoyable is that they don’t really reflect real life.

  31. Lorna*

    If I were you, I would not let the thought of “what if” stop me from going for the job. Afterall, it’s your dream job. You have the advantage of knowing he’s there and be prepared for when/if he acts up and behaves like the douche canoe he clearly is.
    It’s so demoralising to see how much power some creepy individuals have over the way us women unfortunately NEED to think to protect ourselves.
    Always remember: YOU have the advantage now – use it! Best of luck with everything!

  32. cactus lady*

    I think I’m in the minority here, but I would not factor this person into my career decisions at all. (I didn’t always feel this way, but now that I’m 40 people like this can f right off and I will not pay any attention to them.) Who knows how long he’s even going to work there or what kinds of issues he might have as an employee. You’re giving him a lot of power if you pass on what could be a great career move (esp since it sounds like you’re not sure how closely this position would work with him). At least investigate it more and make an informed decision based on what YOU want, not based on some guy who is a creep.

    I also agree with the commenter who suggested researching your local cyberstalking and cyber bullying laws, and potentially reporting him to the police. Hopefully you have screenshots of his gross messages (and the posts in the Facebook group).

    Good luck and please update us!

    1. Ellis Bell*

      Eh, I don’t disagree; I absolutely could see a situation where I myself might say “eff him, I’m going for this job” with middle finger held aloft in his direction, but I can also see a situation where I would feel deep, unsettling, to the point of feeling unsafe, unease about being in his proximity day after day, just waiting for him to make his move on the creepy chessboard. I definitely can see why OP wants it to play out before going to work there, rather than after. So much of this stuff depends on how your gut reacts to the details of the harassment. Sometimes something overt doesn’t trigger your survival instinct, and sometimes something you logically think is minor has you totally skeeved. I will never forget feeling inexplicably freaked out by a guy staying late to talk to me. That was literally all that happened, but my neck hairs were on end. That guy actually ended up spreading rumours about me, and it got nasty so I’m not willing to shrug off people’s instincts; especially with the really alarming details OP has. I would at least want to know that it’s the sort of company that would have women’s backs in a nasty situation. He seems to think he’s invulnerable, so I would want to know if his company have ever given him that impression before going to work for them.

      1. Aggretsuko*

        Having been bullied, I think it’s a huge risk to go into a situation where management may not have your back and may have his back. Getting a firing on your record because this guy harassed you, or worse, isn’t worth it.

  33. Fluff*

    He is actively seeking women out on line to harass. He is not posting sexual or misogynistic content for us to find. One is ACTIVE and the other is PASSIVE.

    I am a big believer in a strong boundary in private lives, especially on line and your employer. It can be dangerous when the focus equates passive content vs active behavior. The person who is a drag queen in their private life should NOT be penalized in their professional work life for posting online on their private – not work – Facebook. The same standard applies if it is a person posting ick stuff like women should stay at home, not vote and birth babies on their private online accounts.

    HE is harassing women. He is seeking OUT people (women). When told no, he continues to perpetuate the behavior and try for contact.

    1. Please go for the job.
    2. If you like what you learn, ask about your professional expectations with him.
    3. And yes, you can absolutely mention his unwanted sexual behavior towards you from outside of work. Frame it as safety and how your roles intersect.
    4. If the answer is vague (and you are fine walking away) something like: “I recognized a man here who sexually harassed me online and tried to do so again. How do you make sure I as an employee will be safe and that his behavior remains professional with no contact outside of work?” Even if you walk away, that may help the other employees.

    1. Workerbee*

      Thank you for this. There is a disturbing quotient of commenters who miss the fact that
      a) This person is ACTIVELY CHOOSING to harass women, and
      b) That just because the commenter or people the commenter knows would be fine with it, the LW should be totes fine with it too.

  34. WorkInnit*

    I would report it anonymously as OP suggests via an ethics hotline.
    If they don’t act at all then you know that this is probably not a company you should work for.

    I would be very hesitant to mention it to the recruiter. Apart from the fact that you won’t know whether the recruiter will take it seriously or not, several studies around workplace behaviour have found that victims who report bullying or harassment by coworkers are often seen as the offender, despite all evidence to the contrary.
    Unfortunately shooting the messenger is very much still a thing in workplaces today.

    I would let them know anonymously and see if they let him go. You can always apply for a job at this company in a year or so.

  35. Jonathan MacKay*

    The unfortunate reality of being an adult is that there are STILL varying levels of maturity. It seems the creep has not advanced beyond the most basic level of civil behavior, which makes me wonder not only about what he’s like at work, but what his friend circle is like…. because that sort of behavior spreads if not contained…

  36. Meep*

    If he is as bad as he sounds (and he sounds horrendous), I wonder if he would even survive your interview timeline before he gets the can. If guys feel comfortable doing this months after the fact from brief encounters online, I am sure he is already harassing his female coworkers.

    Go through the interview process and see if the issue resolves itself first before you feel the need to figure out how to handle it. Especially if his resume implies he might be a job hopper.

  37. Insert Pun Here*

    On the one hand, I do think companies should give a crap if their employees are actively driving away qualified applicants due to being jerks.

    On the other hand, in two decades of working for a living, I have never encountered an HR department that I would trust to understand the nuances of this situation. (Individual HR people, yes; departments or institutional structures, no.) So many places I’ve worked would not see a difference between “John Doe [does stuff described in OP’s letter] which turns candidates away, so we’re firing him” and “John Doe is on the board of the local BDSM club, which turns candidates away, so we’re firing him.”

    To be clear, I see those as very different scenarios. But I definitely do not trust my employer, or previous employers, to see it that way.

    1. Insert Pun Here*

      With that said, I personally would probably interview for the job and if I got it, drag things out as long as possible and then decline, stating why, because I’m petty. (This is not my advice for the OP, just a possible course of action I find pleasing to consider.)

    2. Yes Anastasia*

      I imagine this is sometimes true, but I don’t see how this steers LW toward a particular course of action. “Corporate America conflates sexual harassment with non-normative but consensual behaviors” is not a reason not to report sexual harassment. LW and her potential future coworkers still deserve a safe and non-discriminatory work environment.

    3. CommanderBanana*

      I’ve never met an HR department I would trust, ever. I was literally sexually assaulted by a drunk attendee at an event I was running at my last org reported it to our HR department, was told he was being banned, then a few months was told that oh, whoopsy doopsy, not only was he not banned (which our dingbat HR director claimed she told me, but the best way to tell that woman was lying was if her mouth was moving), he was invited back to attend a program I had run for 6 years and I was taken off of it.

      I should have sued, but I didn’t feel like spending the next 5 years of my life in litigation, but when I quit I got a few months severance even though I was leaving of my own choice. It was basically hush money, but I took it.

      I’ve since been contacted by potential employees asking about the organization, and I don’t hold back, so at least I’ve been able to let other people thinking of working there know how fucked that place is.

  38. pally*

    Course we’ll never read the letter from the stalker fretting over the possibility of losing their job because their victims could very well out them to their employer.

    OP, please don’t let this scum deter you from getting the job you want.

  40. I'm just here for the cats!!*

    I would go for the interview and find out more. See if there are other women on the team that you can talk to and their prospective on not only him but the company in general and how well HR takes complaints. Who knows, maybe this guy is on a PIP and is holed up in a closet somewhere because no one wants to deal with him.

    maybe once you get further on you could give your concerns. Not anything explicit but say that you have a personal history with X and that you wouldn’t feel comfortable working closely or one on one with him.

  41. HelloWorld*

    I shared OP’s feelings. I once shared an office with a man who said sexist and racist remarks towards me week after week despite pointing out how the comments were inappropriate. I had the courage to tell HR. He denied all the accusations. I left the place altogether.

    Years later, I found out from 2nd degree connections that he works for a Fortune 500 tech company! I have the chat logs and written accounts, including the denying all accusations, on those interactions save on the cloud. I really wanted to involve a journalist to expose his actions but am afraid of he sues me in return. Unless he was verbally abusive to multiple individuals, it was obvious where the complain came from.

    If he becomes another James Damore (Google this name!), I would contact a journalist.

  42. Lou's Girl*

    I was recruited to work as an HR Director at a well-known firm. Several interviews in, I met with the CEO. We had a great discussion until he asked about Employee Relations. Specifically, he stated that hypothetically, if he had an employee who was their best salesperson and brought in millions of dollars, but no one would work with him, how would I handle it?
    I prodded more into what he meant, and he finally stated that this particular male employee has been known to ‘bother’ women (he never came out and said harass). I said that the employee needed to go. That maybe he brought in millions of dollars, but it’s going to cost them millions in lawsuits one day when employees, clients and vendors get tired of him, or he does something really egregious.
    I didn’t get the job. It kills me how many employers/ businesses turn a blind eye. Did he want me to say ‘ignore it?’

    1. Jonathan MacKay*

      You know, it occurs to me…. criminal organizations seem to treat their people better in this regard than actual legitimate businesses!

      ((Granted, their methods of addressing such situations are often in themselves illegal…. but what does it say about a culture that the darker side of it gets it more right?))

      1. Seashell*

        It could have been another reason that someone else got the job, but if this hypothetical was a deciding factor, then it was definitely a bullet dodged.

    3. Salty Caramel*

      Yes, I think he did want you to say, “Ignore it,” because profits are more important to some CEOs than people are.

      1. Jackalope*

        Which is part of what makes it so frustrating when you can show that keeping the missing stair around is causing the company to lose more money than it gains from them.

  43. maw*

    Given that he has created alt accounts in order to try to be inappropriate and get around the blocks OP has put in place, I would be very concerned about actually working with him where he’d have more access to OP’s personal. He sounds kind of stalkery. And even if the company were to take prompt action once documented, it would take time to experience, document, and have the company’s investigation/HR processes play out. And even if the HR is good, then dude would have an additional grudge against OP and more reason to keep harassing them in the non-work context.

  44. Elbe*

    I think that the LW should go through with the interview.

    It matters what level the guy is in the organization. If he’s in management (shudder), he will probably try to block her application if he recognizes her. And the LW would also need to be cautious in taking a role where he has influence over her pay/day-to-day tasks/future with the company.

    But if he would be her peer or below her in the hierarchy, the LW may be able to work with this situation if she really wants the job. Even if this happen outside of work, it would become a work issue when she applies or is hired. For example, take the AAM Hall of Shame letter about the guy ghosting his long-term girlfriend. Initially, that wasn’t a work issue. But it became a work issue when she was hired, and the company took action to make sure that no harassment took place. Something similar could happen here, if the HR team is decent.

    This goes above and beyond poor behavior. Creating a new account to continue to harass a woman you barely know, who has already blocked you… that is extreme. That goes beyond being a jerk or a boor and steps into stalker territory. Any company that employs a woman should care about behavior that is this bad, because there’s no way that it wouldn’t affect how he treats coworkers.

  45. Sunny Daze*

    Well, the LW is getting a lot of advice. LW, you can think about everyone’s suggestions, but you do what’s right for you. If you interview, and get the job, if he harasses you again, it is now one employee harassing another employee and a good HR should get involved in that. So, if you decide to interview, and things progress, try to figure out how good HR is. Oh, and I’m sorry this happened to you.

  46. Seashell*

    Unless I was in a situation where I absolutely needed a job, I think I would avoid this one.

    I think of it like a job where an annoying former co-worker or a mess of an ex-friend was working. Maybe you’ll be able to successfully avoid dealing with them, but maybe they will turn into a daily thorn in your side. Every job is likely to have someone that you’re not thrilled with, but you know for near certain that this not someone you will want to be around and he could be full-on creepy in the office. Unless it can be definitely ruled out that you’ll be around him, I wouldn’t volunteer for that.

  47. Dandylions*

    I am so sorry this happened to you OP! I had written out a longer comment with detailed suggestions but the page crashed while I was typing it up and it’s gone. I gotta get back to work but I still wanted to be sure and say that this sucks and you should feel free to ignore this guy and go for the job

  48. MaskedMarvel*

    I once was in the position of being approached by a recruiter for a company because the VP of sales there had recommended me from a previous company.

    the issue was the vp of sales was a thug and and bully, and had had a number of affairs with his subordinates (while married).
    He had left the company after an external investigation which involved a settlement to a subordinate.

    the issue was he still had a lot of influence.

    I kept having awkward discussions with the recruiter on why I didn’t want to interview

  49. Well-wisher*

    Oh, dear. This is so tough because you want to leave your door open to the best case scenario (you get the dream job, and he has already left!) while maintaining your safety in case of the worst scenario. I lost a classmate to a misogyny-driven murder, so I treat online harassment and stalking as potentially a life or death matter.

    Stay safe, within reason. The “within reason” part is important. I hope you thrive! If you don’t apply, the Good Opportunity employer will not know your value and you won’t know as accurately how good a fit it really is for you. Assuming that applying doesn’t bring you into contact with this man, I encourage you to show them what you can bring to the table, if not for this role now then for another role, another day. Maybe you use a temporary Google Voice phone number in the application; that costs you nothing.

    If you are offered a job, you can tell the employer the situation and see how they respond. Then decide, what brings you the best quality of life?

    Whatever you decide, if you are not feeling at peace with that decision, start reversing it. My guess though is that it will be easier to reverse the decision to turn down an offer for reasons of safety: you can apply again. And the employer should understand. If they don’t, maybe they are not such a good employer!

  50. Bob*

    Don’t be discreet, if this dumbass is so happy to be open in his behavior share it around.

    I’m sure his mother, sisters, boss and other in his social network would love to see his comments.

  51. Anonymous for this One*

    If it will help to hear about a similar-but-different experience, I’ll share. I’m trans and choose to mention this while interviewing because I don’t want to take a job where that’s a problem. In one interview, some years ago, I was told that there was only one transphobic person at the local office and that person was already in the process of moving to another state.

    I was told by multiple people that she made a hobby of harassing trans women online, creating new accounts to do so because she’d been banned from all the platforms for abusive behavior. She claimed this was a feminist position and frequently expressed dislike of men to the point where she’d choose abortion if a sonogram showed she were pregnant with a boy.

    As luck would have it, within a few months, that’s the person I was working closely with. She liked working with me a lot and did not know I was trans until she’d already invited me to work on a particularly high-profile project with her. It was uncomfortable, but I needed the job and several layers of people were keeping an eye on her behavior, so she kept herself in check.

    What made this work, though, was that people knew she was bananapants and kept that close watch on her. If she had felt empowered to spout bigoted nonsense in my presence, things would have gone very differently.

    Allies make all the difference, and this guy sounds like he is either socially inept or simply entitled enough that other people would have noticed and you might be able to close ranks with some allies and prevent his ever being in a position to bother you again. Doing some homework on the company would be smart – is it the type of place that has a robust culture of listening to women and minorities or is it an old boys’ network?

  52. No Boom Today. Boom Tomorrow.*

    Man I really don’t want to be That Person, but if there’s any chance that the “innovative work in our field” is referring to the latest big hype in tech, and it’s one of the big-name companies focusing on that, I promise that guy will not be the only creepy guy there. :(

    1. No Boom Today. Boom Tomorrow.*

      I also want to clarify that I’m not making an assumption that guys who work in that area are more likely to be creepy guys, I’m saying that there are specific known creepy guys at a couple companies.

  53. BellaStella*

    If the firm has an anonymous ethics line, screenshot and link to his posts on all platforms. Then send in a complaint noting it is as a group if women he is harassing. Ask does their firm condone this as it shows the firm in a bad light, discourages qualified candidates and is likely happening at work to some women he works with and they should ask the women.

  54. Shiny Penny*

    It’s really demoralizing (and politically/socially harmful) when this type of situation is minimized by well meaning people. They overlook (choose to overlook?) the actual literal threat of personal harm involved. And they prioritize the transgressive person over the person who is being harmed.

    This guy’s behavior is not just “unpleasant stuff” or a “personal quirk.”
    His behavior involves targeting a woman who interacted with him once in an extremely limited way, and who made every effort to cut all ties as soon as his “unpleasantness” was revealed.

    His “personal quirk” requires an unwilling second party.
    His “unpleasantness” involves ***hunting down*** that unwilling second party months later, thereby establishing the fact that long term hunting is part of his “personal quirk,” which is a significant escalation and reduces the safety of the unwilling second party going forward, for an unknown duration and to an unpredictable degree.

    Then some really uncomfortable questions arise:
    Does his “personal quirk” include the desire to escalate to an in-person confrontation?
    Will suddenly occupying the same physical space cause him to escalate to ***physically** recruiting the unwilling second party?
    His observed behavior (his own actions/choices) result in all these new options being on the table, and the LW cannot know what’s the limit of this guy’s “unpleasantness.”

    This is much more like a guy threatening someone at a bar with a knife, and then tracking that person down months later in the grocery store to threaten them with a knife again out of the blue.

    In fact, I think it would be really helpful if more people substituted “threatening with a knife” when interpreting situations where one person is recruiting an unwilling second party for their own sexual purposes. I think it captures the fact that there’s obviously a gradient of severity, but that the inherent threat to safety is unknown, and is always “up to and including death.”

    I do think most people would agree that if someone’s “personal quirk” is that they enjoy threatening people with knives, **it’s not ok.**

  55. Leave Hummus Alone*

    OP, I’m so sorry you’re in this situation. If you do apply, please make sure you don’t put your home address on your resume, which might get floated by Sicko Stalker to review in the interview process. For example, I live in northern VA and I just put “DC area” for address, rather than city, state even. You might even get away with only putting your email instead of phone number. The less ways Sicko Stalker has access to your personal information, the better.

  56. Lizzie (with the deaf cat)*

    Am only a third of the way down the comments, apologies if someone has already posted this quote:
    ‘By the “Not all men” logic, RussianRoulette is a perfectly safe game to play. Sure, one of the chambers has a bullet in it….. but not all of them.’

    2. Boof*

      Holy crap, now we’re at someone has a 1/6 chance of murdering you because of their gender. Fantastic.

      1. Lizzie (with the deaf cat)*

        Well, Boof, I think the quote offers another way of looking at the “not all men” concept. Clearly not all men are a threat to any particular woman’s survival. But how does she discern whether a particular man will be a threat? Here in Australia about one woman a week is murdered by a man known to her- most commonly a current or ex partner. One child a fortnight is murdered by a man who is either a father, stepfather, or boyfriend of the child’s mother. In the USA, the leading cause of death for pregnant women – greater than the risks of pregnancy – is murder by a current or ex partner. That’s a devastating piece of reality to acknowledge.
        There’s a book often recommended here – The Gift Of Fear, by Gavin De Becker. It’s about acknowledging the existence of personal risk in the world, and figuring out which behaviours by someone are more likely to lead to you being harmed, and which are less likely. It’s an interesting book to read, De Becker and his company do protective body guarding of actors, politicians etc amongst other things. You might enjoy it.

  57. Poppy Cat*

    I once worked with someone who I found out was an active participant on some women-hate subreddits. I didn’t find out until I was getting a new job elsewhere. It did explain a few incidents. In retrospect, I would have absolutely still taken that job and worked with him, mostly knowing that it is his problem, not mine, and trusting that I could have involved management if necessary.

  58. Boof*

    OP please
    — go ahead and apply to the company. I agree this jerk shouldn’t stop you before you’ve even begun!
    — if you are hired, consider giving HR a heads up on this guy’s behavior
    — depending on the vibe you get when interviewing, feel free to nope out earlier in the process, or stress test how sexual harassment is handled if that would be a dealbreaker for you. Maybe even ask about it in the interview process; expect they’re probably going to be a bit blindsided but if it’s a dealbreaker why not bring it out and say “hey, I applied becuase I’m really interested in this company but I couldn’t help but notice this guy who was an extremely creepy jerk to myself and multiple other women works here. I am of course a little concerned about that.” Again, it depends on how much having this addressed will impact your willingness to work there at all, but I hope you at least apply and see how it goes.

  59. Peter the Bubblehead*

    Were I a job recruiter or hiring manager who went through the entire process with the OP only to have her turn down the job offer and tell me the reason why is because she knew of this current employee working there, I would be MUCH more upset at OP for wasting my time and resources (not to mention potential employment of someone else) just to make a statement than I would be at Creep for what he does outside of company time.
    If you want to work for this company but the idea that working with Creep is a non-starter, either don’t apply and live with your choices or mention it right at the start in hopes Creep has a reputation and your complaint might be what the company needs to get rid of him. But don’t wait until the end of the process and then tell them no.

Comments are closed.