Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Home Back Issues No. 16: Managerial: Avoid Postdoc Advances?

Feb 15
2010

No. 16: Managerial: Avoid Postdoc Advances?

Posted by: PIA in

Tagged in: Untagged 

Sign Up to receive free weekly articles like these

Managerial:

Avoid Postdoc Advances?

Reader Question: I'm one of the few bachelor PIs left on in our institute. Recently an attractive postdoc strongly hinted she was socially "available" for me. I do not wish to pursue the matter. But in case she proves vindictive, or imagines more exists than really does, should I make a written note, or “whisper” to the Dean or anyone else?

Expert Comments:

Your cautious instincts are correct here. Relationships in the workplace can create legal havoc for managers. To help you avoid any potential issues, you should report her actions to the human resources department or to whomever is responsible for sexual harassment (SH) complaints.

What -- you may be asking-- does this have to do with SH? Let me provide quick review of this subject. There are two types of SH, quid pro quo and hostile work environment.

Quid Pro Quo exists when there are unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, or as the basis for employment decisions affecting her/him. So this is the situation in which a manager says to a subordinate “sleep with me or you will be fired”.

Hostile work environment SH exists when there are unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature and such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. So this is the situation in which a group of employees make others feel uncomfortable based on their sex, race, religion, sexual orientation or other protected class. Although it is usually co-workers who create a hostile work environment, PIs can also engage in it. For instance if you made inappropriate sexual remarks to her, you could be creating a hostile work environment for her. She could be creating a hostile work environment for you by “coming on to you” and not accepting “no” for an answer.

Both types of SH could be involved here. If you believe her “strong hints” that she was “available” for you were offensive and pervasive she could be creating a hostile work environment for you. Anyone in the lab -- not just employees -- can create a hostile work environment. Even repeatedly asking someone out on a date could create a hostile work environment if such requests are unwelcome.

If you do not feel that her hints were offensive but are just concerned that you protect yourself in case she “proves vindictive” (this could involve quid pro quo SH if you are her PI and she works for you) discuss this with the Human Resources Department so that they are aware of what happened before she claims that there was an inappropriate relationship between the two of you.

Relationships in the workplace can cause huge legal problems for you as a PI. Although both types of SH require that it be “unwelcome” it is often the case that a consensual relationship today becomes unwelcome and unlawful “tomorrow”. The postdoc or lab tech gets “dumped” and now alleges that in fact the relationship was not consensual but rather was the PI saying “sleep with me or you will be fired” and the only reason that the subordinate agreed was because they were afraid of losing their job.

In fact, some employers now require that before a manager can engage in a relationship with a subordinate they sign what is called a “love contract”. In this contract, both parties agree that the relationship is consensual and not due to any harassment. This prevents either party from claiming that it was unwelcome and constituted harassment later on when the relationship turns sour

You should also be aware that in most states, managers can be held personally liable for harassment in which they engage. This means that you as PI could be held personally liable for a monetary damage aware in addition to your employer being liable. So protect yourself by advising your Human Resources department so there is a record of what happened before the lady in question makes any unfounded allegations against you as a result of your rejection of her advances.

Principal Investigator Advisor tackles a similar topic in the March issue article Lab Romance Requires Careful Attention to Workplace Dynamics, Myriad Rules and Regulations".

Comments by Melissa Fleischer, Esq, a management-side employment law attorney with over twenty years experience and founded HR Learning Center LLC.

She is also the principal speaker of the upcoming Tuesday, Feb 23rd audioconference Workplace Violence: Lessons Learned. This emergency seminar is especially timely after yet another deadly research workplace violence attack occurred at University of Alabama-Huntsville over the weekend. Researcher, Amy Bishop, Ph.D, supposedly disturbed at tenure decisions, allegedly opened fire in a department faculty meeting killing three and wounding three others.

Like other tragic incidences, Bishop's history showed a warning sign: strong dissatisfaction that her tenure had been denied. Detailed re-examination of the suspect's past history revealed her participation in the 1986 shooting death of her brother had been ruled "accidental". More recently, she had been a suspect in a 1993 letter bomb case to a Harvard Medical School professor.

Many incidents of violence have common warning signs but these can be hard to pinpoint. Scientists, especially, can be "normal", though quirky. Join Melissa as she walks you through the difficult task of differentiating eccentricity, from simmering anger, and violence proclivity. She will discuss such limited tools as are available for predicting aberration.

Please beware: There is no simplistic or easy answer, and we do not promise such...but you owe it to yourself and your research colleagues to learn about when and how a colleague or co-worker "snaps" into violence.

These comments are provided for informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed to constitute legal advice. Please consult your attorney in connection with any specific questions or issues that may impose additional obligations on you and your company under any applicable local, state or federal laws.



Enjoy this article? Sign Up to receive these free every week


[ Back ]
Comments (40)
...
written by Anonymous, February 05, 2010
Don't see a problem if she is attractive. It would be much worse if she were ugly. To hell with your miserable career! Have your friend handy to admit paternity, though.
...
written by Anonymous, February 09, 2010
Keep as far away from her as possible! Write down a summary of all interactions, verbatim if possible. Try to not be in situations where you and she are the only ones in the lab/room. Good luck!
...
written by Anonymous, February 09, 2010
Everything that happens will be considered to be your fault. Fifty years ago, it was the other way around -- women were held responsible, and men were not. Today that situation is reversed. Avoid private conversations with her, document every interaction, and if your immediate boss has any character, share everything with him or her. The higher you look in your administration, the more you will find people who are fearful of bad publicity, terrified of lawsuits, and who grovel in the presence of angry women. Never think that they will treat you fairly.
...
written by GWSW, February 09, 2010
This situation has at least the potential to become problematic; however, it probably does not make sense to involve others (such as the Dean) unless necessary. I would agree with Anonymous to document all events that wold be of potential concern. However I would recommend that you formalize this document by writing a "Memorandum to the Record" summarizing your potential concerns. Have this Memorandum notarized and keep a copy in a secure place. If updates are needed, do so and have them notarized as well. Only in the event that adverse events were actually to transpire would it then be necessary to disclose these documents in your own defense. In the meantime, avoid placing yourself in "awkward" positions in which at least one individual in addition to this post-doc would be present.
...
written by Anonymous, February 10, 2010
I think you flatter yourself too much! It seems awfully premature to talk to the Dean in a paranoid way, just because someone likes you! Lighten up.
...
written by Codger, February 13, 2010
When we were teenagers going on dates there used to be a somewhat orderly progression of intimacies. These were "First Base", "Second Base" etc, and--dream on--"Home Run". I would venture it is not necessary to notify the Dean if you and the grad student are merely at "Third Base", or if in a freak play you stole "Home". Perhaps some grad students could enlighten us how this timetable for Dean notification would apply in today's world of instant "hookups"?
...
written by Anon, February 16, 2010
I have a number of attractive and highly intelligent female postdocs. In addition to their excellent scientific work and communications, they serve as a sort of harem for me. I find it to be relaxing for all involved, making for a pleasant work environment that keeps us busy for longer than average lab hours.
...
written by Fearful, February 16, 2010
It's a bad thing to be the male in this situation. It is unlikely you will be treated fairly. Be so very, very careful. It is a sad thing FOR WOMEN that the pendulum has swung so unfairly in their direction. This "rational paranoia" is what gets them excluded from off-line conversations where the real science happens.
...
written by anonymous , February 16, 2010
I do not understand why you need to report it! If you are not interested, just tell her that you are not. If she can communicate to you that she is interested, you should be able to communicate to her that you are not.
...
written by Zeke, February 16, 2010
I (male) have had to deal with these kinds of advances several times over the years. By trial and (terrible) error, I have come up with a simple and effective approach. Just be a friend, keep it very platonic, and never get pulled into conversation about anything personal. If she brings up personal feelings, desires, etc., just pull one of those, "Oh, look at the time! I've got to go." Eventually, she will get bored with waiting for you to do something and move on to more productive pursuits.
...
written by Anon, February 16, 2010
If you are going to make a statement that this woman came on to you, you'd better make sure its not your male ego talking and you'd better be prepared to have ample evidence to prove it. Discrimiation like this is rampant and you need to have proof that this was done - otherwise, your behavior is libel. Period. Worse, EEO needs to have a look at these comments above - and note that this is a problem in science. One person above refers to his female post docs as a "harem"???? Another comment about whether she is "attractive" or "ugly" - yet the orignial complaint makes only a vague representation that the woman "suggested her availability"...What exactly was said? Was it clear, or was it your ego's interpretation?
...
written by one PI to another, February 16, 2010
It is a sad situation that a simple expression of interest is laden with so much baggage. I agree with the last ""anonymous"" that your first response should be to communicate your lack of interest in her. Science is lonely, yes, but most scientists can take a simple kindly rejection. Yes, record your conversations with her, date them, sign them, and perhaps even have them notorized. But unless it is clear that she is still misreading you, there is no need to go to your Chair or Dean. Comments from Codger and Anon about the harem are inappropriate.
...
written by PI, February 16, 2010
I agree with those who say to document events and keep your own file on this matter. However, based on what I've read, I don't think it's necessary to involve the Dean or HR unless it ramps up to the level of harrassment, which would mean continued advances from the post-doc despite being told "no". Her physical appearance should have no bearing on the case and I find it interesting that it was mentioned in the original letter.
...
written by samcat, February 16, 2010
Ms Fleischer's comments might be right on in the legal world, but the fact is according to recent studies the workplace is quickly becoming the place to find a mate. How does one distinguish between mild annoyance for learning that one is ""socially desirable"" and ""SH""? I for one would be flattered but that's a typical male reaction. Speaking of males, we as a sex are often not very good at reading females. Ask any male..they will tell you a story of how ""she came on to me..I thought she was interested"" only to find the very opposite. I can tell you if a female ""read"" me wrong (i.e., felt that I was somehow socially interested) and ""reported"" me I would fight like a bear and bring all legal, academic etc. resources to my disposal to clear my name. So it is not quite as clear cut as Ms. Fleicher would present. My 2 cents is..everyone lighten up!
...
written by anon, February 16, 2010
Gosh. No wonder Americans have relationship problems. If you have to invoke a lawyer everytime you flirt or go out with someone.... That is if Americans would know how to flirt in the first place. The one, two three thing says it all.
...
written by Anonymous, February 16, 2010
A beautiful young woman is making eyes at you over the lab beakers and your immediate reaction is anxiety that she may become irrationally vindictive if you don't honor her with your sexual attentions? If this does happen, you should apply immediately to play the role of James Bond. Mere mortals can do labwork. A chic magnet of that magnitude is a god.
...
written by George, February 16, 2010
Good Grief! Simple adult comunication - ""I'm not interested, but thank you for the compliment. Now let's get to work."" The institution will trump the individual every time - keep the dean and all administrative officials out of it. They want to protect themselves, not you. Document, sure, but don't politicise. Common sense.
...
written by Anonymous, February 16, 2010
Your entire career is at risk, and strong measures are required. Here is a safe thing you can do. Find the most conservative churches or religious groups in your area, and hang around with them enough that you can spout a few Bible verses at appropriate moments. If that doesn't kill her interest, then try inviting her to a church service. If that fails, try dropping some comments about how you have changed your life, and now you want to have physical relationships with only one woman, and you hope to marry a virgin. Then if she still doesn't flee from you -- well -- maybe you will win a virgin.
...
written by PI in MD, February 16, 2010
To me (female) it sounds like its way too premature to take any actions, but take precautions. Do not respond to her advances (agree with Zeke), have open lab meetings (others present), dont be with here alone in a room. Keep all interactions stricktly professional, refrain from personal communications/remarks. Only if she continues to express these personal feelings talk with your supervisor / division chief and then HR. Follow their advice.
...
written by Duncan, February 16, 2010
This is an example of where the lawyer's advice is harmful. Lawyers are trained to deal with the major problems that are worth litigating. This example does not fit this category for me. Boy meets girl is a part of being human and we are all skilled at it or we would not have survived as a species. A lifted eye brow, a braoder smile, a longer hand shake or their opposites can be signals toward or away from a relationship. Use all these skills. If they still do not work then tell this forward person the truth in the kindest way possible. You could lie, ""I am planning to soon enter the priesthood"" but I dont recommend dishonesty. The goal of the founders of America was to create Philadelphia or ""the city of brotherly love"". I think this remains an ideal for the academic centers we work in. Your response will or will not promote such an ideal environment, not the filling out of forms or going to lawyers which should be the last resort and reflect a failure of the organizational culture.
...
written by kai, February 16, 2010
Agree with Zeke. There's a bit of paranoia involved and perhaps some geekiness & inexperience. Simple human decency and people skills should do the job.
...
written by Director, February 16, 2010
I disagree with this advice. The person (PI) should first review institution policy. Then, if policy does not require notification of a supervisor, he should tell the post-doc that he is not interested or that he finds this a conflict of interest. He can then document this discussionin a file in the chairman's office. Bringing this forward to the dean may require a formal harassment investigation when none is needed. Harassment really should be viewed as an act or behavior that is a persistent problem or single egregious act following warning or in violation of policy.
...
written by Lipstick Lady, February 16, 2010
I am shocked at the sexism peeking through so many commnents by, putatively, male scientists. Obviously a bunch of cold fish who haven't had a hot date in a while. Did't anybody ever hear of "Love at first sight", or even love blossoming over time through professional camraderie? There are many famous and happy couples in research. Thank Heaven the sex police were not around to veto their attraction to each other.
...
written by OldTechie, February 16, 2010
It was not clear if this post-doc worked for the PI (this makes all the difference). 1) If he is the supervisor, he should nicely tell her that regulations forbid relationships for supervisors (note that even if such a relationship worked out, it then becomes nepotism). 2) If she works in an independent lab, then this enters the arena of workplace romances (many believe the problems may outweigh the benefits, but who an tell when love bites). In either case, going to HR seems like overkill unless there is some flag present (e.g., personality disorder; history of obsessive relationships; etc.). It would seem that one could simply document a conversation with an impartial third party like the Chair or Director (and of course, keep good personal records). Otherwise, it causes embarrassment for what should simply be considered a compliment.
...
written by Anonymous, February 16, 2010
Dear Colleagues: This matter has happened since the human being created “Power Structure” One of my supervisor (Dean) had gone for it. He further got married with her. By the time I took a post-doc position with HIM, she was the “boss” but he was the BOSS (in addition of being the most powerful authority in that school). At that time, the story was repeated again with another post-doc. This lady, made (through this Dean) the whole crew (about 14 guys including technicians, students, and postdocs) to work for her. She got a good collection of papers in prestigious journals as first author always, at the expense of the whole lab. Just a very few others were included. What the Dean had in change...? Eventually the Dean’s wife (the ‘boss”) managed to get rid of her. She was THE MASTER. The Dean continues and enjoys his very successful career doing what he pleases. I saw this so many timeS! The button line is: Dear PI, WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO BE? IF YOU INTEND TO BE A SCIENTIST YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO. IF YOU INTEND TO ENJOY ALL BONUSES FOR BEING IN CHARGE AND KNOW HOW TO GET AWAY WITH IT, WELL GO FOR IT. Law, ethics, morality? It doesn’t matter. Let me remind this: “YOU ARE DELINQUENT ONLY WHEN YOU ARE FOUND GUILTY”
...
written by RKS, February 16, 2010
This is a simple matter in my point of view- modern society has made such a big deal out of these things. Deal with it in the same way that other people do or should do anyway. Next time she makes an inappropriate advance, just tell her politely that you're not interested. Thank her for her interest and even tell her if you want to that you're flattered but really not interested. If she persists beyond that, only then go to HR. I think this is the normal way to approach these situations. Somehow, my intuition tells me that things have already progressed beyond what you have written- it is odd that you should have felt the need to mention that she is "attractive" as if that has any bearing on the matter. Are you perhaps concerned that she may go to HR first if you reject her after perhaps some pre existing understanding on her part that you actually are interested and have now changed your mind ? Anyway, I'm just talking out loud trying to figure out why you felt the need to mention she's attractive.
...
written by digitest3, February 16, 2010
hello there
...
written by digitest4, February 16, 2010
hello there
...
written by Anonymous, February 16, 2010
Zeke and Duncan are closest to the mark. Simply display a consistent lack of interest and she will lose interest. If she becomes more direct, tell her you are already involved in a committed relationship. A small lie perhaps, but avoids offending. On the other hand, if you report her to HR, they will read her the Riot Act, causing embarrassment and humiliation and lasting animosity. She will tell her friends what happened and you will be loathed. And why offend someone who actually likes you? She has done nothing wrong. Lab romances are the traditional means by which scientists procreate. There must be some reward for all of this!
...
written by @RKS, February 16, 2010
Yeah, I also wondered about the mention that she's attractive. How is that relevant? I finally decided it was because the whole thing is probably a joke rather than a serious inquiry.
...
written by Doc Manager, February 16, 2010
Is this a real question by a PI that is concerned about the advances of an "attractive postdoc"? If so, would the same advice apply if the advances were being made by an ugly postdoc? How about an attractive male postdoc....or, heaven forbid! An ugly, male hamster! Yikes! Seriously though, how can I appreciate this PI's situation when s/he is sooooo concerned about her/his situation as to point out the attractiveness of the postdoc?
...
written by Victor, February 17, 2010
Come on, guys, we are indeed a sick society. Although some of us even said something like "Lab romance, what's a big deal?", but why is such a reaction on the word "attractive"? Isn't it just a most literal way to better describe a situation? Or are we all already under investigation and have to sign an affidavit?
...
written by Anon, February 18, 2010
I've been accused of harassment by a woman to whom I had spoken only a handful of polite greetings in passing. Other men I've know were denied promotion or transferred because a female competitor they hardly knew complained of "being uncomfortable." There do exist plenty of sick psychopathic and self-deluded females who relish the notion of irreversibly harming any man because they have been taught unadulterated gender hatred by feminist academia. Half the men I talk to have been injured in their careers by some woman making a nutcase accusation without any provocation whatsoever. Yet with all of this negative experience, I still can't see any reason to destroy this woman's career with a harassment complaint simply because she said she was free for a date. Filing a complaint is what the evil power-mad self-deified women do. Don't be like them. Rise above it. This post-doc hasn't done anything to harm you. Just tell her you just want to be friends. Simple. As for her attractiveness, it has *everything* to do with this case, because if this woman were to file any kind of vindictive complaint, her attractiveness might help people believe her any false complaint that she was harassed. But again, she hasn't done anything. As long as no other men report any false-accusation problems with her, simply tell her you'd like just to be friends. And as always, as a matter of common sense self-preservation, never enter any room alone with a woman, especially if the door will be closed. They won't all invent some unprovoked false accusation against you, but some will. Common sense is not the same as paranoia. Just wait in the hall until some other folks arrive, or if the meeting is one-on-one, just hold it in a public place.
...
written by notparanoidatall, February 19, 2010
I think the PI's question is not only reasonable but very sensible. In 95% of cases, the post-doc will be a perfectly normal person who might be disappointed when the PI doesn't respond to her hints, but would never attempt retaliation. However, in 5% in cases she might have a borderline (or perhaps narcissistic or antisocial) personality disorder and react in a vengeful rather than rational manner. Most individuals with serious personality disorders can lie better than normal people can tell the truth (there is even research about this so mine is an evidence-based statement!), so it's not at all farfetched that others would believe them. It's certainly worth taking precautions in order to avoid the risk (although 5% is a low probability, you have to multiply by the conditional cost of a sexual harassment charge to get the unconditional expected cost of doing nothing). In my opinion, the best thing to do is to go to the university ombudsperson and ask confidentially about the best way to document the facts in case documentation is ever needed. In my experience, the ombudsperson would never confront the post-doc without explicit permission from the complainant (and even then perhaps not), but this would certainly provide an external witness to the fact that the romantic contact was undesired. So I see no down side to doing this, other than modest time expenditure. At any rate, good luck to the PI (and my respect as a female faculty member that the PI chose not to take advantage of an attractive woman in a vulnerable position).
...
written by notparanoidatall, February 19, 2010
I think the PI's question is not only reasonable but very sensible. In 95% of cases, the post-doc will be a perfectly normal person who might be disappointed when the PI doesn't respond to her hints, but would never attempt retaliation. However, in 5% in cases she might have a borderline (or perhaps narcissistic or antisocial) personality disorder and react in a vengeful rather than rational manner. Most individuals with serious personality disorders can lie better than normal people can tell the truth (there is even research about this so mine is an evidence-based statement!), so it's not at all farfetched that others would believe them. It's certainly worth taking precautions in order to avoid the risk (although 5% is a low probability, you have to multiply by the conditional cost of a sexual harassment charge to get the unconditional expected cost of doing nothing). In my opinion, the best thing to do is to go to the university ombudsperson and ask confidentially about the best way to document the facts in case documentation is ever needed. In my experience, the ombudsperson would never confront the post-doc without explicit permission from the complainant (and even then perhaps not), but this would certainly provide an external witness to the fact that the romantic contact was undesired. So I see no down side to doing this, other than modest time expenditure. At any rate, good luck to the PI (and my respect as a female faculty member that the PI chose not to take advantage of an attractive woman in a vulnerable position).
...
written by Nanosex, February 21, 2010
No wonder the public thinks most PIs are weird! In what other field would the compliment "attractive" be considered a term of opprobrium in describing a woman? Please remember the bell-shaped curve. What is "attractive" to one scientist may not be at all appealing to another. Ever notice how many of your colleagues' mates you yourself would NEVER have married. Who cares? Do you want your associate to mary someone he/she actively thinks is "ugly"? I hope not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I hope you, personally, always find your partner "attractive",however you define that term. Or, as my old grandmother used to advise, "There's a lid for every pot".
...
written by Harvardian, February 21, 2010
Does anybody know if Louis Pasteur or Francis C----- ever "took liberties" with their lab assistants or students? Does anybody care? What about Madame Curie? Vive l'amour!
...
written by Dr. Objective, February 21, 2010
Why don't the NIH and NSF make a grant or two for bonafide research on this topic? The results might increase science enrollment 100%--or kill it.
...
written by Dontaskdonttell, February 22, 2010
Everybody's pussyfoooting around the most delicate question of all. Well, believe me, it happens. A crypto-gay postdoc "came onto me". What an embarrassment all around. However,on our campus an even worse sin than sex exploitation is alleged "homophobia". Who the heck should I report to in case of vindictiveness? Are you kidding? It cost me a few bucks, but I went to a lawyer in town just in case an accusation were filed later.
...
written by getalife, February 23, 2010
> Fearful > It is a sad thing FOR WOMEN that the pendulum has > swung so unfairly in their direction. This "rational paranoia" is what gets them > excluded from off-line conversations where the real science happens. > Feb 16 2010 6:27AM Some of the comments (as the one quoted here) reflect the blatant sexism in this discussion. So male paranoia and big male egos lead to women being excluded from "off-line conversations where the REAL science happens"? Since when does REAL science only happen in "off-line" (I assume over a beer, e.g.) conversations between MALES? If the comment was made by a male, keep in mind that women scientists also have "off-line conversations", which likely include comments about the stupidity of such males.

Write comment
smaller | bigger


Write the displayed characters