Goody's Post; SHE APPEARED AFRAID WHEN SHE ACCUSED HIM. SHE WAS. SHE WAS AFRAID THAT WHAT SHE WAS DOING WOULD BE SEEN THROUGH

I am making this good faith compliance report of what happened to Bob at the instigation of Rose.

She enjoyed that relationship and was flattered by it and by the attention he gave her. It brought her out of a shell and did good things or her personality. She does not have to appreciate it and she has a right to change her mind, but she did not have to injure him and had no right to the outcome, and the company did wrong to validate her allegations by punishing Bob. I know that her report to management was tinged with drama and theatrics so that management gave in. She was afraid that what she was doing would be seen through. What did she allege, hostile and uncomfortable work environment? What a load of bollocks. It was her way of gaining his expulsion, and that's something she has no right to, and it should have been seen for what it was.

So there was a lawyer, and everything is legal. Just because something is legal and can be done doesn't mean it's right or has to be done or should be done.

This is probably so far in the rear view mirror that the company thinks it's over. Wrong, there is a stench that remains that does not go away with time, and most employees are savvy enough to know that Bob was treated unethically, and to recognize Rose's cruelty and backstabbing, and to recognize the clumsy and ridiculous gag order intended to keep the guilty from embarrassment.

With this report I suggest that the company re examine the issue, this time without prejudice in favor of the girl. Regardless of the popularity and respect held by the person involved - him, that is - there has been a severe assault on principle. No person or no issue should be dealt with in such a grossly unfair way.

Crybaby's Post; THEY BETTER BE DAMN NEAR DEVINE

This gal and her husband must be better than anyone else. They would have to be. In fact, to do this without remorse they better be damn near devine.

Rose needs to get a conscience
Graham needs to get a backbone
Robert needs to get a lawyer
Rick needs to get a clue

Angelus' Post; MAYBE WE COULD FIND A YOUNG, ZEALOUS, EEOC EMPLOYEE WHO WOULD LOVE TO TACKLE THIS SITUATION

As an outsider and a friend of Robert's, (sorry, I don't call him Bob) I was hoping to make some comments of my own.

I have been one to also "stir the pot" in order to keep this situation from being back-shelved, and it is quite nice to see Robert has such a concerned set of friends.

However, seeing that none of you care to identify yourselves to him, you are really not helping as you could. Even though you all have anonymously posted your anger at the company and at Rose, Robert still does not have a clue who you are. In essence, Robert does not know who is supporting him whithin his own company. It might be some relief to at least know whom he could and could not trust. I hate to chastise, but really folks, can you not at least slip him a scrap of paper with your names on it just to let him know to whom he could turn should the stress get to be too much?

Also, I have seen all the complaints from anonymous sources, and I wonder which one of you and/or the others have enough guts to actually take some kind of action instead of blogging each other to death.

Which one of you knows an attorney who could quietly investigate your company for this and past mishandling of situations? If your company has not followed proper protocall, this really could be grounds for slander and legitimate for filing a law suit.

Anyone know somebody who works for the EEOC? Maybe one of you could get a hold of a young, zealous EEOC employee who would love to tackle this situation.

Being someone who does not work for your company, obviously I do not have the right to condemn anyone, but as a friend of Robert's, and knowing just the kind of man he is, I cannot help but to ask one of you to do something instead of just talking.

I hope to be accepted as one who participates in voicing opinions of outrage, and perhaps we could all brainstorm to come up with a solution.

Nostroma's Post; YOUR ROAD KILL - IT WAS ONLY A MAN

Do you remember your friend? Your own road kill must only stay in the rear view mirror for a while, but we remember him. We remember the crooked smile now become sardonic. We remember the quiet laughter and dry sense of humor now gone.

And we remember all those punishable things that happened. You accepted ordinary compliments - surely he must be reprimanded for that. You went to lunch with him - for that, he at least should get a letter in the file. You accepted and appreciated email messages - that should get him suspended. But it gets worse - you accepted an occasional flower - he should be terminated. But worst of all, you appreciated the creative delivery. For that, he should have been tortured, and he just should be very thankful that you didn't like him any better than you did. If you had liked him any more, he would have deserved execution. God, how should he be punished because you liked the things he brought the kids from the trade shows?

He was one of the best things socially that ever happened to this office.

But you want him out, and why should you care about what anybody else thinks? After all, he's only a human being, and that's of no importance.

Rosenbob understood it all very well in the August, 2004 blog post.

Carebear's Post; MANAGEMENT KNOWS HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG

I was told by a company executive that he didn't do anything wrong and that everybody knew it, and that management knew it was not right, but that the company had to do something or the b----h might make trouble.

CBGal's Post; I THINK SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT A NICE THING SHE HAD

Rose, How would I get some of that same kind of attention that you got?

I think I could tell the difference between gallantry and harassment, and between a gentleman and a jerk, and I know how to keep my word and let him keep his.

Many people can go through life and truthfully say that they have never hurt anyone pointlessly and maliciously. Can you?

Sonnschein's Post; THIS IS A FORUM THAT WAS NEEDED. I WOULD LIKE TO POST THE STORY AS IT WAS TOLD TO ME BY SOMEONE IN ACCOUNTING

A mutually agreeable and enjoyable association was carried on for about three years, maybe more, which involved occasional lunch dates, occasional single roses, and email exchanges. One day, she requested that the association be ended. He agreed, and made no further contact. He apologized for any discomfort that he had caused, she accepted, and said she wanted to be friends. Some days later, even though he had demonstrated that he was complying with wishes, she made ex post facto allegations of harassment against him, even though she had promised a long time ago that she never would do this. The company responded with disciplinary action called "corrective". This wasn't corrective; he had already agreed to, and complied with, her request that it be over. The action was clearly punitive, not corrective. There could have been no harassment. The attention which had been welcomed and enjoyed was stopped when it was declared no longer to be welcome, and then there was no further contact at all.

M. Mouse's Post; SHE WAS NO VICTIM OF ANYTHING. SHE PARTICIPATED IN ALL THE "UNACCEPTABLE WORKPLACE ACTIVITY" AND LOVED IT

I know someone who made an alertline call about this last year and she was told that activity that is socially acceptable may not be acceptable in the workplace. Please, what activity was not acceptable? Was it giving a flower or was it accepting a flower? Was it offering a lunch invitation or was it accepting a lunch invitation? Is is contributing a stuffed bear to the collection or is it accepting a stuffed bear for the collection? Rose didn't tell about the last, but she didn't need to because several of us saw it and how pleased she was. She didn't report it because it would not have helped her scheme. Bob probably never mentioned it because he probably tried to say the minimum to defend himself, but I know when and where and why he got the bear. I know because it was all right to talk then. Ask Rose directly, or maybe ask bob directly, but he will probably say that he can't talk. I do know that she sent him a thank you Email that HR should know about. I'll bet she did not mention that.

For anyone to be disciplined at all for that relationship is very bad business, but to apply disciplinary action unequally is discrimination. She helped out in all the "unacceptable workplace activity" and loved it. She was no victim of anything, but he sure was, and it is bad if the company does not see it that way and worse if the company does but does not care.