Comment by vacri

> It is completely standard for a complaint to go first to the alleged culprit, then (if that doesn't resolve the problem) to the supervisor, and so on up the chain. This certainly isn't something I invented, and I'm puzzled as to why Mr. de Valence seems to be skipping steps.

> Of course there are some circumstances where HR can be, should be, or must be involved. Mr. de Valence is wrong in suggesting that I said anything to the contrary. There wasn't any reason for me to mention HR when I was recommending that he file a written complaint with me.

This doesn't pass the sniff test to me. If a complaint is verbal, sure culprit first and then supervisor... which is what happened. If a complaint is written, I've never heard of it being standard procedure to give a written complaint to the accused first. As for involving HR, someone seriously complaining of sexual harassment (both parties indicate a significant confidential initial talk) is a giant red flag to get HR on-board. 'We've talked, write to me first and then we'll talk about it more' doesn't smell right.

My reading of the situation? Both sides appear to be arses. The complainant keeps talking to new parties without submitting the written complaint that was requested multiple times. The supervisor engages in questionable advice. It doesn't seem any party comes out particularly clean on this one, to me (sitting on the sidelines, getting an imperfect view...).