HR Dismisses Sexual Harassment Allegations as 'Mountain Out of a Molehill' – Case Judgment on Moral Policing

Moral policing in the context of workplace sexual harassment refers to actions or attitudes where individuals or groups impose their personal moral values on others, often resulting in judgmental or restrictive behavior.  

Here are some examples: 

1. Judging Victim’s Behavior: 

Criticizing or blaming the victim for their clothing choices, social interactions, or behavior, suggesting that they provoked the sexual harassment. 

Making statements like, "If she didn't dress that way, this wouldn't have happened," implying the victim is responsible for the sexual harassment. 

2. Questioning Credibility Based on Personal Life: 

Discrediting a sexual harassment complaint based on the victim's past relationships or personal life, suggesting their history makes them unreliable or untrustworthy. 

Comments such as "She has a reputation for being flirtatious" are used to undermine the victim's allegations. 

3. Enforcing Traditional Gender Roles: 

Expecting female employees to conform to traditional gender roles and penalizing them for not doing so, like discouraging assertive behavior or ambition. 

Believing that women should be modest and reserved and criticizing those who are outspoken or assertive in the workplace.

4. Imposing Moral Judgments on Relationships: 

Judging consensual relationships between colleagues, especially if they deviate from the "acceptable" norms, such as relationships with significant age differences or between individuals of different social statuses. 

Statements like, "It's inappropriate for them to be dating," regardless of whether the relationship is consensual and professional.

5. Discouraging Reporting Due to Fear of Stigma: 

Suggesting that reporting sexual harassment will damage the victim’s reputation and urging them to stay silent to avoid social stigma. 

Advising, "Think about how this will make you look," implies that the victim should prioritize their reputation over justice.

6. Creating a Culture of Silence and Shame: 

Promoting a culture where victims are shamed or ostracized for coming forward, often accompanied by gossip and rumors that damage their social standing within the company. 

Beliefs like, "Good girls don't make a fuss," discourage reporting and addressing sexual harassment.

7. Punishing Victims for Speaking Out: 

Retaliating against victims who report sexual harassment by demoting them, giving them less favorable assignments, or socially isolating them. 

Actions like "Since you reported this, you’re no longer part of the team outings," which indirectly punish the victim.

8. Sanctioning Unofficial Dress Codes: 

Implementing unofficial dress codes that dictate what is considered "appropriate" for women to wear, often with moralistic overtones. 

Comments like, "Women should wear decent clothing to work to avoid distractions," imply moral judgment.

9. Normalizing Harassing Behavior: 

Downplaying sexually harassing behavior as normal or acceptable if it aligns with traditional or outdated norms, such as accepting inappropriate jokes or comments as "boys will be boys." 

Remarks like, "He didn't mean any harm; it's just his way," dismiss the severity of the sexual harassment.

10. Discriminatory Enforcement of Rules: 

Selectively enforcing rules about professional conduct based on gender, where women are more harshly judged for minor infractions while similar behavior from men is overlooked. 

Statements like, "It's different when a man does it," reflect biased moral policing. 

These examples highlight how moral policing can create an environment that not only enables sexual harassment but also discourages victims from seeking justice and support. 

Case Judgment: Moral Policing is Not the Job of IC or Management 

In this case, the Petitioner, Ms. Bhibha Pandey, had filed a petition against the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee (IC/ICC) and further action that had been taken by Punjab National Bank. 

The brief background is that a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("Act") was filed by the petitioner against the respondent, Shri Ashwini Kumar Vats, who was working as the General Manager of the bank in Mumbai. The complaint was referred to the ICC. 

After analyzing the complaint, the ICC concluded that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent was consensual and that the allegations of sexual harassment were unsubstantiated. Therefore, the complaint against the respondent was rejected. 

However, the ICC did not stop there. They further observed that the behavior of the parties was inappropriate and unbecoming of officers and employees of the bank. Consequently, the ICC recommended that the Competent Authority take suitable action against both the petitioner and the Respondent. This led to a charge sheet, which further led to the promotion of the petitioner being held up, as a disciplinary proceeding was pending against her.  

Ms. Vrinda Grover, the counsel for the petitioner, argued that when the ICC rejects a sexual harassment complaint filed under the Act, it can only close the inquiry. However, recommending action based on alleged inappropriate or "unbecoming" conduct is not in line with Section 13(2) of the Act. 

She stated that giving such a recommendation is beyond the jurisdiction of the ICC. The ICC has exceeded its statutory mandate as recognized under Section 13(2) of the Act. 

The court held that complaints of sexual harassment are filed with tremendous reluctance. It further held that “The power of the ICC to hold the inquiry and give a report must be within the scheme and the four corners of the statute itself. If a case of sexual harassment is not made out, the ICC can only conclude that no action is required to be taken.” 

The provisions of the Act do not contemplate that the ICC can direct suitable action for inappropriate conduct when it has decided to reject a complaint and take no further action. Making such a determination and recommendation exceeds the ICC's jurisdiction. 

Moral Policing' is not the job of the management or the ICC. Any consensual relationship among adults is not the concern of the Management or the ICC, provided it does not impact the organization’s work or discipline and does not violate the rules or code of conduct binding on the employees. 

The Management can constitute the ICC to inquire into a matter only if a complaint of sexual harassment is made under the Act. The ICC cannot comment on the personal conduct of the parties; its jurisdiction is restricted to determining whether the allegations of sexual harassment are substantiated or not. 

The fact that the Petitioner has become eligible for promotion means that the Bank will offer her promotion based on her seniority, performance, and merit, in accordance with the applicable service rules. The chargesheet will no longer be an obstacle to her promotion, and no disciplinary inquiry will be held against her under the chargesheet. 

Is it moral policing if the HR says, “These girls are making a mountain out of a molehill,” regarding their sexual harassment allegations?  (based on a true story) 

Yes, it can be considered a form of moral policing if an IC member or HR says that an aggrieved woman is "making a mountain out of a molehill" regarding her sexual harassment complaint.  

This statement implies that the complainant's concerns are being dismissed as trivial or exaggerated, which can: 

1. Minimize the Validity of the Complaint: It undermines the seriousness of the complainant's experience and suggests that the complaint is not worth addressing. 

1. Discourage Reporting: Such dismissive attitudes can discourage other employees from reporting their own experiences of harassment, fearing they will not be taken seriously. 

1. Promote a Culture of Silence: It contributes to a workplace environment where victims of harassment may feel unsupported and invalidated, leading to a culture where harassment is underreported and unaddressed. 

1. Bias the Inquiry: If an IC member or HR starts with the prejudgment that the complaint is exaggerated, it can bias the inquiry process and lead to unfair outcomes. 

Overall, dismissing a complaint in such a manner reflects a lack of empathy and understanding of the impact of sexual harassment, contributing to a workplace culture that may tolerate inappropriate behavior and silence victims. 

If there is a complaint of sexual harassment… 

It does not mean HR or Org has failed. 

It could mean the aggrieved woman has faith in Org/IC. 

It is an opportunity to do right by the stakeholders. 

It is an opportunity to set a culture where victims feel confident to bring up their complaints and trust the IC/Employer. 

It is an opportunity to hone the skills of an IC. IC experience and learning are crucial in upholding the POSH Act in letter and spirit.