Case Study - “Harassing Behavior”

Author :Channagiri

The Incident

A Division administrator contacted Human Resources because of a male employee who, for a period of four years, had engaged in harassing behavior that included threatening hand gestures, facial sneers, hitting another employee with a refrigerator door, being confrontational and intimidating others. In addition, the one employee had made racially derogatory remarks and was badgering and confrontational. The employee had a history of complaining about alleged mistreatment at his workplace. Eight formal internal complaints were documented about the behavior of four coworkers. In formal and informal complaints, he had claimed sexual harassment, reprisals, retaliation, hostile behavior, and racial harassment. He claimed there was a conspiracy against him. He said that he had received prank calls from a coworker. In about a four-month period, he had filed five complaints alleging coworkers had engaged in racial discrimination and lying. No complaints were sustained. Over a four-year span, few of his complaints resulted in coworkers being counseled about their behavior. Most of his complaints were not sustained.

His supervisor and coworkers started to complain about his behavior. He asked if he could get directives in writing. He was observed making extensive use of the telephone for personal calls. He yelled at a coworker. His continuous talking was interfering with other coworkers’ productivity. He was tardy to work. His supervisor complained about the employee causing her stress. He was noted as moody, making threatening gestures (punching his fist into the palm of his hand), and recording his conversations with everyone by means of a tape recorder. He was asked to calm down as his voice escalated and got very loud. He was unwilling to work required overtime.

He asked a supervisor if he could bring a gun to work in order to protect himself. When he was told “no,” he asked if he could bring pepper spray to work. A coworker claimed that the employee confided that he carried a knife in his socks.

The employee was placed on leave with pay in order to conduct an investigation of his work environment. Three years later, the company sought to take action to resolve this situation.

Incident Response

The Human Resources Division contacted a psychologist with threat assessment expertise to meet and help devise a response plan.

The initial meeting consisted of a representative of the Human Resources office and the threat assessment psychologist. At this meeting, the background of the case and the employee was discussed. The employer revealed that the goal of the intervention was to devise a strategy which would enable the safe return to work of the employee.

Human Resources

The Human Resources administrator was tasked with providing the personnel file and other documents (including the complaint file) to the psychologist for review. He would also arrange for the employee to be evaluated by the psychologist for purposes of providing a plan of action based upon a mental health, or Fitness for Duty evaluation.

Threat Assessment Psychologist

The psychologist interviewed selected administrative staff and learned that the employer’s goal was the safe return to work of the employee. The psychologist was provided information that the employer had sent the employee to a psychiatrist at the time he was removed from work status. The psychiatrist conducted one interview and performed no testing. The psychiatrist’s report indicated that coworkers had anxiety about the employee’s potential for dangerousness. 

Psychological testing results indicated the employee may have tried to present a distorted and overly positive impression of himself, thereby limiting confidence in the psychological test results. His psychological test results showed that he desires to dominate in relationships and that he may have occasional exaggerated aggressive responses. He has strong need for attention and affection from others and he may fear that these needs will not be met if he is more honest and open about his attitudes. People with his profile are perfectionists and condemnation causes them considerable tension, especially if conveyed by persons in authority. There was no evidence that the employee suffered from disorders such as psychosis, depression, or anxiety disorders. He operated at a normal level of intellectual functioning. There was evidence that he may have various personality disorders.

The psychologist interviewed the employee, who was tense and cautious. He had an unusual affect, a prominent and intermittent facial grimace. He was articulate, deliberate and overtly cooperative. He denied any homicidal or suicidal ideation, thoughts, intent or plans. He claimed that he owned no weapons. He denied any intent to bring a firearm to work, claiming that he only wanted permission to carry a “pepper spray gun.” The reason for this was his purported fear of a coworker. He denied telling this same coworker that he carried a knife on his person, or that he ever does carry a knife.

The employee showed no evidence of hallucinatory behavior or obvious delusional beliefs. He said that he had no problems with alcohol, and previously used it very rarely. He denied any current substance abuse, but admitted smoking marijuana while in high school. He does not take any medication.

The employee was asked if he would be willing to disavow any rights to gun ownership in order to return to work. Initially he responded by saying that he would have to consult with his union in order to not give up any rights. When told that some people are willing to disclaim such ownership rights in order to regain their position, he instructed this evaluator to write that he would do so. 

The psychologist completed his evaluation and wrote a detailed report on his findings. 

Resolution 

The Fitness for Duty report documented that the employee currently showed evidence that he represents a low risk of present danger to himself or others. There was no recent or past specific threat. There was no known substance abuse or psychotic disorder. There was no known history of violence, other than a reported incident when he hit a coworker with a refrigerator door. However, the request to bring a gun to work and allegations that he wore a knife on his person were concerns. It was suggested that if the employee was allowed to return to the workplace, it would be prudent to accept his offer to disavow any gun ownership rights by having him submit a statement to this effect to authorities.

The psychologist stated that because of the employee’s personality disorder, he was likely to continue to have problems dealing tactfully with people. Training classes in anger management, stress management, and conflict resolution were suggested. However, the employer was warned that supervisory tactics would need to be employed to observe his work behavior and document whether or not he meets all requirements, including interpersonal comportment.

The threat assessment psychologist suggested to the employer that the services of a security firm be retained in order to develop more information on the criminal background and weapons ownership profile of the employee. The employer was advised that a comprehensive risk management approach would also involve the security firm engaging in surveillance or pretext contacts in order to aid in managing the case. The employer was informed that this approach could serve as an early warning system if the employee was engaged in active measures to plan an act of violence. Despite these recommendations, the employer decided against these measures.

The employer decided to retain the employee. The employer required the employee to attend extensive anger management training. The employee complained about this requirement and continues to be uncooperative with the employer.

Questions for Discussion

  1. Do you agree with the employer’s willingness to retain the employee?
  2. Would your organization handle the situation differently? How?
  3. Has your organization identified a threat assessment professional if a similar situation occurred in your organization? 

Practice Exercises

“The Strange Visitor”

In the middle of the day, you leave your office to go the restroom. You notice that the back emergency door has been propped open to let in the cool breeze. Once you are in the restroom, you notice a woman acting very strange. She is talking to herself and seems to be agitated. You have never seen her before and she does not have an ID badge on. When you leave the restroom, she follows you to your office. She states she is a job applicant but no one will talk to her and she doesn’t know where to go. Her voice starts to get more frantic.

You offer to take her to the personnel office but she refuses to cooperate and becomes belligerent. She begins to scream about how the government is out to get her. It becomes clear that this woman is going to be a problem. You wonder how she ever got past the guard. 

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT: 

  1. Now that this situation has escalated, what are the best ways to intervene? 
  2. Would you be concerned about the physical security precautions in your building? Why or why not? If you are concerned, what would you do to address these concerns?


Previous Post Next Post