This question often comes up. It is not an easy one to answer, because each situation must be considered on a case-by-case basis. There are some well-established views in court and tribunal decisions, however, that provide some guidance. These decisions reinforce the notion that harassment is a serious issue and that complaints of harassment should be addressed in a serious way. They also make it clear that not every offensive or hurtful act, by itself, constitutes harassment.
Annoying or harassing?
Behaviour that can be considered harassment falls into a wide spectrum, from off-colour jokes and insults to offensive images and writings and even unwanted physical contact. Generally speaking, when behaviour falls at the lower end of the scale (jokes, comments, pictures, etc.), it will not meet the test of being harassment unless there is some persistence or repetition of the behaviour. In other words, the behaviour must be severe or pervasive enough to have a real impact on an individual's working or (in the university context) learning environment.
For example, one off-colour joke is not normally enough to constitute harassment. It may be rude or offensive, and it may need to be addressed as being inappropriate in that environment, but it is not normally harassment. As one moves up the scale of behaviour in terms of severity, then the need to demonstrate persistence or repetition diminishes. For example, if there is unwanted physical contact (a physical or sexual assault), one incident may certainly be sufficient to substantiate a complaint of harassment (and possibly a criminal offence as well). The deciding factor will be whether the conduct meets the definitions outlined in the policy and whether there is sufficient evidence to find that the policy has been breached.
Understanding the distinction
Some comments made by Heather Laing in a 1994 Board of Inquiry decision in British Columbia are helpful in understanding the distinction between behaviour that may be offensive and annoying, and that which is truly harassing in nature:
…every act by which a person causes some form of anxiety to another could be labeled as harassment. But if this is so, there can be no safe interactions between human beings. Sadly we are not perfect. All of us, on occasion, are stupid, heedless, thoughtless, and insensitive. The question then is, when are we guilty of harassment?
I do not think that every act of workplace foolishness was intended to be captured by the word harassment. This is a serious word, to be used seriously and applied vigorously when the occasion warrants its use. It should not be trivialized, cheapened or devalued by using it as a loose label to cover petty acts or foolish words, where the harm, by any objective standard, is fleeting. Nor should it be used where there is no intent to be harmful in any way, unless there has been a heedless disregard for the rights of another person and it can be fairly said "you should have known better'…
As I stated earlier in this award, harassment is a serious subject and allegations of such an offense must be dealt with in a serious way, as was the case here. The reverse is also true. Not every employment bruise should be treated under this process. It would be unfortunate if the harassment process was used to vent feelings of minor discontent or general unhappiness with life in the workplace, so as to trivialize those cases where substantial workplace abuses have occurred. The first responsibility of people in the workplace is to work out their own differences for themselves, if they can. If they cannot, and the threshold test of serious actions with significant consequences is met, this process can and should be invoked where harassment is legitimately believed to have occurred.
Guidelines for Assessing Workplace Conduct
Measurement Tool R-A-T-E
This mnemonic illustrates a simple measurement tool to determine whether behaviour towards others could be classified as harassment.
Respect- Is this behaviour respectful? Does this behaviour honour the dignity and worth of the person? Does the behavior recognize and appreciate differences – culture, viewpoint, age, status, etc – and thus give room for the person to be themselves?
Appropriate – Is the behavior appropriate to the situation and to the relationship between the individuals?
Trust – Many relationships are “relationships of trust,” for instance the relationship between a professor and a student or between an employee and a supervisor. Is the behavior a violation of this trust?
Equal – What is the power balance in the relationship? Are the individuals equals? Is the behaviour exploiting a difference in power? Would an objection to the behavior threaten the well-being of the person to whom the behavior is directed?
Excerpt taken from Harnessing "Harassment" by Janet Smith, Director, Office of Human Rights, U of A (Fall 2004)
Still have questions? Contact us
Whether problem behaviour constitutes harassment is not always clear, but regard to these notions of severity and pervasiveness can be helpful to managers and employees in determining how best to deal with workplace conflicts. The Advisors in the Office of Human of Human Rights, Equity & Harassment Prevention are available to consult where there are issues of concern.