Invasion of Privacy, Harassment, Internet

[james a. husky]

Why can't we all get along?

For several years at my workplace there has been a woman who has intimidated and bullied her way along, trying to run the show. Due to a laxadasical management (probably out of fear) nothing much (to date) has been done.

This is in a large County service department with about 700 employees and we've recently gotten a new overall Director with a new Assistant Director brevetted up into position. I have a great deal of respect for both.

On April 6th, I wore a Government Sett, knife pleated, unlined and strait hanging (three lines of horizontal stiching to hold the pleat at the waist). The waist was folded down over itself (as I have read was done) and a belt scured the whole lot. The hem was higher than normal (perhaps an inch or inch and a half (I'd ridden the bike to work, it was before public hours, and I hadn't straightened things up yet. All was topped off with typical workplace oxford and tie. During work hours in the morning, In an area that requires a pass to enter, no public allowed, my bully co-worker took a picture, staring at me with a scowl on her face and I knew that something interesting would transpire (I said nothing to her).

Later in the day it was revealed by another co-worker that she had put the picture up on her facebook page. I am recognizable completely in the picture. The bully complains that she was disiplined for wear short skirts and
that I am allowed to dress like this (my recognizable photo being posted as an example).

Several people commented the first day. Two were insulting, the rest were the typical "Great Legs" variety of comment. The bully re-posted that I was not wearing shorts but a mini skirt like kilt.

Apparently middle-management found out (I don't know who told them), but they haven't as yet talked to me. I have no confidence in middle management to take care of this as they've been in position all during the time that this woman has been allowed to harrass and intimidate others.

I've never dealt with anything like this before and really don't like conflict. It brings out the worst in people. Since I see the posting of a recognizable picture of me on the internet, taken in a non-public area at work during worktime without my permission, attended by ridiculing commentary, as intentional harassment, I'm going to address the issue with the County's Office of Discrimination and perhaps, seek a lawyer. I've been with this County's goverment for 30 years. The kilt is permitted as proper wear.

As an overall view, this bully is being reigned in by some very compitent people who have risen to some aspect of Branch and Regional level power and she's beginning to strike out at people more as time goes on.

What thinketh Ya'll?

Any suggestions?

Jim aka kiltiemon

[AFS1970]

The internet has definitely changed the way we view privacy, or more to the point, how we view other people's privacy. Years ago if you saw something that interested you and you took a picture, you basically had no way to show it to millions of people. Now with all the various social networking sites, your pics are up for any and all to see.

On a recent Kilted trip, my brother and I were stopped by many people who asked for pictures of us and of them with us. As long as they were polite, we always said yes. I am sure however that there are numerous unauthorized pictures out there from the same trip. As we were in public, there is little if anything we could do, even if we wanted to.

Now as for workplace, there are probably different rules. I work in a place that has a no photo's rule. Several incidents have proven this to be a prudent rule. The public has no access to my office. However I do not know if photography is specifically listed either in the harassment policy or any laws about harassment that apply here. So it is an iffy proposition to complain. One I would consider myself, but I have no idea how it would work out.

I work with a woman who makes frequent complaints and false accusations against other employees and has a generally bad attitude. Most in management seem to turn a blind eye to her and her wholesale harassment of the res of us. One manager did try and get involved then got promoted out of the division. Sometimes you just can't win with these folks.

[seanachie]

As good (or not) as a supervisor may be at their job I have been amazed at times about things they are ignorant of in terms of employment law. If you have an HR Manager arranging to speak with them may be a good idea. This will show you are being pro active and unless they are clueless they will be pretty aware of issues were your rights and or legal protections were violated and may be able to ward off any dumb things a supervisor might do.

[Galician]

As good (or not) as a supervisor may be at their job I have been amazed at times about things they are ignorant of in terms of employment law. If you have an HR Manager arranging to speak with them may be a good idea. This will show you are being pro active and unless they are clueless they will be pretty aware of issues were your rights and or legal protections were violated and may be able to ward off any dumb things a supervisor might do.

Not always. It was the HR person in my company who has ruled kilts are not acceptable business attire, even though nothing appears in the written code to indicate this. To date, she has failed to give an explanation.

[Fit2BKilted]

My wife (and co-workers!!!) also suffer at her workplace under threat of the Office bully, who I immediately recognized as being cut from the same cloth as the character you describe afflicting your work-place; so, I have considerable sympathy for your predicament.

Now, I am also a photographer, and I know that it is generally ILLEGAL (copyright infringement) for a photographer to publicly display images of living persons without their consent (a 'release form' generally needs to be signed by the subject of the portrait); on top of that, you have a case of "internet-bullying" here, which I understand many States now have specific laws against (although they were not specifically drafted with adults in mind I don't see any of them being restricted to protect only minors), and you might also argue that there is a case for libel here as well! This pernicious woman has gotten herself into a very precarious legal position by targeting you in this way... One might see it as ironicly poetic justice!

IMHO, it is your duty to exercise and protect your rights in this matter and perhaps accomplish what decades of ineffectual middle-management has failed to do for your department, viz., 'be rid of her'. I suggest soliciting a (or several) lawyer's opinion: most respectable ones will not charge for the initial consultation. Then raise the issue internally with HR, directly, and your Union if such exists, to show due diligence and to alert the organization that you'd prefer not to resort to the legal action you're entitled to exert against this person (and encourage them, management, to 'take care of the issue' before it becomes a matter of public-record, and a potential embarrassment to the department).

[Chas]

My wife.

Now, I am also a photographer, and I know that it is generally ILLEGAL (copyright infringement) for a photographer to publicly display images of living persons without their consent (a 'release form' generally needs to be signed by the subject of the portrait)

Not in the UK. If I take a picture, I own the copyright - that is the law. If I take a picture in a place where photography is forbidden, I could be punished for doing so, but I would still own the copyright. The only exception is where I am acting as the agent for another person, for example acting as a wedding photoghapher, then the copyright belongs to whosoever is directing my actions.

Regards

Chas

[NewGuise]

Not in the UK. ...

This is all true re copyright. However, in the UK (as a friend recently discovered), photographs can be subject to the Data Protection Act (1998), under which 'publication' (including internet posting) of photos of identifiable individual persons (as opposed to a crowd) requires the individual's explicit consent and "fair obtaining" on the part of the photographer - informing the subject of the purpose and so forth of the photograph.

[Chas]

This is all true re copyright. However, in the UK (as a friend recently discovered), photographs can be subject to the Data Protection Act (1998), under which 'publication' (including internet posting) of photos of identifiable individual persons (as opposed to a crowd) requires the individual's explicit consent and "fair obtaining" on the part of the photographer - informing the subject of the purpose and so forth of the photograph.

Hi Garrett,

Can your friend please tell us which part of the Act covers photographs? From my reading of the Act, photographs are specifically not covered. The Act does not define the size or composition of 'a crowd', it would be extremely difficult to bring a prosecution against it. I would be interested to find out under what circumstances this information was given to them and more to the point by whom.

Regards

Chas

[Lallans]

One additonal thought to what's already been posted: If there's any sort of safety issue with having your photo posted as a County employee, be sure to bring that up. That sort of thing would raise some major hackles where I am.

[NewGuise]

Can your friend please tell us which part of the Act covers photographs?

According to the auto-reply I just got, he's travelling, and inaccessible. Our communication on the issue mostly pertained to the particular situation, which involved posting photographs (from an international academic project) on an website, so I can't tell you much, but I remember that he'd been surprised to discover that - thanks to some particular European ruling on ths topic - "data" for the purposes of this act (which he had not read prior to being told it applied) included photographs. The group/crowd thing posed a problem for one picture (several identifiable individuals, or a generic 'crowd'?) but the others were clearly of individuals and he was required ("the boss says...") to gain written permission from them before posting the photos. I never heard what was decided re the group shot.