Hi, Frances' partner here. Just want to clarify/provide context for a few things.
Frances and Riley did not work on the same team and did not share any work projects, and didn't work directly with each other. The only thing they used to share was a room in Trajan their teams used to both work out of. Soon after Frances learned about the existence of the document, she went to community health with concerns as she found it overwhelming to see him in the room she had to work in, and this resulted in community health separating the rooms the teams were working in (after which CEA asked them not to be involved further).
In the 9 months the document was circulated, no one (HR, exec, managers) reached out to Frances with concerns (behavioural or otherwise). We know multiple people were mentioned in the document. We don't know (and may never know) if there were HR complaints made by Riley about Frances, but we can say for certain if there were complaints about Frances, no one thought it was necessary to mention to Frances.
In the summary of the document CEA provided, I read Riley describe how she was raped. This was more than what we initially thought, where we thought it was potentially much more tame , and thought he maybe said something like "she is a victim of sexual violence" based on how leadership was discussing the document with us. When I read the summary, I was shocked to see how descriptive it was. The "subsequent mental health crisis" that was discussed took place entirely out of the workplace, and Frances took medical leave. And when it did happen, we contacted multiple members of her team letting them know what happened and that she would be taking time off, and she communicated with her team and managers often about navigating work after the assault. I feel comfortable saying this document was not written due to concern for Frances' wellbeing, given the document also says "I asked her out two times, but now I'm glad she said no".
I also don't know if there is missing context about the investigations so I will note the investigator pointed out that that he could not see a situation where writing this would be appropriate in his report. And this was after the investigator interviewed everyone involved, so all context was provided to the investigator. Unless both investigators are somehow deeply unqualified and lacking common sense, it stands to reason it did not make any sense to include. My interpretation of Zach's comment and my private communication with him also leads me to believe he agrees, or he would not have asked Riley to leave the organisation. And reiterating Frances' point earlier, Riley refused to apologize, and if you accidentally go too far when discussing someone, it is quite easy to apologize.
Note: Frances is probably going to take a break from this post but I'm happy to answer questions!
Hi, Frances' partner here. Just want to clarify/provide context for a few things.
Frances and Riley did not work on the same team and did not share any work projects, and didn't work directly with each other. The only thing they used to share was a room in Trajan their teams used to both work out of. Soon after Frances learned about the existence of the document, she went to community health with concerns as she found it overwhelming to see him in the room she had to work in, and this resulted in community health separating the rooms the teams were working in (after which CEA asked them not to be involved further).
In the 9 months the document was circulated, no one (HR, exec, managers) reached out to Frances with concerns (behavioural or otherwise). We know multiple people were mentioned in the document. We don't know (and may never know) if there were HR complaints made by Riley about Frances, but we can say for certain if there were complaints about Frances, no one thought it was necessary to mention to Frances.
In the summary of the document CEA provided, I read Riley describe how she was raped. This was more than what we initially thought, where we thought it was potentially much more tame , and thought he maybe said something like "she is a victim of sexual violence" based on how leadership was discussing the document with us. When I read the summary, I was shocked to see how descriptive it was. The "subsequent mental health crisis" that was discussed took place entirely out of the workplace, and Frances took medical leave. And when it did happen, we contacted multiple members of her team letting them know what happened and that she would be taking time off, and she communicated with her team and managers often about navigating work after the assault. I feel comfortable saying this document was not written due to concern for Frances' wellbeing, given the document also says "I asked her out two times, but now I'm glad she said no".
I also don't know if there is missing context about the investigations so I will note the investigator pointed out that that he could not see a situation where writing this would be appropriate in his report. And this was after the investigator interviewed everyone involved, so all context was provided to the investigator. Unless both investigators are somehow deeply unqualified and lacking common sense, it stands to reason it did not make any sense to include. My interpretation of Zach's comment and my private communication with him also leads me to believe he agrees, or he would not have asked Riley to leave the organisation. And reiterating Frances' point earlier, Riley refused to apologize, and if you accidentally go too far when discussing someone, it is quite easy to apologize.
Note: Frances is probably going to take a break from this post but I'm happy to answer questions!