The NEW NORM

Dale Seip was a supervisor who went to a remote worksite with a newly hired female employee, Linda Dupuis. On their journey, they checked into a motel, at which point Dupuis discovered that her boss had booked one room with two beds.

There appeared to be some chemistry between them, and that night they started kissing, but when things started going further, she said “no.” They stopped, but later in the night he started caressing her and they ended up having sex several times by the time they reached the remote worksite.

Seip did not use any physical coercion and made no threat of adverse consequences regarding future employment. And except for that first protest, Dupuis didn’t resist their having sex, but she started getting upset with Seip and within weeks they discontinued their sexual relationship.

Seip was not only Dupuis’ summer supervisor with the Ministry of Forests, but he was also an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia, where she would be taking her masters in forestry. After their initial sexual encounter, Seip publicly showed affection to Dupuis and there were signs that she did not like this, because she didn’t want other employees to know about their relationship.

After a few weeks, their working relationship became unpleasant and they no longer had sex. Before she started university in the fall, she changed her masters thesis so she would have limited contact with Seip. She also complained to UBC’s sexual harassment office and then to the B.C. Council of Human Rights.

Not every sexual encounter by employees qualifies as sexual harassment. After the Human Rights hearing took place, adjudicator Tom Patch noted, “Human rights legislation does not prohibit social or sexual contact between management and employees.”

Of course, the real issue comes down to consent and whether differences in rank between an employee and manager interferes with that consent. On this issue, the adjudicator said it was a difficult case because “I do not doubt that Seip thought that his sexual advances were welcome.”

Even though Seip thought Dupuis was consenting to have sex with him, he should have been more attentive due to his position of influence on her job and studies. Patch wrote, “Because of the imbalance of power that often exists between managers and their employees, managers must be very careful to ensure that they are not taking advantage of their position of authority to import sexual requirements into the job. In my view, the burden rests with the manager to be certain that any sexual conduct is welcomed by the employee and continues to be welcome.”

While a big mistake was Seip getting one motel room with two beds, the adjudicator noted there were times it might have seemed reasonable to have initiated sex with Dupuis (and also times it seemed unreasonable).

In the end, he wrote, “There was little evidence to suggest that she found his initial advances unwelcome – if anything, the weight of the evidence was in the other direction. However, when he persisted after she said ‘no,’ he crossed the boundary.

Dupuis may have welcomed or been ambivalent about Seip's initial sexual advances. That does not mean that any subsequent sexual conduct was acceptable. Dupuis drew a line at sexual intercourse. In my view, what followed that night and subsequently in the Queen Charlottes was sexual harassment.”

Perhaps if Mr. Seip had taken my Respectful Workplace online course, he would have learned about power and how it can be abused, whether that was his intention or not. He would have known that being sexual at work comes with consequences for the victim and himself. 

This case, decided in 1993 and cited in many cases since, upset a lot of men. Up till then, most men thought that if you discerned there was consent, then it wouldn’t be considered sexual harassment, even though there might be later conversations about bad decisions.

There’s no indication Dale Seip was a bad person, but what we learned from this case is that we have to consider so much more than just our feelings when we feel there is “chemistry" with a colleague at work.