Question

Direction: Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
In recent years, complaints of sexual harassment at “Fair Consulting” had increased exponentially. Fair Consulting had a gender-neutral, anti-sexual harassment policy and a committee to adjudicate on complaints. During the hearing of complaints, allegations and counter-allegations would fly thick and fast. This made it difficult for the adjudicating committee to conclusively decide on the complaints.
Of late, the adjudicating committee received a complaint from a junior female consultant. Her immediate boss cracked a bawdy joke about her in the office tuck shop. When the committee probed the alleged misconduct, they identified an independent witness. She agreed to give her testimony to the committee: however, she was unsure if she would like to be identified either by the complainant or the accused. The convenor of the committee was confused about the stance to be taken on the witness’s concern.
Which of the following will be the BEST stance to be taken by the convenor?

• A. The convenor should not allow witness’s identity to be revealed because complainant can sabotage the inquiry process.
• B. The convenor should not let witness’s identity be revealed as it might expose her to a threat either from the respondent or the accused.
• C. The convenor should ensure that the witness identifies herself because both the accused and the complainant must identify themselves.
• D. The convenor should not allow witness’s identity to be revealed as either the accused or the complainant can use the witness’s arguments to their advantage.
• E. The convenor should ensure that witness identify herself as it will ensure that she will not present frivolous proof related to the inquiry.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The given scenario pertains to a sensitive issue of sexual harassment at "Fair Consulting," where maintaining confidentiality and ensuring the safety of involved parties is paramount. The focus is on whether to reveal the identity of a witness, who is willing to testify but does not want to be identified. Let's analyze the available options to determine the best course of action:

1. Option 1: The convenor should not allow the witness’s identity to be revealed because the complainant can sabotage the inquiry process.
   This option suggests protecting the witness to prevent potential sabotage by the complainant. However, it assumes an unfavorable intent from the complainant, which is not substantiated by the scenario.
2. Option 2: The convenor should not let the witness’s identity be revealed as it might expose her to a threat either from the respondent or the accused.
   This option prioritizes the safety and well-being of the witness, acknowledging that revealing her identity could lead to retaliatory actions or threats from either party involved. This approach ensures protection and encourages participation, which is crucial in sensitive cases like these.
3. Option 3: The convenor should ensure that the witness identifies herself because both the accused and the complainant must identify themselves.
   This option suggests equal disclosure among all parties. However, the context of potential threats makes it unsuitable because the power dynamics and risks for a witness are different from those directly accused or accusing.
4. Option 4: The convenor should not allow the witness’s identity to be revealed as either the accused or the complainant can use the witness’s arguments to their advantage.
   This option focuses on the potential misuse of information but does not adequately address safety concerns, which are paramount.
5. Option 5: The convenor should ensure that the witness identifies herself as it will ensure that she will not present frivolous proof related to the inquiry.
   This assumes that anonymity leads to insubstantial claims, which is an unfair generalization and goes against encouraging open yet safe testimony.

After evaluating all options, Option 2 emerges as the most balanced and protective approach. It acknowledges the risk of threats to the witness and prioritizes her safety, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the complaint without compromising the witness's security.