1. Parent comment's dismissal is based upon details revealed in the article, or rather details that weren't revealed. He suspects that, since the victim escalated immediately, the victim may not have wanted a peaceful resolution. We don't have the full picture, but what we have suggests that there were other ways to handle it.
2. Yes, I expect you to say that you're upset by the situation. I cannot read your mind; most people can't read your mind either, and many of them don't know the line between a 'joke' and harassment. Telling someone you don't like what they're doing is a crucial step, because otherwise they may assume nothing is wrong. We want the boss to learn that his joke is not funny, and to do that sometimes you have to say it to his face.
3. Neither side is communicating well, which is indeed why HR exists. It's also possible that the boss would've continued after being told explicitly to stop. This does not mean you reach for HR's hotline the moment something goes wrong. You don't respond to a slap by pulling a knife, and you don't respond to a knife with a nuke--at least, not without examining other options.
> We don't have the full picture, but what we have suggests that there were other ways to handle it.
So it's safest to assume that the victim of sexual harassment is at fault, of course.
> because otherwise they may assume nothing is wrong.
So in this scenario, you're taking the stance that the Manager at Google has no concept that asking an inferior employee to sit on his lap could be unacceptable workplace behavior?
That doesn't seem like a generous read to you? You honestly think that this man, who has been working in a professional environment for at least a decade, was completely unaware that asking an employee to sit on his lap could possibly be construed as sexual misconduct?
So to review:
victim of sexual misconduct: obvious potential liar
perpetrator of sexual misconduct: blameless victim of ignorance
I am taking this stance because you, in your infinite wisdom, have assumed there are no possibilities other than the manager being the literal Devil. To compensate, I am taking the opposing position, so at least both ends of the spectrum of possible arguments are heard.
That having been said, talking about your problems is a basic communication skill that everyone who's graduated high school really should have, since it helps ensure that everyone learns from their mistakes and nobody has to be fired. Something I've noticed often in thses sorts of conversations is that people assume their point got across even if the other person acts like they aren't reading the subtle social cues.
TL;DR: I'm arguing with you because you're not thinking about both ends, and someone's gotta think of the other possibilities if we're to be sure that we're right; further, you shouldn't rely on subtlety to work with someone who can't handle subtlety. That's like expecting Java to be weakly typed. You gotta rule out the possibility that they're just stupid before you assume they're a dick.
2. Yes, I expect you to say that you're upset by the situation. I cannot read your mind; most people can't read your mind either, and many of them don't know the line between a 'joke' and harassment. Telling someone you don't like what they're doing is a crucial step, because otherwise they may assume nothing is wrong. We want the boss to learn that his joke is not funny, and to do that sometimes you have to say it to his face.
3. Neither side is communicating well, which is indeed why HR exists. It's also possible that the boss would've continued after being told explicitly to stop. This does not mean you reach for HR's hotline the moment something goes wrong. You don't respond to a slap by pulling a knife, and you don't respond to a knife with a nuke--at least, not without examining other options.