Quote:
nashlife,
that is some very good advice you have given. with one possible exception:
what if she decides to escalate and fabricate incidents that haven't happened.
in that case, "first strike" could provide an advantage.
however, i still agree with you that it is a lose-lose if it comes to that, because you are right, most managers have a policy of: if you are a pain in my ass, you are gone. (regardless of who is "right" or "wrong")
i know this from personal experience.
two years ago, i was fired from a job after being gang-harassed by the other three guys on our team. i had documentation that i never failed to do my job, that i never did any of the things that they accused me of, and i had detailed documentation of their ongoing campaign against me from day one.
know what my manager said?
you are a nice guy. i know you are being truthful. but the fact still remains, that it's either you go or my entire team doesn't work well together. i'm sorry.

Mack sorry to hear about your situation. This probably is no solace, but I've seen it happen tons of times to the best of people. Personally, that is why I am no longer part of the corporate environment. I really got sick of the amount of non work related BS required in that kind of environment.
Hey, the general saying in the corporate world is, "If you not been fired once, you have no spirit."
In my opinion the best case scenario is that she does openly fabricate circumstances.
I'm an older person, so I am at that part in my life where I will come down hard on people who unfairly try to compromise my job or life or what have you.
Here is a purely hypothetical situation not at all related to this thread but just a made up story I want to share:
John and Sally work for the same company. John is single, Sally is married. John and Sally along with others are assigned to a client out of state and they have to take an extended trip which requires them to stay at a hotel together.
One night, Sally comes to John's room and asks to talk. John, allows her in and closes the door. They talk for about an hour about nothing in particular. Sally then leaves his room.
Upon returning to their company, John is called in by HR. His boss is there as well. His boss asks John if he had inappropriate relations with Sally. John says no. His boss says there are many co-workers who indicate Sally was in John's room for a period of time. John says they were talking. The boss says, he has no choice but to fire John.
John, who knows his rights, indicates to his boss if he is going to fire him based on purely circumstantial evidence--primarily his words against hers--then he, the boss, better pay for a lie detector test to determine who is most likely telling the truth.
Otherwise, he will sue for unfair practices along with other employment related violations. The boss, call John's bluff and fires him.
John lawyers up--on contingency mind you. John now has at least two claims, probably more:
1: Against his employer for unfair practices along with other employment violations
2: Sally for Slander--she lied, it tainted his reputation, and he was fired for it so he lost a significant amount of income.
No one wants to make headlines. All parties settle, John's record is clear. He can move on to find a new job without having a, "fire for harassment," hanging round his neck.
Granted, John is not a pussy. He does not give a care whether he destroys the company, the coworkers anyone so long as he is not unfairly treated. John does not care about making headlines. He knows he is right and he his being treated unfairly and if it requires destroying his boss, HR, co-workers career, he does not care. He will do what he has to do to keep his livelihood from being jeopardized.