The importance of dejuridization in sexual harassment cases

Cross-border behavior is a complex and fraught issue. It affects not only those directly involved, but also the broader organizational culture. In such situations, the confidant is often approached as the first point of contact. Although it is tempting to place reports directly into legal frameworks, it is crucial that the confidant initially focuses on a different approach: dejuridizing the process.

What does dejuridization mean?

Dejuridizing means not immediately focusing on legal procedures, questions of blame and formal sanctions, but instead providing space for the reporter’s story, repairing relationships and addressing underlying issues. The goal is not to ignore legal issues, but to have the conversation first.

Why is dejuridization important?

• Room for emotion and perception: cross-border behavior is not only about facts, but mainly about the experience of the reporter. If the process is directly legalized, this can give the reporter the feeling that it is about proof. Dejuridization enables the confidant to offer the reporter space to share feelings and experiences without immediately ending up in a formal, confrontational atmosphere.
• Preventing escalation: a legal approach can unnecessarily polarize the situation. The alleged perpetrator may feel attacked and become defensive, making resolution or dialogue difficult. By taking a less legal approach to the process, the confidant can strive for understanding, restoration and a constructive outcome without irreparably damaging relationships.
• Focus on recovery rather than harm: a legal approach often emphasizes harm: punishing the perpetrator, compensating the reporter. While necessary in some cases, the power of dejuridization lies in restoring trust, improving organizational culture and seeking structural solutions.
• Threshold reduction for reporters: the legal route can be intimidating for reporters. Fear of lengthy proceedings, reputational damage or lack of evidence can deter them from reporting cross-border behavior. A trustee who de-legalizes lowers this threshold by providing an open and safe environment in which it is not immediately about hard conclusions, but about a listening ear and support.
• The power of prevention: a legal approach often focuses on individual incidents, while dejuridization offers the opportunity to identify patterns and take preventive measures. Trust officers can thus contribute to structural changes in the organization, such as awareness training, policy improvements and fostering a culture of respect.

The role of the confidant: to inform and support

While the confidant should not avoid legal action when necessary, it is important that she informs the reporter of all possibilities, including informal and restorative options. The basic principle is that the reporter himself or herself remains in control of the process. In many cases, a conversation between the reporter and the alleged perpetrator can contribute to understanding and recovery. This requires careful preparation and guidance, but can lead to insights and solutions that are often unattainable through legal avenues.

Dejuridization: when is it appropriate and when is it not?

While dejuridization can be effective in many situations, it is important to recognize its limits. Serious cases of transgressive behavior, such as sexual harassment or physical aggression, often require a formal approach and cannot be resolved with informal approaches alone. It is important to consider when dejuridization is appropriate and when scaling up is necessary. It is important for organizations to embrace dejuridization as a strategy not only to resolve individual incidents, but also to work toward a culture in which transgressive behavior is structurally prevented. A well-trained confidential advisor who carefully guides this process can play a key role in creating a work environment where respect and safety are the norm