Chris*, a 47-year-old mechanic at TDK in Peachtree City, who has worked at the company for a little over two years, says he has endured ongoing sexual harassment and mistreatment from a senior coworker- with little support or resolution from the company’s leadership.

The harassment, according to Chris, began shortly after a new head of human resources joined the company in January. Chris, a transgender man who officially changed his name in 2018, noticed his government name-which he no longer uses- was being placed on internal documents. Prior to this new head of HR, this was never an issue Chris experienced at the company. After sending two emails and speaking face-to-face with HR, the deadnaming issue persisted. 

“I sent a loving email that explained why it was important for him to stop doing this. It took away my man card,” said Chris.

Soon after, Chris’s coworkers who had long called him the correct name began calling him by the incorrect name. A meeting amongst the company’s managers took place in March about this repeating issue, but Chris said the harassment escalated after that. Disrespect with deadnaming begat disrespect with sexual harassment. 

According to Chris, a longtime employee of 30 years began asking inappropriate personal questions in relation to the name change and implied he might be transgender himself. Quickly, Chris blocked the harasser’s cell phone number, a number that had originally been given for adverse weather announcements amongst coworkers. Despite Chris’s refusal to engage, the man began showing him explicit images, including of his genitalia on his own phone, and personally shot X-rated videos, even when Chris tried to refuse seeing them. The harasser often orchestrated situations where Chris, as a mechanic, would be alone with him under the false pretenses of machinery needing fixed. Chris thinks he broke his machine on purpose to make Chris have to come and see him. 

Besides the explicit content, the harassment included the employee:

• Leaving baby oil in a black trash bag in Chris’s truck on Valentine’s Day
• Placing notes in Chris’s personal belongings
• Following him home from work into his neighborhood
• Sending persistent and inappropriate text messages, including one urging Chris to “run away with me to the beach.” 

When Chris called the Peachtree City Police on May 11, citing “creepy behavior” by his coworker and asking about a restraining order, he was informed that much of what he mentioned did not necessarily equate to criminal behavior that the police could intervene. The officer he spoke with suggested that he reach out to his company’s HR department. She also informed him about how to obtain a TPO (temporary protective order, aka. restraining order) through the Magistrate Court. 

According to Lt. Chris Hyatt, Public Information Officer of the Peachtree City Police, the call took about 7 minutes, “They reached out to us regarding information about a temporary protective order. We explained the process, the protections that it provides and how they can go about getting one.” 

Getting a TPO on someone that you work with can be difficult. The officer who spoke with Chris was fairly clear.  “She was explaining to the complainant the parameters of a TPO and how sometimes when it is amongst coworkers, she couldn’t tell her for certain whether he would be granted. Because she’s seen it go both ways. Sometimes it would take something egregious for a court to be like, ‘Yep, you can’t be within 500 yards of this person.’ Because that person still has a legal right to their employment place as well,” said Hyatt. After the call with the police, Chris understood that TDK needed to keep the harasser away from him. 

He requested a formal meeting with the TDK leadership where he showed them screenshots and messages as evidence, and broke down in tears at how awful the situation had been for him.

“He even said on one of his text tangents, ‘I never should have shown you those photos and videos.’ That alone is proof,” Chris said.

Following the meeting, Chris was told to go home and rest while the company investigated further. Days later, he received notifications that TDK had docked almost 120 hours of paid time off and vacation, claiming it had been used during this break they suggested to him-without his consent on whether these hours would be paid or unpaid. The company then told him they had found no evidence of sexual harassment. 

According to Chris, the decision seemed to be influenced by a friendly message the harassing employee had forwarded to the TDK staff that Chris had previously sent him prior to the harassment beginning. The message read: “I love you buddy. You’re a good friend and good man.”

Chris believes that his text gave the staff the idea that the employee’s harassment was two friends joking around, but Chris says the employee’s actions were undoubtedly harassment. Chris has never been interested in men, and has had a female partner for 15 years. They share a home in Fayette County. Chris asserts that his text was not flirting, and that the company should be protecting him. 

“This guy was out of pocket showing me graphic, sexual, explicit stuff and coming onto me. It was uncomfortable,” said Chris.

Chris appealed the ruling, but part of the issue was that the head of HR who he had problems with earlier in the year was a part of the original meeting and would be a part of the appeal process. Chris says that the company guidelines indicate that cases like this are supposed to be handled by third-party investigators, and TDK didn’t do that. 

 He then brought the case to TDK’s corporate ethics department. As a compromise, they promised to separate the two employees with alternating shifts, moving Chris to midnights. However, Chris says the employee arrives at his shift early.

He then made the decision that if he saw the employee at 5:30, he would leave then and willingly lose out on the pay for the time after he left. TDK told him that instead, from 4:00-6:10 a..m.  he would work in a different department, but this has not resolved the issue of the two having contact.

“I’ve seen him twice since this schedule started on the 10th,” said Chris. “He did this thing where he got up on his tiptoes looking for me through the glass and I had to hide behind the shelves to avoid him. It’s the craziest thing!”

Chris attempted again to involve the police, but both the police and the ethics department said they needed access to the employee’s phone. The man had already gotten a new phone following Chris’s meeting with the TDK staff. 

Chris described his last conversation with the individual at the TDK corporate ethics department in which he said, “‘If I was a beautiful, blonde, long-haired lady and this guy was showing me graphic photos, what would you do?’ And she’d said ‘Well, we’d investigate.’ and I said ‘How?’ and she said ‘Well, I guess we’d look at his phone, but it is our understanding that he doesn’t have the phone anymore.’ and I said ‘Well that’s all the proof you need.’”

The police informed Chris that by going through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with the old phone number he could access the metadata of what was on the employee’s phone. He filled out an application but after waiting hours in a queue for an interview was told that they will call him closer to the 80-day deadline-November 5th. He wants something to be done sooner, but the process is not built that way.

“Part of me thinks they do it on purpose,” said Chris. “They make it so hard on purpose that people just give up.”

Despite applying to other jobs, Chris says he genuinely enjoys working at TDK. His last couple of employee evaluations were excellent. He said, “Midnights are definitely NOT PREFERRED, but I will work any shift if told. I really love my job and with 96.1 and 92% evaluation, I feel I’m decent at it.”

“I’ve never not wanted to work there,” said Chris. “It’s the fact that now I feel like everyone looks at me like I’ve done something. That’s what makes me so hurt.”

Even the misnaming issue has resurfaced-Chris’s government name was listed on an employee roster as recently as July 14th. 

The Citizen reached out to TDK for a comment about the situation, they declined to make a formal comment.

“We take allegations of harassment seriously. When issues such as these are reported, our policy is to promptly investigate and take action. Since this is a developing matter, we have no further comment at this time,” wrote TDK manager and ECO Mark Miller. 

According to their website, TDK is a leading electronics components company operating in over 250 sites in over 30 countries and regions worldwide. TDK has approximately 105,000 employees worldwide. Chris is one of them. 

While he doesn’t want to end his employment at TDK, Chris also feels he cannot sit idly by and continue to live in fear in his workplace. Questions remain about whether TDK thinks it’s okay for men to harass other men or for men to harass transgendered men? Why are there not equal protections for all kinds of people from harassment? Chris feels unsafe due to this employee’s obsession with him. Is TDK going to step up?

*Name changed for sake of privacy. 

Additional reporting by Ellie White-Stevens for this story.