False allegation myths in workplace sexual harassment

Content warning: this article discusses sexual harassment, assault, rape and domestic abuse, including non fatal strangulation.

As a trauma informed workplace sexual misconduct specialists, it is crucial to confront and dismantle persistent myths surrounding false allegations of sexual harassment. With the introduction of the Worker Protection Act in October 2024, organisations now have a legal responsibility to protect employees from harassment and ensure safe reporting mechanisms.

As part of helping organisations meet their obligations of the Worker Protection Act, we are regularly on site, delivering training to groups of employees. One of the most common myths that pops up? “False allegations”. This myth of "women lie all the time" has some serious persistence, undermining survivors and discouraging reporting.

These misconceptions are damaging because they affect workplace culture, leadership decisions, and ultimately the safety and wellbeing of employees. Addressing these myths head on helps create an environment of trust, accountability, and protection for all. So let's get in to addressing some of them shall we ...

"False allegations are common."

Research shows that false allegations of sexual violence are exceedingly rare. A Home Office study found that only 4% of sexual violence cases reported to UK police are found or suspected to be false (research.open.ac.uk).

However, this statistic in itself is misleading. The category of “false” allegations sometimes includes cases where the victim was incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs, which may impair memory or recall.

An absence of clear recollection does not equate to dishonesty or fabrication.

Having been interviewed about domestic abuse by police, and as someone who has lived through these experiences, I can attest to how difficult it is to recount trauma in detail. I have been asked to describe some of the most terrifying moments of my life down to minutiae, such as which arm my perpetrator was using to strangle me, when in that moment all I could think was “he’s going to kill me.” Being expected to recall such events in precise detail is not only extremely challenging, it can also be re-traumatising.

Trauma impacts memory in very natural ways. People often remember the intensity of their emotions, the fear, and the sense of danger, but may struggle to recall timelines, positions, or other specifics exactly as they occurred. Responses like fragmented memory, delayed recall, or difficulty articulating details are normal reactions to extreme stress, not signs that someone is lying. Recognising this is essential for anyone handling workplace sexual harassment complaints: it ensures survivors are treated with compassion and respect, rather than skepticism or blame.

Understanding the psychological impacts of trauma is essential for leaders, HR professionals, and investigators who handle workplace sexual harassment cases.

"They weren't convicted so she was obviously lying"

The absence of a conviction does not mean an allegation was false. In 2024–2025, rape offences accounted for 34.2% of all sexual offences recorded by police (gov.uk), yet fewer than 3 in 100 cases resulted in conviction (rapecrisis.org.uk). Low conviction rates are influenced by many systemic factors beyond victims withdrawing from cases, including insufficient evidence, delayed reporting, challenges in corroborating accounts, and procedural barriers within the criminal justice system. When sexual crimes are typically so intimate, of course the barriers to justice through evidence collation are more complex.

The Crown Court backlog in England and Wales reached a record high of 78,329 cases, with trials often delayed for up to four years. These prolonged waits can be emotionally devastating, causing survivors to experience re-traumatisation, anxiety, and a sense of hopelessness. While some survivors withdraw from cases because of these delays, the broader issue is that the criminal justice process alone is not a sufficient deterrent against sexual misconduct.

Fear of consequences cannot replace understanding the psychological drivers, social norms, biases, and myths that enable harassment and assault.

In workplace contexts, these dynamics are mirrored. Delayed investigations, lack of transparency, or unresolved complaints can lead employees to disengage, change their mind about wanting to go through with a complaint, and force them in to leaving, not because their allegations are false, but because they feel unsupported, fear retaliation, or doubt the process will lead to meaningful outcomes. Employers cannot rely solely on zero-tolerance policies to prevent misconduct; they must proactively educate staff and leadership about the underlying psychology of harassment, address harmful workplace norms, challenge myths, and cultivate a culture where reporting is safe and taken seriously. Additionally, setting reasonable timeframes for handling complaints demonstrates organisational commitment to fairness, survivor support, and accountability.

"If they didn't report it, they must be lying."

Many survivors choose not to report harassment because of fear of not being believed, potential retaliation, or concerns about workplace consequences. This is not a sign of deceit.

Looking at the criminal justice system offers valuable lessons. If conviction rates are so low, fewer than 3 in 100 rape cases result in conviction in England and Wales, survivors may reasonably ask: “Why bother putting myself through this process?” Beyond the emotional toll of recounting trauma, survivors face systemic barriers: delayed proceedings, evidential challenges, and public scrutiny. These experiences highlight the importance of understanding the psychological burden of reporting, rather than judging survivors for choosing not to pursue formal complaints.

Society also instils deeply ingrained biases that attribute blame to victims. From a young age, we absorb narratives about what someone “should” have done differently: what they were wearing, whether they were alone, or aspects of their personality. In the context of workplace harassment, these biases may surface as internalised self-blame or fear of being judged by colleagues or managers.

Logically, of course, none of these things are true, only the perpetrator is responsible for harassment or assault. Yet the weight of these societal messages can be profound, and they influence whether a survivor feels safe to come forward.

Company culture plays a central role in either reinforcing or dismantling these barriers.

Organisations that tolerate sexist jokes, misogynistic behaviour, or inappropriate conduct send the message that harassment is socially acceptable. Employees internalise this and understandably fear speaking up. On the other hand, a culture that actively promotes respect, inclusivity, and accountability empowers employees to report misconduct without fear. Education is key: employees and leaders need to understand the psychological drivers of harassment, the biases that shape perceptions of survivors, and the myths that perpetuate silence. Only then can reporting mechanisms and zero-tolerance policies truly be effective.

"They lied about it to get revenge"

This harmful myth, that survivors lie for attention, revenge, or personal gain, ignores the reality of their experiences.

In truth, the idea of “revenge” through reporting sexual misconduct is largely impossible.

Conviction rates are extremely low, and even when complaints are formally investigated, the chances of achieving legal justice are slim. Most survivors are far more likely to come out of the process traumatised, exhausted, and unsupported, than to gain any tangible benefit. Financial reward, social recognition, or revenge is almost never the outcome; the costs overwhelmingly outweigh any perceived “gain.”

High-profile cases highlight this reality. Women who report sexual misconduct often face public scrutiny, career setbacks, reputational damage, and personal attacks. Coming forward frequently brings more harm than benefit, showing that reporting is motivated by a search for justice, protection, and support, not personal gain.

Even in public life, perpetrators can continue to thrive despite serious allegations. Take Conor McGregor, for example, who continued to receive public support and announce political ambitions despite a civil case for rape. In workplace environments, similar dynamics exist: executives who commit harassment or misconduct are sometimes shielded because “the company can’t run without them,” while the victim is treated as the problematic party. This reflects entrenched power imbalances and systemic bias, reinforcing the myth that survivors are motivated by revenge when, in reality, they face significant risk and almost no upside.

I have seen this firsthand recently. A company reached out to me after an impartial investigation concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that their executive had committed sexual harassment. Yet rather than enforcing consequences, the organisation decided not to remove the executive, citing operational concerns, and instead sought to exit the victim through a settlement agreement with a solicitor. They asked if I could provide 1:1 coaching to the perpetrator.

No. That is not work I can do, and it is not aligned with my ethics or morals.

You cannot “coach someone out of being a perpetrator” when the organisation is unwilling to enforce accountability.

This scenario highlights a deeply entrenched problem: organisations that prioritise operations over justice often compound harm by making the victim the “problem,” while the perpetrator continues unchallenged.

This dynamic reflects broader systemic power imbalances and bias. It reinforces myths that survivors are motivated by revenge or gain, when in reality, reporting misconduct carries immense risk and almost no upside. Recognising these patterns is crucial for leaders and HR professionals, as it underscores why creating accountable cultures and enforcing consequences is essential, not just for legal compliance, but to genuinely support survivors and prevent harm.

What you can do to address myths and biases in your workplace

Addressing and debunking myths surrounding false allegations of sexual harassment is not just a moral imperative, it is central to creating safer, more equitable workplaces and ensuring compliance with the Worker Protection Act. Leaders and managers must go beyond zero-tolerance policies and understand the psychological drivers, biases, and societal norms that affect reporting and workplace behaviour. Organisations that approach complaints with empathy, fairness, and accountability protect employees, strengthen culture, and demonstrate true leadership.

As a trauma-informed experts, we support organisations in translating these principles into practical, actionable strategies. This includes leader and manager training, all-staff awareness programmes, prevention frameworks, culture assessments, gap analysis, risk assessments, and policy development. By equipping your teams with knowledge, tools, and guidance, you can create a workplace where survivors feel supported, perpetrators are held accountable, and myths that harm employees are actively challenged.

If you want to ensure your organisation is Worker Protection Act compliant while fostering a genuinely safe and respectful environment, we welcome enquiries about how we can help your business implement effective, trauma-informed approaches to sexual harassment prevention and response.

E: help@onesourcehr.co.uk

T: 01709 460500