I'm not a lawyer, but I really doubt any crimes could be proven against Manager B. We can only hope that they already have a similar allegation against him and are more likely to believe SO because of it.
Whoa, none of this is about reporting a CRIME. This is a matter of CIVIL law.
Without expressing any view on the likelihood of criminal process being pursued by the police or by the prosecutorial authorities, and also without expressing any view of the likelihood of a conviction being obtained if the same were pursued, it does appear that the original poster's posts, if broadly construed, arguably contain allegations of criminal misconduct, which most of the replies appear to have overlooked. Obviously, criminal law is different in every jurisdiction, but I was especially concerned by these aspects of the original story:
SO was getting increasingly weirded out by Manager B's behavior and, since the guy was making it hard for him to leave, decided to try to get Manager B so drunk that he passed out. ... SO ended up pushing him away a few times, sort of ran to the elevators. (He told me it was "a lucky thing" they closed before Manager B got there.) ...
Most of it he brushed off as just drunken behavior, until the Manager wouldn't let him go ...
(Emphasis added.)
The original post is subject to multiple interpretations (and the lack of clarity might be due to the fact that we are receiving the story through an intermediary rather than from the source), but reading it broadly, it sounds as though "the Manager" gave the impression that the original poster's "SO" was not free to leave the event, either by implying that the latter would be met with physical force if he attempted to leave, or perhaps actually attempting to use, or using, some physical force (after all, if the Manager didn't attempt to use physical force, the SO wouldn't have needed to "push[] him away a few times")
Some posters may have interpreted the perceived detention as being only in the mind of the SO, rather than credibly based on actions by the Manager, but the balance of the posts weigh against that interpretation for two reasons: (1) the SO was apparently so concerned for his safety that he felt that attempting to render the Manager unconscious was the only easy way to physically escape the situation rather than simply walking out the door at any time (many posters have said that this reflects badly on the SO, but to me, it suggests that the SO felt very scared), and (2) the original poster states that her SO is "not used to the signals of imminent sexual harassment the way we ladies tend to be", which suggests to me that the feeling of detention was based on very clear and articulable signs of danger rather than existing only in the mind of the SO. Now, I agree that the original posts were not clear about exactly what happened that night, but that is because (1) we are receiving a hearsay account of the events, and (2) this post was written for the purpose of eliciting workplace advice from an internet forum, not for convincing the police to obtain a warrant for arrest, or for convincing the state to prosecute, or for convincing a jury or judge to convict.
Based on my analysis of the original posts, and keeping in mind what I bolded and underlined above and how
I am not expressing any view of the likelihood of charges, prosecution, or conviction, there are arguably a few crimes that may have been committed by "the Manager". First, detaining the SO by means of causing him to feel fear (even without actually committing violence against him) is likely to be a crime itself in most or all jurisdictions. By way of example, in California, false imprisonment committed
without "violence, menace, fraud, or deceit" is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and or one year in jail or both. CA Penal Code ("CPC") § 237(a). This crime can be committed without any physical restraint, because "the restraint may be accomplished by words or acts that the individual fears to disregard".
People v. Babich, 14 Cal App 4th 801, 808 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Secondly, putting aside for a moment the proposition that the Manager could be guilty of a crime even if he didn't use force against the SO, it actually sounds like the Manager either used or attempted to use force (either of which is potentially a crime). Specifically, the OP says that the SO "push[ed] [the Manager] away a few times". It is difficult to understand why the Manager would need to be pushed away unless he either touched the SO first (which would potentially be battery by the Manager, see CPC § 242) or gave the impression (e.g. by reaching forward) the he was imminently about to use force against SO and SO reacted to avoid the same (which would potentially be assault by the Manager, see CPC § 240). Neither of these crimes requires a showing of specific intent,
People v. Williams, 26 Cal4th 779, 788 (Supreme Ct 2001), and voluntary intoxication is unlikely to be a defence.
The original poster and some respondents comment on the lack of corroborating evidence for the allegations, but in most jurisdictions, corroboration is technically not necesary to obtain a conviction for any of the crimes just mentioned. Throughout the United States and Canada, the general rule (although it has some exceptions) is that "[a] conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness".
Minnesota v. Goggleye, No A15-0125, 2016 Minn App Unpub LEXIS 42 at *10 (MN Ct App Jan 11, 2016) (collecting cases). If the policy of the law were otherwise, it would be impossible for a great deal of crimes to be tried.
Now, I stress again that I express no view on whether it is worth talking to the police about these matters, or about whether the police would pursue the allegations, or about whether a prosecutor would take carriage of the proceedings, or about whether a jury or judge would return a conviction. I am not making any suggestion of speaking to the police, to the prosecutorial authorities, or taking any other such steps. I express no view on any of these matters, especially since we are reading only a hearsay account of this story and my analysis involves heavily reading between the lines. The only reason I've made this post is to comment on some allegations contained in the original post that, on their face, seemed potentially serious, and that seriousness may have been overlooked by other posts. Once again though, I express no view on whether the state should be engaged with respect to this matter.
