Agreed. Both situations should be dealt with separately. If HR was busted for harassment, at no point in the judgment should the decision the network made on Irvin even come under consideration. Likewise for Irvin.

Imagine if your wife was harassed at work, and the powers that be said, "yeah, that was bad, but we didn't fire that other guy for smoking pot, so you can go free". I don't think that would go over well.

I also have a problem with the Irvin decision. I think that by not suspending him or anything, they are implicidly saying it's ok. But that has no bearing on my opinion of the decision for HR.

Besides, from the sounds of it (albeit with zero evidence), it looks like HR has already had his share of second chances.