Worker Says Someone Threatened to Call Her Job — Commenters Told Her to Bring HR a Police Report

A Kansas worker said she was already dealing with a police investigation when the accused person allegedly tried to pressure her in a new way: by threatening to contact her job.

The worker shared the situation in a post on r/AskHR, explaining that she had filed a police report after a serious incident involving a friend’s boyfriend. After she went to authorities, she said the boyfriend began threatening to send videos to her employer.

According to the worker, the videos allegedly showed her drinking, dancing, and possibly smoking. She was 25, so the drinking was legal. She also said weed was decriminalized in her city, and she did not believe the threat would actually help the man’s situation. Still, the idea of someone trying to drag her workplace into a criminal complaint left her unsure what to do.

Her question was practical: should she contact HR ahead of time, or wait to see if he actually followed through?

That kind of threat can feel humiliating, even when the material itself is not especially damaging. The person making the threat was not only trying to embarrass her. In her view, he was trying to make her worry about her income, reputation, and professional life after she had already gone to police.

The worker did not describe the videos as anything that directly involved her job. They were not recorded at work, they did not appear to involve company property, and she was not underage. But the threat still carried weight because employers can react unpredictably when outsiders send personal material to them.

That uncertainty was the point. Even if she believed she had done nothing wrong, she did not know how HR would respond if a stranger suddenly contacted them with videos and accusations.

The worker’s situation also showed how intimidation can spread beyond the original incident. Once she filed a police report, the accused person allegedly tried to create pressure somewhere else. If the workplace got pulled in, the issue could become even more stressful. She would have to explain private circumstances to HR, worry about rumors, and hope the company understood that the contact was retaliation or intimidation rather than a legitimate workplace concern.

The worker seemed aware that notifying HR could also feel awkward. Telling an employer that someone might send them videos of you drinking and dancing is not exactly a comfortable conversation. She did not want to overshare, create unnecessary concern, or make herself look like the problem.

But waiting carried risk too. If HR received the message first with no context, they might not know it was tied to a police report. They might delete it, ignore it, forward it to the wrong person, or treat it like ordinary outside drama instead of possible evidence.

That was the core question: would a quiet heads-up protect her, or would it invite more attention than the threat deserved?

Commenters mostly told the worker to inform HR, but not by giving every private detail.

One commenter suggested a clear, limited message: she could tell HR she had been the victim of a crime, had filed a police report, and that the accused person had threatened to contact her workplace in an effort to intimidate her. The commenter said that would give HR the context it needed without forcing her to describe every part of the incident.

Others agreed that she should provide a police report number or the investigating officer’s contact information if she had it. That way, if the man did send anything, HR would understand it might be connected to an ongoing investigation and should be preserved instead of deleted.

Several commenters also told her to send the threat to police. The worker later said she had contacted police immediately after receiving the message and had sent it to the detective. She also said she had an album of evidence on her phone, and commenters urged her to back it up securely so she would not lose anything if something happened to the device.

People also reassured her that the videos themselves did not sound like the career-ending material the man seemed to think they were. Commenters pointed out that adults drinking and dancing on their own time are not usually issues for most employers unless the conduct is illegal, tied to the company, or connected to a highly regulated job.

Still, commenters warned her not to assume the man would be too foolish or lazy to follow through. One person noted that people do not have to be smart to do damaging things. That was part of why the proactive approach made sense.

The worker later updated that she had informed HR and kept the explanation vague. She said she told them someone had made a threat and that they should be aware. According to her update, HR sent resources and she believed her company would defend her if needed.

That was the outcome commenters had pushed for: not a dramatic workplace confession, but a calm warning that protected her side of the story before the accused person could twist it.

The situation did not end with the man contacting her employer, at least not in the post. But the threat itself had already done damage by forcing her to think about how far he might go and who else he might involve.

For commenters, the most important thing was that she had not stayed silent. She had reported the original incident, sent the threat to police, preserved evidence, and let HR know enough to recognize any contact from him as part of a larger pattern.

The advice came down to keeping control of the narrative without oversharing. HR did not need every painful detail. They needed to know that any message from this person was not a good-faith concern about an employee. It was allegedly part of an intimidation effort after a police report.

That context could make all the difference if the threat ever landed in someone’s inbox.