Prison Fellowship Bermuda chairman Jack Harris is fighting for his right to walk around his office without any trousers on.

In 2004, a Human Rights Board of Inquiry awarded $20,000 each to Lynn Thorne and Jan Rice ? two employees of Mr. Harris ? for his conduct in 1999 and 2000 at a Church Street, Pembroke, open-plan office, which the board ruled amounted to sexual harassment.

Mr. Harris has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which considered the matter of the trouser-less boss yesterday.

?This is a case about a man, who at the time of the complaint, was in excess of 60 years old,? said Delroy Duncan, lawyer for the two women, ?who would walk around an open-plan office dressed in such a manner that either one ? or both of two women who were in his employment ? could see, as Mrs. Thorne said, the outline of his genitalia in his underpants.?

But Mr. Harris? lawyer, Andrew Martin, said his client?s behaviour may have been eccentric and unprofessional but was not sexually charged.

?On the whole, it boils down to Mr. Harris changing in his office, walking about in a common area without any trousers or Bermuda shorts on, but with boxer shorts,? Mr. Martin said. ?He had a shirt or jacket on top.?

These incidents were never claimed to be ?sexual?, he added.

Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller told the civil court hearing the appellant did not contest the facts of the case but complained the Board of Inquiry ignored some of the evidence when it made its decision to grant the $40,000 award to the women.

In addition, she said, the Board of Inquiry failed to say which parts of the evidence could be construed as sexual harassment and that it was up to Mr. Duncan to try and prove to her where the women were harassed, if at all.

Mr. Martin read out to the court the contents of the women?s original complaint to the Human Rights Board.

It said the women often entered Mr. Harris? office and found him wearing nothing but his undershorts. He also reportedly stood close to them and opened his zipper so he could tuck in his shirt. On a number of occasions, Mr. Harris even walked up to the office and said: ?Look! I haven?t got any trousers on.?

Mr. Harris? employees told him to turn away because he was inappropriately dressed.

?Yes, they were unhappy, yes, they expressed discomfort but it wasn?t read by either one of them as sexual conduct directed at either one of them,? Mr. Martin argued. ?The Board didn?t analyse it at all. If the court decides it can amount to sexual harassment, it moves to a second stage where the court considers what is an appropriate range of compensation for this conduct.?

A $40,000 award was not justified, Mr. Martin argued, as such conduct was only on the ?mid-end of the spectrum?.

Mr. Martin also said many of the 16 alleged sexual harassment incidents in the respondents? complaint were not complaints at all.

However, Mr. Duncan said an environment of fear was created in the office.

?Walking around in pants, where the outline of a penis could be seen, is more than unprofessional,? Mr. Duncan said. ?I would ask the court to accept a more appropriate adjective is outrageous.?

He said that Mrs. Thorne had termed the behaviour ?perverted? and said various states of undress can be a form of sexual stimulation.

?Here you have a case where the perpetrator is saying ?I?m just wearing my underpants in a work environment. What?s the problem???

Two young, female employees were exposed to an unrelenting campaign, which resulted in their work experience being an unnecessary state of fear, loathing and suspicion, Mr. Duncan argued.

?You can see genitalia moving from side to side,? the lawyer said. ?He was told officially ? two official times ? not to do it.?

The display of Mr. Harris? pants was considered a sexual stimulus, he said.

?What refuge did these women have? A toilet? We submit he should have changed in there,? Mr. Duncan said. ?It puts women in an invidious position ? a poisoned work environment.?

The appeal continues today.