I still feel that you have been unable to convince that an actual crime was committed. In the end it's just turning into an online smear campaign, but with allegations that can't be completely supported nor substantiated.
Just because you're not convinced does not mean the evidence is not convincing. Again, you are not the center of the universe.
If anything, you are damaging those very spaces you pretend to create for survivors with all this unsubstantiated innuendo that you splurge onto the internet. You are not helping survivors.
Tell that to the multiple people who have reached out to me and thanked me for speaking up, several of them survivors themselves. You have no earthly idea what you're talking about.
The definition of subordinate and superior is complicated here. Certainly Rosebud does not see herself as a subordinate. Both are reporting to Joanna Brooks it seems to me. Management arranging for both people to resign and be rehired as independent contractors with their prior consent, not as described above. Then Rosebud retracts her agreement to resign and be rehired as an independent contractor. Only after all of that does she claim she was sexually harassed, and only after Open Stories Foundation does not bend to her will.
Consider what John says to Rosebud in April of 2011:
“Hey…just so we’re clear…the official board consists of
5 people:
1) Ryan Millecam (a lawyer)
2) Elisabeth Calvert Smith (also lawyer)
3) Jacque
4) Ashley Merback
5) Myself
So those 4 are the only people I answer to. As of now,
we are not really meeting or doing anything. They are
not supervising me, and part of me wants to keep it
that way for as long as possible.”
Then there's this, which is from John's letter telling her to leave in Aug of 2012:
“Because it's my organization at the end of the day. At
least as it is now.
Someday we may have a meaningfully participatory
board. but we don't have that now, and I don't have the
time to interact with such a board.”
So who, according to John, was in charge of Open Stories Foundation? (this is why it helps to read all the evidence before drawing conclusions)
Last edited by jpatterson on Tue May 11, 2021 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And it still doesn't matter because the sexual harassment policy of one of the largest corporations on earth says zero about relationships between superiors and subordinates.
If Open Stories Foundation had the same sexual harassment policy in place that Apple has today, would John have violated it? Note that nowhere in Apple's policy are relationships between subordinates and superiors prohibited.
Yup. That looks reasonable to me. I don't think so.
Let's take a look at Apple's sexual harassment policy. You know, one of the largest corporations in the world.
....If Open Stories Foundation had the same sexual harassment policy in place that Apple has today, would John have violated it? Note that nowhere in Apple's policy are relationships between subordinates and superiors prohibited.
No need to consider 'ifs'. Open Stories Foundation does have a sexual harassment policy in place now. It's much more relevant than a comparison to Apple:
Open Stories Foundation considers sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by persons in a supervisory or
authoritative role toward subordinates within the same department or chain of command, or by persons
having authority over staffing or salary decisions, to be harassment for which disciplinary action will be taken.
And it still doesn't matter because the sexual harassment policy of one of the largest corporations on earth says zero about relationships between superiors and subordinates.
What does Apple's harassment policy have anything to do with this discussion?
Should we hold Apple employee's to Open Stories Foundation's policy? Why would you assume Open Stories Foundation should be judged by Apple?
Open Stories Foundation (led by John) put out a policy. To pretend they shouldn't be held to their own standard is mind-boggling.
No need to consider 'ifs'. Open Stories Foundation does have a sexual harassment policy in place now. It's much more relevant than a comparison to Apple:
Exactly.
Fact: Open Stories Foundation released their policy in 2018.
Let's take a look at Apple's sexual harassment policy. You know, one of the largest corporations in the world.
If Open Stories Foundation had the same sexual harassment policy in place that Apple has today, would John have violated it? Note that nowhere in Apple's policy are relationships between subordinates and superiors prohibited.
I'd say it could reasonably be argued that an employment decision was made based on an individual's submission to or rejection of sexual verbal and physical conduct.
In essence, it appears, JD, and/or the board, facilitated her termination (made an employment decision) based on submission to or rejection of sexual verbal and physical conduct.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
No need to consider 'ifs'. Open Stories Foundation does have a sexual harassment policy in place now. It's much more relevant than a comparison to Apple:
Exactly.
Fact: Open Stories Foundation released their policy in 2018.
In essence, it appears, JD, and/or the board, facilitated her termination (made an employment decision) based on submission to or rejection of sexual verbal and physical conduct.
So, Rosebud was fired for accepting a job based on sexual favors and John got to keep his job even though he hired someone on the basis of sexual favors?