Tidal wave of sexual assault-misconduct allegations list

[_DoubtingThomas]

and because there is no clear definition of sexual harassment, that means an employer (to cover his/her @$$) can simply fire an employee accused of harassment, even if it is unclear.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

:::Newsflash:::

Accused: Michael Irvin - HoF WR, TV Personality - Sexual Harassment (Waist Grabbing)

Accuser: Sports Illustrated makeup artist Erin McParland

http://www.weei.com/blogs/alex-reimer/m ... fl-network

- Doc

also for lulz

The guy I most admire these days is Louis CK

[_EAllusion]

Every day a father of five loses his job for some unfair subjective feeling. Is that right? Shouldn't we try to fix it by simply having a clear definition on what sexual harassment is?

That almost certainly isn't true. Do you have any evidential basis for thinking that at least 350+ fathers of five are losing their jobs every year due to ambiguous sexual harassment claims? That seems doubtful.

Are you against having a clear definition on sexual harassment? If you are please stop kissing the feminists @$$. I suspect feminazis s*** backfired and contributed to Donald Trump's victory.

You're acting like there isn't several decades of law surrounding sexual harassment claims that do involve legal precedent on what can and cannot be used as evidence to establish quid pro qou or hostile work environment harassment claims. And the funny thing is that it is notoriously hard to prove harassment in court and as a result a lot of harassment goes under the radar. You've flip-flopped a bar that is often very difficult to meet and made it seem like people are winning harassment suits left and write due to little to no burden.

It is true that at-will employees can be fired for virtually any reason or not reason at all, so businesses might choose to fire someone rather than spend money trying to defend a harassment suit, but that problem exists for literally any workplace protection issue. You don't need sexual harassment claims to bring it up. Businesses make decisions based on legal costs all the time. I once had to accommodate an employee showing up as late as they want because they claimed, without evidence, that their ADHD was a disability that prevented them from being to work on time. It's not that we wouldn't win a ADA lawsuit should it come to that. We totally would. It's that my HR calculated that it was cheaper to not spend the legal resources on it much to my eternal frustration.*

*I'm not even sure if it was that. It may have been that HR's jobs were evaluated by how many suits are brought against us and there was some quota they were trying to keep under for job performance eval reasons. Search me.

[_Chap]

Listen the world is not black or white, the US has 300 million people which means everyday s*** happens. Every day a father of five loses his job for some unfair subjective feeling. Is that right? Shouldn't we try to fix it by simply having a clear definition on what sexual harassment is?

Are you against having a clear definition on sexual harassment? If you are please stop kissing the feminists @$$. I suspect feminazis s*** backfired and contributed to Donald Trump's victory.

You're acting like there isn't several decades of law surrounding sexual harassment claims that do involve legal precedent on what can and cannot be used as evidence to establish quid pro qou or hostile work environment harassment claims. And the funny thing is that it is notoriously hard to prove harassment in court and as a result a lot of harassment goes under the radar. You've flip-flopped a bar that is often very difficult to meet and made it seem like people are winning harassment suits left and write due to little to no burden.

I think I have misunderstood Doubting Thomas. He really is looking for a legally applicable definition of sexual harassment. I considered the possibility that this might be what he was asking for, but dismissed it because that seemed to me to be an obviously foolish request, given the situation you (EA) outlined.

So having rejected that, I interpreted his request in the light of some of his other recent posts, in which, if I recall rightly, the issue of behaviour in relation to women seemed to pre-occupy him. None the less, in any situation of normal life and work, it seems to me that it is extremely unlikely that a normal man who who treats women with the same respect he would give his male colleagues is ever likely to have to consider legal issues of harassment, etc.

[Guest]

You're acting like there isn't several decades of law surrounding sexual harassment claims that do involve legal precedent on what can and cannot be used as evidence to establish quid pro qou or hostile work environment harassment claims. And the funny thing is that it is notoriously hard to prove harassment in court and as a result a lot of harassment goes under the radar. You've flip-flopped a bar that is often very difficult to meet and made it seem like people are winning harassment suits left and write due to little to no burden.

I am not talking about winning or losing court cases, I am talking about men losing their jobs.

That almost certainly isn't true. Do you have any evidential basis for thinking that at least 350+ fathers of five are losing their jobs every year due to ambiguous sexual harassment claims? That seems doubtful.

Okay I don't know, but in a country of 300 million people we should expect to see at least 350+ fathers being fired for ambiguous harassment reports. Why? Because sexual harassment is poorly defined. According to business insider sexual harassment is the number 9 most common reason why employees get fired, so I would think that at least 350 get unfairly fired for ambiguous harassment reports.

Being fired for harassment is more common than being fired for ". Unauthorized surfing of the internet, or breach of company email policy". Read "The 13 Most Common Reasons You're Likely To Get Fired" http://www.businessinsider.com/the-13-m ... red-2011-6

Now, for a second let's not talk about harassment, let's talk about other things. Do you agree that many employees in the US get fired for ridiculous reasons?

It is true that at-will employees can be fired for virtually any reason or not reason at all, so businesses might choose to fire someone rather than spend money trying to defend a harassment suit, but that problem exists for literally any workplace protection issue. You don't need sexual harassment claims to bring it up. Businesses make decisions based on legal costs all the time. I once had to accommodate an employee showing up as late as they want because they claimed, without evidence, that their ADHD was a disability that prevented them from being to work on time. It's not that we wouldn't win a ADA lawsuit should it come to that. We totally would. It's that my HR calculated that it was cheaper to not spend the legal resources on it much to my eternal frustration.

Yes, but I wasn't talking about lawsuits.

[_DoubtingThomas]

None the less, in any situation of normal life and work, it seems to me that it is extremely unlikely that a normal man who who treats women with the same respect he would give his male colleagues is ever likely to have to consider legal issues of harassment, etc.

I agree, but again in a country of 300 million people it does happen, possibly every day.

[_Chap]

Okay I don't know, but in a country of 300 million people we should expect to see at least 350+ fathers being fired for ambiguous harassment reports. Why? Because sexual harassment is poorly defined. According to business insider sexual harassment is the number 9 most common reason why employees get fired, so I would think that at least 350 in the entire country get fired for ambiguous harassment claims. Being fired for harassment is more common than being fired for ". Unauthorized surfing of the internet, or breach of company email policy". Read "The 13 Most Common Reasons You're Likely To Get Fired" http://www.businessinsider.com/the-13-m ... red-2011-6

The example of sexual harassment given by the source you quote was:

Example: The bank worker who ejaculated into a co-workers drink bottle without her knowing, twice, and she drank it. After the second time, she assumed her water tasted strange for one reason, and had her boyfriend ejaculate into a water bottle to see if her suspicion was right.

The banker "admitted in a taped interview that he ejaculated into an 'attractive' co-worker’s water bottle because 'her lips had touched it.'"

Yup. That poor employee. If only sexual harassment had been better defined, he'd have known not to do that. Sad. How can a man avoid persecution by these feminazis?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Yup. That poor employee. If only sexual harassment had been better defined, he'd have known not to do that. Sad. How can a man avoid persecution by these feminazis?

Yes that is obviously sexual harassment, but in some cases it is not so clear, and that is why we need a clear definition.
Are elevator eyes sexual harassment? One time invitations? If Doctor CamNC4Me is having an X-rated conversation about women with Some Schmo in the lunch room, would it be sexual harassment if a woman happens to hear them?

I think I have misunderstood Doubting Thomas. He really is looking for a legally applicable definition of sexual harassment..

Thanks Chap

[_EAllusion]

Because sexual harassment as it is understood in labor law is hard to prove, employers don't really have to react to ambiguous claims of harassment. You are arguing DT that sexual harassment is so poorly defined that misunderstandings abound and huge numbers of men are losing their jobs because of ambiguous claims. That is an assertion I'd prefer to see some evidence for, because I'm skeptical that is true. My skepticism comes from the fact that there is in fact a deep well of legal history that helps define out what sorts of things count and don't count as evidence of actionable harassment claims. Your supposing that it must be common because the country is large isn't going to cut it.

Employers might fire someone to avoid a lawsuit, so I'm open to the possibility that your made-up numbers are correct, but I'd love to see it. Employers can also fire employees if they don't like their inter-personal conduct, but that's a distinct thing from being fired for "sexual harassment" per se.

Your argument is that sexual harassment is so poorly defined that men are risking losing their job if they compliment a woman's hair and that gets misinterpreted. This egregiously misunderstands what the burden of proof is in a harassment claim. You can call your coworker a stupid cum dumpster and that won't meet a harassment burden. Your boss might not think you a team-player and fire you for that, but it wouldn't count as sexual harassment in a strict legal sense.

Sexual harassment is stating or implying that a person's advantages or disadvantages in employment are dependent on them returning sexual favor or creating a pervasive - meaning frequent and severe - hostile environment based on a person's gender or discriminating against them based on the same. There is legal precedent for what that looks like.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Employers might fire someone to avoid a lawsuit, so I'm open to the possibility that your made-up numbers are correct, but I'd love to see it

and I am open to the possibility of being wrong. Unfortunately there are no studies to answer my questions. So let me just say it is possible. If it is very unlikely that 300 men on the entire country get unfairly fired for harassment claims please let me know why.

You are arguing DoubtingThomas that sexual harassment is so poorly defined that misunderstandings abound and huge numbers of men are losing their jobs because of ambiguous claims.

Not saying it is a massive problem and happens to all men. But can you please assure that more than 99% of men fired for sexual harassment accusations are not innocent?

My skepticism comes from the fact that there is in fact a deep well of legal history that helps define out what sorts of things count and don't count as evidence of actionable harassment claims. Your supposing that it must be common because the country is large isn't going to cut it..

350 doesn't make it common. I thought "Federal civil cases have a much lower threshold of proof"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSbV5ZXTKU

Your argument is that sexual harassment is so poorly defined that men are risking losing their job if they compliment a woman's hair and that gets misinterpreted. This egregiously misunderstands what the burden of proof is in a harassment claim

I understand, but I thought in the workplace you were guilty until proven innocent, for everything, not just for the sexual harassment. I myself know of some guys that were fired for unfunded claims such as a guy being fired for taking a 20 minute break when he only took 15 minutes.