Tidal wave of sexual assault-misconduct allegations list

[Guest]

Both EAllusion and Chap gave DoubtingThomas substantive answers.

For Chap it is all subjective. They didn't assure me that more than 99% men fired for harassment are not innocent. I would probably be comfortable with 99.9% because in the real world it is impossible to get 100%.

[Guest]

Lemmie,

Isn't DoubtingThomas just asking for a hard and fast rule on sexual harassment? That's how I take what he's getting at.

Thanks Doc for defending me. We do need a clear legal definition because according to news articles men are clueless on sexual harassment http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/22/opinions/ ... index.html

According to the Washington Post

"Many men aren't even sure what sexual harassment is when to check-off whether a series of actions amounted to "sexual harassment or assault." 1 in 3 respondents don’t think catcalling is sexual harassment. 2 in 3 don’t think repeated unwanted invitations to drinks, dinner or dates is sexual harassment. Nearly 1 in 5 don’t think sexual harassment is a fireable offense."

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

If you look at Barnas numbers sexual harassment can be very ambiguous, sometimes even women don't agree with each other. People are divided the below the "Pinching or Poking" line. And would "Persistence in asking someone out on a date after being told NO" include trying to convince someone who looks unsure? Would begging count as sexual harassment?
https://www.barna.com/research/behavior ... harassment

[Guest]

Almost 1 in 3 men don't think "Making sexual comments about looks/body" is sexual harassment.
And almost 1 in 3 women think "Whistling" is sexual harassment.
https://www.barna.com/research/behavior ... arassment/
Good Lord almighty! We urgently need a clear definition of sexual harassment!!!

EDIT TO ADD

EAllusion told me, "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."

So if a guy tells a co-worker "wow you have a nice @$$" that wouldn't count as exual harassment in the workplace? To clarify I had to read his comment twice to understanding it, I misread it at first.

[Guest]

Never mind

[_DoubtingThomas]

Why pick on sexual harassment dismissals as a topic on which to issue this extraordinary demand? Why not stealing office stationery, turning up to work drunk, persistent lateness, or any of the other variety of work-related misbehaviours that can result in dismissal?

Because there is zero tolerance for sexual harassment

This thread is about the fact that large numbers of women have come out and said clearly that they are sick of men in the working environment groping them, propositioning them in demeaning ways, threatening their careers unless they provide sexual favors, and generally making them feel like walking sex toys rather than people.

Now let me ask you "Why pick on sexual harassment" only? People abuse their power all the time for many different reasons. And why pick on men only? According to NYT, "Andrea Ramsey, 56, is a retired business executive who worked in the nonprofit sector before deciding to run for office as a Democrat in next year’s congressional midterm elections. She was one of a growing number of women inspired to seek office in the wake of President Trump’s election. But this month, The Kansas City Star newspaper asked her about a 2005 lawsuit that accused her of sexually harassing a man at LabOne, where she was the executive vice president of human resources, and then firing him after he rejected her advances, a claim Ms. Ramsey denies. The suit was against the company, not Ms. Ramsey specifically, and it was settled in 2006. “Twelve years ago, I eliminated an employee’s position,” Ms. Ramsey said in a letter posted to Facebook on Friday. “That man decided to bring a lawsuit against the company (not against me). He named me in the allegations, claiming I fired him because he refused to have sex with me. That is a lie.”"

and I am not convinced Sexual Harassment is only a men's problem. According to the telegraph, 96% of sexual attacks on men go unreported. According to the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, "It may be challenging for some to think of men being the victims of sexual crimes because it is challenging to recognize men as 'victims' and still think of them as men.”"

[_Chap]

EA has already given a clear explanation of what constitutes sexual harassment as a cause for dismissal from employment. That explanation, or definition if you prefer, has been quoted repeatedly, but you seem to be ignoring it.

Do you find it unclear in any way? If not, why these repeated requests for a definition - when you have already been given one?

[Guest]

Do you find it unclear in any way?

He said, "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.... You can call your coworker a stupid cum dumpster and that won't meet a harassment burden."

Okay fair enough! So if a guy tells a female co-worker "wow you have a nice @$$" wouldn't count as sexual harassment in the workplace? I thought it did, I guess I am too ignorant on the topic.

[Guest]

Wait. I remember a NPR news story about a janitor being fired for whispering "nice @$$" in Spanish. The janitor didn't think the woman knew Spanish, but she did.

[_EAllusion]

That comment wouldn't succeed in a harassment claim unless the person bringing the suit could prove that "nice ass" comment demonstrated that adverse employment decisions were made because sexual advances were rejected. That's a "good luck with that" situation, but some employers do get antsy about legal costs and take action to make it go away. Companies generally frown on this kind of of thing and it likely would be viewed as inappropriate behavior violating their internal code of conduct. You have to be careful not to confuse sexual harassment as defined by the EEOC and inappropriate workplace behavior that meets our ordinary expectations for how people are supposed to treat one another.

Regarding the definition being too "subjective" I'm having hard time nailing down the exact criticism here. Large areas of law are dependent on people's mental states, and I don't think you are saying the law can't involve that because that's much of the law. Likewise, there are all sorts of areas of law that rely on traditional interpretations and judge/jury judgement to interpret legal terms of art. It's so common that reading you charitably makes it hard to know if that's what you are zeroing in on. Do you feel that harassment case law is subjective in a way that defamation is not?

Asking for proof that at least 99% of harassment claims are valid is bizarre. Obviously no data pool exists to prove such a thing. The question I have is why? Is it that you think unless that bar cannot be met, then companies shouldn't have harassment policies? That EEOC shouldn't have harassment rules? I don't think you can prove any termination decision is valid at least 99% of the time, if only because the data doesn't exist for that, so are you arguing that companies shouldn't have rules leading to disciplinary at all? What's the end game here?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Do you find it unclear in any way?

He said, "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.... You can call your coworker a stupid cum dumpster and that won't meet a harassment burden."

Okay fair enough! So if a guy tells a female co-worker "wow you have a nice @$$" that wouldn't count as sexual harassment? I thought it did, I guess I am too ignorant on the topic.

EA, according to the quoted portion you provided, is muddling 'quid pro quo' and a 'hostile work environment'. You are providing an example of sexual harassment, but whether or not it actually is sexual harassment is completely dependent on company policy, her particular feelings on the statement, and whether or not she feels differently at any point in the future, apparently. If HR doesn't exist within the company, the woman (if she identifies as such, you never really know these days) is free to accept the compliment if it is welcome, or remind the man to be a professional, ignore the man, talk to her boss, post on social media, hire a lawyer and sue the individual or company. She could also file assault charges in some jurisdictions.

So. Basically. The man shouldn't do that because it's dumb, unprofessional, and risky on multiple levels. My question for you is, why in the world would a man say something like that at work in the first place? It's nonsense.

- Doc