Tidal wave of sexual assault-misconduct allegations list

[Guest]

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?

No! Companies absolutely need harassment policies. Please stop misunderstanding my words. See, people always think the worst, it is human nature.

so are you arguing that companies shouldn't have rules leading to disciplinary at all? What's the end game here?

Dude calm down. I was asking because I always hear sexual harassment in the news, but I never hear or read a clear definition.

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 it 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?

Well, people rarely get fired for defamation or bullying, and bullies don't get long term punishments. I am against subjective feelings when there are long-term consequences. If it is subjective, the solution is to fix it and to create clear definitions.

[_DoubtingThomas]

so are you arguing that companies shouldn't have rules leading to disciplinary at all? What's the end game here?

THIS IS BULLS**** PLEASE RETRACT THAT IMMEDIATELY. I don't get along with you like that, please don't make me lose the respect I have for you.

[_DoubtingThomas]

To repeat "I am against subjective feelings when there are long-term consequences. If it is subjective, the solution is to fix it and to create clear definitions." It can be many definitions.

[_EAllusion]

EA, according to the quoted portion you provided, is muddling 'quid pro quo' and a 'hostile work environment'.

Not really. Saying "nice ass" isn't going to meet a hostile work environment. The bar for that is so much higher. So the only way it's making it through is if that comment is a piece of evidence in the case that quid pro quo harassment occurred.

[_EAllusion]

To repeat "I am against subjective feelings when there are long-term consequences. If it is subjective, the solution is to fix it and to create clear definitions." It can be many definitions.

The irony here is your definition of "subjective" is so subjective I can't make heads or tails of it. The law is so heavily entwined with interpreting subjective states - and necessarily so - that I've taken the approach to hold off until you can be more specific.

[_EAllusion]

so are you arguing that companies shouldn't have rules leading to disciplinary at all? What's the end game here?

THIS IS BULLS**** PLEASE RETRACT THAT IMMEDIATELY. I don't get along with you like that, please don't make me lose the respect I have for you.

It's the logical implication of your comment and I was asking it rhetorically. I don't think you don't believe that companies shouldn't have disciplinary at all. That's why your "99%" rule is inconsistent with your beliefs. Again, why single out sexual harassment as requiring this, but not any of the many other reasons given for termination? Can you prove any basis for termination is validly given 99% of the time? How?

Defamation, the one example I pulled out of a hat, certainly can involve serious long-term consequences if someone loses a defamation suit. You're just not explaining why sexual harassment is "subjective" in a untenable way that doesn't apply to other legal issues you seemingly have no problem with.

Why about laws surrounding rape? That turns on consent, which is a subjective thing.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Notice neither Chap nor EA have any sort of solution except "believe the accuser." Any ideas how we, as a society, can keep both the victim's and accused's rights intact? *rubs temples*

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Notice neither Chap nor EA have any sort of solution except "believe the accuser." Any ideas how we, as a society, can keep both the victim's and accused's rights intact? *rubs temples*

- Doc

I have said, even multiple times in this thread, that one should not reflexively believe accusers. In fact, the only person in this thread who has advocated reflexively believing an accuser is you, when you argued that a counter-accusation must be true simply because it was asserted.

This does not mean that DT's logic of "subjective elements of wrong actions shouldn't be considered because consequences are too serious for that" makes any sense at all. First, all elements of the law technically have subjective elements. You cannot escape subjective frames of reference. Second, as a matter of internal consistency, he does not even for a second actually believe this. He superficially seems to, but when you turn that logic on any number of other areas where it applies, he's offended at the very idea that this is what he's saying.

[_EAllusion]

Vox has some examples of cases where the described actions did not meet the "hostile work environment" criteria:

Here are a few cases that federal judges have dismissed in recent decades because they didn't believe a reasonable person would consider them bad enough to create a hostile work environment. The dismissals were later upheld by the appellate courts, creating legal precedent for other judges to dismiss similar cases.

In one Alabama case, a woman who worked at Blue Cross Blue Shield said her supervisor told her she only had a job was because they "needed a skirt in the office." That same supervisor allegedly asked the woman to spend the night with him at a hotel, asked her to "blow" him, constantly called her "babe," and repeatedly zipped and unzipped his pants in front of her. He also had a habit of referring to women with words like "bitch," "slut," and "tramp." The case was filed and dismissed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The dismissal was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007.

A 911 phone dispatcher for the city of San Mateo, California, said her co-worker touched her stomach and commented on how soft and sexy it was. When she tried to push him away, the co-worker forced his hand underneath her sweater and bra to fondle her breast. He tried again, but stopped when another colleague entered the room. Two other women reported similar harassment from the same employee. The case was filed and dismissed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The dismissal was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000.

At a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Chicago, a woman said her male supervisor repeatedly asked her out on dates, which she declined. He often asked about her personal life and told her how beautiful she was, put his hand on her shoulders at least six times, placed "I love you" signs on her desk, and tried to kiss her three times. The case was filed and dismissed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The dismissal was upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993.

At a construction site in Alabama, a male electrical worker said his supervisor repeatedly made comments about his genitals, talked about raping him, and asked him to "feel his pipe." When the worker complained, his supervisor said there was nothing he could do. The supervisor allegedly made multiple sexual comments a day during the 10 days they worked together. After complaining to another supervisor, and then taking a few days off work, the worker was told he no longer had a job. The case was filed and dismissed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in 2000.

These cases have been cited as the legal reasoning for dismissing later lawsuits describing similar behavior.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... harassment

I wonder what sort of jobs people have here, as sexual harassment training is standard in any corporate environment. It's inevitably lame and, ironically, there's some evidence such training increases instances of sexual harassment rather than decreases it. Those "trainings" mainly function as providing legal cover for the businesses. In them, certainly in the ones I've attended, you go over the what the EEOC considers sexual harassment. I linked it. An important distinction is made between occasional teasing, isolated comments or actions, etc. and sexual harassment. Saying "nice ass" to someone, while probably against any decent company's code of conduct, just isn't sexual harassment in the actionable sense, nor is giving someone an innocent look they interpret as leering. If you are going to bring a suit, you need to prove, with documented evidence, that a pervasive hostile environment was created. What that looks like is as established by legal precedent and judge/jury "reasonable observer" discretion as is consent is in cases of rape. And DT's current reasoning is about as helpful as saying that because different people can have different ideas about what is consent, you can't charge people with rape. Being falsely accused of rape is too serious. As if being the victim of rape isn't serious. Doc's move, while different, is to create ludicrous strawmen instead of interacting with what the actual status quo is or what anyone he is addressing thinks.

[_moksha]

To repeat "I am against subjective feelings when there are long-term consequences. If it is subjective, the solution is to fix it and to create clear definitions." It can be many definitions.

So, "He's thinking lewd thoughts about me" would not make the final cut definitionally speaking? What about, "He entered my desk space?"