Prior history of what is relevant when accusing others?
You have absolutely no idea if those calls are related to "dementia". I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you don't even know what "dementia" is.
You have no idea what those calls were about and nothing but your own internal processes to say they are related to "dementia".
That doesn't even make sense.
My statement referred to how difficult rape is to prove coupled with societal stigma of the accuser (not to mention physical intimidation) makes me wonder why they even bother to report it. My words.
Does that mean "This woman can't be a gold-digger because rape is underreported."? Absolutely not. Your last sentence in that quote doesn't even make sense.
I'm not seeing your argument here; are you saying that people shouldn't be so quick to judge people accused of sexual assault or(and?) that the definition of sexual assault should be legally changed to allow for a few "no"s?
It's not what did she do, it's what did he do. You said his denial was ambigious and made him untrustworthy because he did not volunteer the adultery. He was asked directly about sexual assault and answered clear as day.
I didn't say her calls were related to dementia, I was giving an example of how prior history is relevent. However if just two months prior she was hospitalized as a danger to herself with regard to suicide not once but twice, it can show a pattern of mental instability. Those 911 calls could corroborate that. Having incomplete information is one thing. Having the information and hiding it is another and could be grounds for a mistrial.
Sexual assault/rape can have very broad definitions depending upon which laws or definitions are used. A man went to jail recently for having consentual sex that become rape when the court declared she removed consent during the act not by saying no, but by her saying she had to get somewhere. Likewise some definitions of date rape allow for declaring it rape if she has remorse the morning after, or if she consented but felt pressured.
If it were only no means no, it would be easy. But the politics of rape has moved well beyond that. Much like how sexual harassment has moved from boss using power to get sex to telling a dirty joke creating a hostile environment.
It's not what did she do, it's what did he do. You said his denial was ambigious and made him untrustworthy because he did not volunteer the adultery. He was asked directly about sexual assault and answered clear as day.
He said "you guys know me." referring to his crafted image. At worst it was a lie of omission. He's still not trustworthy because the image he created was a lie, he is just like the rest of the unfaithful NBA crowd.
Quote:
However if just two months prior she was hospitalized as a danger to herself with regard to suicide not once but twice, it can show a pattern of mental instability. Those 911 calls could corroborate that. Having incomplete information is one thing. Having the information and hiding it is another and could be grounds for a mistrial.
Who is hiding what? Spouting off about crap you don't understand again.
Those types of things can easily be locked from the public, that doesn't mean they are locked from the court. Unless you think you're the judge.
Quote:
A man went to jail recently for having consentual sex that become rape when the court declared she removed consent during the act not by saying no, but by her saying she had to get somewhere.
I'd have to hear the case.
Quote:
Likewise some definitions of date rape allow for declaring it rape if she has remorse the morning after, or if she consented but felt pressured.
You're going to have to back these things up.
Quote:
If it were only no means no, it would be easy. But the politics of rape has moved well beyond that. Much like how sexual harassment has moved from boss using power to get sex to telling a dirty joke creating a hostile environment.
O'BRIEN: We heard ... that new information is coming out about the medical history to some degree of this young woman -- that police were called to her dorm room and determined she was a danger to herself and she was taken to the hospital. Do stories and information like that have any relevance to the case at all?
TOOBIN: It depends how cynical you are. Something like that is almost certainly, in my view, irrelevant as a matter of law. It could not be introduced into court.
However, what a lot of what's going on now is going to condition the jury pool. People having heard this are going to find it very difficult to unhear it. And the jurors who ultimately hear the case may have in the back of their mind or in the front of their mind that there is something not quite right about this woman.
All these links. And incorrect links! of her past are not relative unless the judge says they are or if the jurists are liars and shirk their duty.
and it would possibly also open the door to the psych of all start sports figures. and that's an area where kobe really does not want to go IMO...
That's true, but if public reaction is any indication to you it is obvious that people are not at all concerned with the conduct of athletes in these situations as much as they are with teenage girls going through depression. Men are supposed to sleep with everything that walks, women are just whores.
Umm. both create a hostile workplace for women. i don't see your point. ??!!!???
Really? I didn't use gender in my statement. So I suppose if a woman tells you a dirty joke or forwards an email to you, then she should be fired and sued?
You don't see my point because you don't live in reality.
That she didn't go "straight to" the police is one.
So it's "atypical" now. Moving the goalposts.
Everything that has bearing on the case should be examined, absolutely. I haven't seen anyone make the argument that her past depression has anything to do with anything. They simply say it and leave it.
I said, "I mean, are you more inclined to believe a girl who goes straight to the police or one who *is* an emotional wreck who brags about Kobe's penis?" How did you infer I said she didn't go straight to the police?
Perhaps I made one of those lies of obmission you seem to love so much.
And that behavior is not just atypical. It raises alarms in ANY case, and any lawyer knows that.
Quote:
"The more these indications of instability emerge, the more difficult it might prove for the prosecutor to persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this young woman did not misinterpret the event."
But of course you guys just chose to ignore that altogether and focus on the following huge if:
Quote:
Christopher Mueller, a law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, said judges can exclude evidence that exposes a witness to undue embarrassment if it isn't essential to the charges.
So I suppose if a woman tells you a dirty joke or forwards an email to you, then she should be fired and sued?
Sexual Harassment is a two way street. Women do the same thing but to a lesser degree. So to answer your question. She should be brought forward to her company superior written up JUST LIKE A MAN and if the policy warrents FIRED OR SUED JUST LIKE A MAN.
Quote:
You don't see my point because you don't live in reality.
No. I don't live in your reality Edit: Make nice. Let's just say and i'm glad i am not a part of it.
Quote:
Much like how sexual harassment has moved from boss using power to get sex to telling a dirty joke creating a hostile environment.
Yes. what a horrible, horrible, thing to strive for a workplace that keeps people from having to listen to sexually explicit or derogatory jokes towards any gender...
Sexual Harassment is a two way street. Women do the same thing but to a lesser degree. So to answer your question. She should be brought forward to her company superior written up JUST LIKE A MAN and if the policy warrents FIRED OR SUED JUST LIKE A MAN.
No. I don't live in your reality Edit: Make nice. Let's just say and i'm glad i am not a part of it.
Yes. what a horrible, horrible, thing to strive for a workplace that keeps people from having to listen to sexually explicit or derogatory jokes towards any gender...
Really and what constitues dirty or hostile Mr. Bring on the Thought Police?
In some cultures smiling excessively is considered how women solicite for prostitution. If you smile too much at your co-workers should the file suit? Different cultures accept different degrees of touch for daily interactions and also have different definitions of personal space. Should you lose your job because someone felt you were seeking a sexual advance on them due to being in their personal space excessively. Suits have been filed for what is defined as ogling according to the distressed co-worker. Should you be fired for looking at someone for what they deem is too long?
Sexual harassment started with people (men typically) who used their power to get sex out of women with threats of job loss or no promotions or pay raises.
Instead you advocate a reality where you should get written up or fired if you stare out your co-workers ankle tattoo for a couple second too long.
Explicit is defined as...
Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
So if you tell a joke with innuendo is that sexually explicit?
Should I have filed claims on all my female coworkers/teachers when they held a bridal shower and suggested I could jump out of the cake since I was the only man under 35 working at the school?
I said, "I mean, are you more inclined to believe a girl who goes straight to the police or one who *is* an emotional wreck who brags about Kobe's penis?" How did you infer I said she didn't go straight to the police?
or -- used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea> <sink or swim>, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases <lessen or abate>, or approximation or uncertainty <in five or six days>
Quote:
And that behavior is not just atypical. It raises alarms in ANY case, and any lawyer knows that.
Like what?
Quote:
But of course you guys just chose to ignore that altogether and focus on the following huge if:
What will convince a jury (the part you accuse me of ignoring is neither here nor there. They might very well be filled with people who fall for the inferences others leave when they say "she was very depressed months before the incident" without thinking further about it.
Of course, physical injuries might go a way towards determining the case as well. Unfortunately for Mr. Bryant it doesn't seem purely he-said/she-said. I have little doubt it wouldn't have gotten this far on a 19-year-old's word alone.
------
trumptman:
Nice canned rant, you must have these trite pieces of genius stored up in .txt files waiting to be copy/pasted.
He said women and men should both be punished according to company policy. But you go on with your ranting anyway.
or -- used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea> <sink or swim>, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases <lessen or abate>, or approximation or uncertainty <in five or six days>
Nice canned rant, you must have these trite pieces of genius stored up in .txt files waiting to be copy/pasted.
He said women and men should both be punished according to company policy. But you go on with your ranting anyway. [/B]
Naw Grove, I just have some nice applescripts that generate them after I enter a few variables. And by the way, there are lots of decaffinated brands that are just as tasty as caffinated.
The rant wasn't about gender, it was about the openness of the definition of harassment. If you are trying to figure out what the hell that tattoo is on your co-workers ankle, should you have the possibility of a reprimand or firing due to the fact that your started for 10 seconds versus 5 and thus were ogling someone?
I thought my replies were pretty gender neutral. The original illusion to sexual harassment was because when it first started it was thought of as a man on woman issue with the male having the power (being the boss) and using it to get something from the woman. It has basically moved on to just politcal correctness and attempts at thought control.
>In some cultures smiling excessively is considered how women solicite for
Who the hell cares about other cultures?! I am only commenting on the US of A.
> prostitution. If you smile too much at your co-workers should the file suit?
> Different cultures accept different degrees of touch for daily interactions and
> And different cultures don't allow women to go outside without covering all parts of their skin. We are talking about the USA and in this country this
> also have different definitions of personal space. Should you lose your job because someone felt you were seeking a sexual advance on them due to being in their personal space excessively. Suits have been filed for what is defined as ogling according to the distressed co-worker. Should you be fired for looking at someone for what they deem is too long?
Moronic. Person getting stared at complains. Person staring gets write up told to stop immediatly, told rules again. Person staring does not stop. Person staring gets fired. A large part of the reason why those suits had to be brought was because the nimrod employeer did NOT take action.
> Sexual harassment started with people (men typically) who used their power to get sex out of women with threats of job loss or no promotions or pay raises.
And I assume you agree with at least that use. No wait i probably shouldn't assume when it comes to you. But hey now. once the slipery slopes dives into getting in the way of me asking my coworker repeatedly "will you my suck my schlong" that's when things get a little iffy .
> Instead you advocate a reality where you should get written up or fired if you stare out your co-workers ankle tattoo for a couple second too long.
What a moronic "comeback" I advocated no such thing. Make up what you like. Belittle the sexual harrasement laws all you like but don't bring up the tired who defines what policy.
When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim?s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.? Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)
and he's one for all those tatoo starers in the audience...
"mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee" would not affect the conditions of employment to sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII); Henson, 682 F.2d at 904 (quoting same). For sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive "to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment." Ibid. Respondent's allegations in this case -- which include not only pervasive harassment but also criminal conduct of the most serious nature -- are plainly sufficient to state a claim for "hostile environment" sexual harassment.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (USSC+)
Opinions
REHNQUIST, J., Opinion of the Court
And its up to the employeers to make sure the rules are defined too all and followed by all.
But let me play you for a second. But keyboard what if there are employee's writing obsene graffiti in the bathroom. That's not sexual harrasment is it? I as an employer can not be held responsible can i?
Not clear enough? That's why we have a court system.
> Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
>
> So if you tell a joke with innuendo is that sexually explicit?
Go for it. Test the law. I'll sit back and wait for how turns out.
>
> Should I have filed claims on all my female coworkers/teachers when they held a bridal shower and suggested I could jump out of the cake since I was the only man under 35 working at the school?
. No. if it bothered you should have brought it up with your superiors. I'm sure you know who they are. If they didn't do anything (like say, forbidding cake jumping) then see this:
>Really and what constitues dirty or hostile Mr. Bring on the Thought Police?
Here you go Mr. The World is Against Me.
Keep it, try not to share.
Boy you sure don't get it do you. You only care about what we do in the U.S of A, did it occur to you clueless boy that the U.S. has people from just about everywhere you can imagine. They bring the language, culture and understandings associated with them. I mentioned the smiling incident because it happened here in California in a Korean neighborhood. Korean bank tellers wouldn't smile at the customers. (Many folks think Koreans especially unfriendly and they are joked about in many black comedy films as a result) However in Korea the women doing all the smiling were prostitutes and other Korean women didn't want to be thought of in that manner. It as an issue HERE, in the U.S.
And as for your example, why should the person get written up? Your prove my point. You would write up someone for simply where they looked. Nothing about intent, no sexual advance or intent. It was "harassing" just because one person thought it so. What rules would they be breaking since you said they would be told them again? Don't happen to let your field of vision be entered by your co-workers? Define for me what rules you would tell them. I would love to read how you would define ogling in a manner that doesn't show your own hypocracy. Your definition of harassment is basically, someone felt bad so it is wrong. If it isn't write or link to the definition or court decision that proves it wrong.
That's pure BS and to claim that if you don't support it then you must be slippery sloping to the far suck my schlong repeatedly camp is just you tossing dirt since you can't support your weak reasoning.
Now as for these quotes, you better get started digging...
Quote:
When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim?s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.? Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)
What defines the words abuse and alter? You can dig up the court cases to flesh that out. Until then it appears open ended.
Just to give you an idea of where I stand....
Quote:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
I agree with that entire statement except for the word offensive. Someone being offended does not create a hostile workplace. It doesn't affect how they do their job. It does allow the scenario I mentioned to you about the ankle tattoo. I have no doubt that the clear majority of courts would find that you looking at someone's ankle does not constitute an hostile action. However offensive is pretty much defined by the recipient. Likewise the word offensive is defined as simply being disagreeable or causing anger or displeasure.
You shouldn't be written up or fired for that. You find the rule that defines how to insure none of your coworkers ever disagree, get angry or express displeasure with you.
Likewise don't try your slippery-slope nonsense. I have stated that I am fully in agreement with 99% of the law. You are the one who said you would write up and if necessary fire someone for looking at an ankle tattoo. Find the rule that clearly defines how to deal with this issue. If five co-workers have noticed and mentioned the tattoo the day after he or she got it, would that constitute a hostile work environment? According to the law that would be repeated. The workplace would be permeated with people noticing his/her ankle tattoo.
I mean, are you more inclined to believe a girl who goes straight to the police or one who *is* an emotional wreck who brags about Kobe's penis?
Tell me what that means, then, if you didn't mean it in the way that it reads in English.
------
trumptman:
Quote:
If you are trying to figure out what the hell that tattoo is on your co-workers ankle, should you have the possibility of a reprimand or firing due to the fact that your started for 10 seconds versus 5 and thus were ogling someone?
Setting up a theoretical as the rule again?
Quote:
The original illusion to sexual harassment was because when it first started it was thought of as a man on woman issue with the male having the power (being the boss) and using it to get something from the woman.
Illusion?
Also, is there a need to quote a giant post that you don't even directly address? I can understand a point-by-point breakdown (because that's my style) but to just re-post what is right above you and then go into a general refutation is a huge waste of space.
Also, is there a need to quote a giant post that you don't even directly address? I can understand a point-by-point breakdown (because that's my style) but to just re-post what is right above you and then go into a general refutation is a huge waste of space.
I apologize for the posting style. I sent you a PM to explain how to better break down the posts with quotes and answers as you do.
Allusion...I'm not typing any more posts on my 6500 anymore. It is so slow I can't even tell what I am typing sometimes.
The theoretical isn't a science experiment with an unknown answer. The law clearly states what is and isn't permissable. I suppose if I said that if you plotted to kill your mother and then did so with a gun, it would be "theoretical" that they would charge you with first degree murder.
keyboard posted to an EEOC document and I did a bit more reading on it. The company basically settled to avoid havin the EEOC try repeatedly to give it class action status. On otherwords they took the cheap way out against a government agency that could spend them into bankruptcy.
A summary of the case...
Quote:
The case, EEOC v. Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc., No. 98-C-1601 (N.D. Ill.), was brought by both EEOC and an individual plaintiff named Ferguson under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against both Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc., and Pipefitters Association, Local 597. The complaint alleged that the Robbins, Illinois worksite was a racially hostile work environment, and at that both Foster Wheeler and the union permitted the portable toilets, or port-a-johns "to remain covered with racially offensive graffiti" and that they did not "take effective action to remove such graffiti and prevent its recurrence." There were also allegations of crude sexually offensive graffiti on the same portable toilets. Ferguson also complained about racist symbols at the site, including a swastika, a noose, and a "KKK" symbol.
An interesting ending...
Quote:
The Foster Wheeler case also reflects an increased EEOC enforcement sensitivity to purely verbal (as opposed to physical) harassment. Raising some legitimate free speech questions with regard to employer liability for pure speech directed by one employee to another, the EEOC is taking head-on the issue of hostile work environments resulting from slurs, and other purely verbal activity. In January of this year, for example, the EEOC filed an action in the federal court in Milwaukee in which it seeks to hold a Burlington, Wisconsin employer liable because it "failed to take appropriate action to prevent or correct the hostile work environment" created when a female worker subjected other female co-workers to sex-based harassment, "including, but not limited to, use of sexual and sex-based epithets" and "sexually derogatory comments." Thus, employment liability for a hostile work environment may rest entirely upon workplace speech which is found derogatory and objectionable.
As I mentioned it isn't about sex in instances like this. It has become thought control and speech control. In the case mentioned the whole case started because one worker complained of grafitti in portable toilets.
For a good time call... the EEOC... to the tune of 1.3 million.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
What did she do that was illegal?
Prior history of what is relevant when accusing others?
You have absolutely no idea if those calls are related to "dementia". I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you don't even know what "dementia" is.
You have no idea what those calls were about and nothing but your own internal processes to say they are related to "dementia".
That doesn't even make sense.
My statement referred to how difficult rape is to prove coupled with societal stigma of the accuser (not to mention physical intimidation) makes me wonder why they even bother to report it. My words.
Does that mean "This woman can't be a gold-digger because rape is underreported."? Absolutely not. Your last sentence in that quote doesn't even make sense.
I'm not seeing your argument here; are you saying that people shouldn't be so quick to judge people accused of sexual assault or(and?) that the definition of sexual assault should be legally changed to allow for a few "no"s?
It's not what did she do, it's what did he do. You said his denial was ambigious and made him untrustworthy because he did not volunteer the adultery. He was asked directly about sexual assault and answered clear as day.
I didn't say her calls were related to dementia, I was giving an example of how prior history is relevent. However if just two months prior she was hospitalized as a danger to herself with regard to suicide not once but twice, it can show a pattern of mental instability. Those 911 calls could corroborate that. Having incomplete information is one thing. Having the information and hiding it is another and could be grounds for a mistrial.
Sexual assault/rape can have very broad definitions depending upon which laws or definitions are used. A man went to jail recently for having consentual sex that become rape when the court declared she removed consent during the act not by saying no, but by her saying she had to get somewhere. Likewise some definitions of date rape allow for declaring it rape if she has remorse the morning after, or if she consented but felt pressured.
If it were only no means no, it would be easy. But the politics of rape has moved well beyond that. Much like how sexual harassment has moved from boss using power to get sex to telling a dirty joke creating a hostile environment.
Nick
It's not what did she do, it's what did he do. You said his denial was ambigious and made him untrustworthy because he did not volunteer the adultery. He was asked directly about sexual assault and answered clear as day.
He said "you guys know me." referring to his crafted image. At worst it was a lie of omission. He's still not trustworthy because the image he created was a lie, he is just like the rest of the unfaithful NBA crowd.
However if just two months prior she was hospitalized as a danger to herself with regard to suicide not once but twice, it can show a pattern of mental instability. Those 911 calls could corroborate that. Having incomplete information is one thing. Having the information and hiding it is another and could be grounds for a mistrial.
Who is hiding what? Spouting off about crap you don't understand again.
Those types of things can easily be locked from the public, that doesn't mean they are locked from the court. Unless you think you're the judge.
A man went to jail recently for having consentual sex that become rape when the court declared she removed consent during the act not by saying no, but by her saying she had to get somewhere.
I'd have to hear the case.
Likewise some definitions of date rape allow for declaring it rape if she has remorse the morning after, or if she consented but felt pressured.
You're going to have to back these things up.
If it were only no means no, it would be easy. But the politics of rape has moved well beyond that. Much like how sexual harassment has moved from boss using power to get sex to telling a dirty joke creating a hostile environment.
That's not reasonable?
O'BRIEN: We heard ... that new information is coming out about the medical history to some degree of this young woman -- that police were called to her dorm room and determined she was a danger to herself and she was taken to the hospital. Do stories and information like that have any relevance to the case at all?
TOOBIN: It depends how cynical you are. Something like that is almost certainly, in my view, irrelevant as a matter of law. It could not be introduced into court.
However, what a lot of what's going on now is going to condition the jury pool. People having heard this are going to find it very difficult to unhear it. And the jurors who ultimately hear the case may have in the back of their mind or in the front of their mind that there is something not quite right about this woman.
All these links. And incorrect links! of her past are not relative unless the judge says they are or if the jurists are liars and shirk their duty.
Much like how sexual harassment has moved from boss using power to get sex to telling a dirty joke creating a hostile environment.
Umm. both create a hostile workplace for women. i don't see your point. ??!!!???
I don't know if it's a wise move or not on the defense's part, they are obviously better at this than I am.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
and it would possibly also open the door to the psych of all start sports figures. and that's an area where kobe really does not want to go IMO...
That's true, but if public reaction is any indication to you it is obvious that people are not at all concerned with the conduct of athletes in these situations as much as they are with teenage girls going through depression. Men are supposed to sleep with everything that walks, women are just whores.
Now if kobe were to swing a jury of his (basketball) peers, he would have nothing to worry about.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Umm. both create a hostile workplace for women. i don't see your point. ??!!!???
Really? I didn't use gender in my statement. So I suppose if a woman tells you a dirty joke or forwards an email to you, then she should be fired and sued?
You don't see my point because you don't live in reality.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
Eugene:
That she didn't go "straight to" the police is one.
So it's "atypical" now. Moving the goalposts.
Everything that has bearing on the case should be examined, absolutely. I haven't seen anyone make the argument that her past depression has anything to do with anything. They simply say it and leave it.
I said, "I mean, are you more inclined to believe a girl who goes straight to the police or one who *is* an emotional wreck who brags about Kobe's penis?" How did you infer I said she didn't go straight to the police?
Perhaps I made one of those lies of obmission you seem to love so much.
And that behavior is not just atypical. It raises alarms in ANY case, and any lawyer knows that.
"The more these indications of instability emerge, the more difficult it might prove for the prosecutor to persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this young woman did not misinterpret the event."
But of course you guys just chose to ignore that altogether and focus on the following huge if:
Christopher Mueller, a law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, said judges can exclude evidence that exposes a witness to undue embarrassment if it isn't essential to the charges.
So I suppose if a woman tells you a dirty joke or forwards an email to you, then she should be fired and sued?
Sexual Harassment is a two way street. Women do the same thing but to a lesser degree. So to answer your question. She should be brought forward to her company superior written up JUST LIKE A MAN and if the policy warrents FIRED OR SUED JUST LIKE A MAN.
You don't see my point because you don't live in reality.
No. I don't live in your reality Edit: Make nice. Let's just say and i'm glad i am not a part of it.
Much like how sexual harassment has moved from boss using power to get sex to telling a dirty joke creating a hostile environment.
Yes. what a horrible, horrible, thing to strive for a workplace that keeps people from having to listen to sexually explicit or derogatory jokes towards any gender...
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Sexual Harassment is a two way street. Women do the same thing but to a lesser degree. So to answer your question. She should be brought forward to her company superior written up JUST LIKE A MAN and if the policy warrents FIRED OR SUED JUST LIKE A MAN.
No. I don't live in your reality Edit: Make nice. Let's just say and i'm glad i am not a part of it.
Yes. what a horrible, horrible, thing to strive for a workplace that keeps people from having to listen to sexually explicit or derogatory jokes towards any gender...
Really and what constitues dirty or hostile Mr. Bring on the Thought Police?
In some cultures smiling excessively is considered how women solicite for prostitution. If you smile too much at your co-workers should the file suit? Different cultures accept different degrees of touch for daily interactions and also have different definitions of personal space. Should you lose your job because someone felt you were seeking a sexual advance on them due to being in their personal space excessively. Suits have been filed for what is defined as ogling according to the distressed co-worker. Should you be fired for looking at someone for what they deem is too long?
Sexual harassment started with people (men typically) who used their power to get sex out of women with threats of job loss or no promotions or pay raises.
Instead you advocate a reality where you should get written up or fired if you stare out your co-workers ankle tattoo for a couple second too long.
Explicit is defined as...
Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
So if you tell a joke with innuendo is that sexually explicit?
Should I have filed claims on all my female coworkers/teachers when they held a bridal shower and suggested I could jump out of the cake since I was the only man under 35 working at the school?
I'll keep my reality, thanks...
Nick
Nick
I said, "I mean, are you more inclined to believe a girl who goes straight to the police or one who *is* an emotional wreck who brags about Kobe's penis?" How did you infer I said she didn't go straight to the police?
or -- used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea> <sink or swim>, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases <lessen or abate>, or approximation or uncertainty <in five or six days>
And that behavior is not just atypical. It raises alarms in ANY case, and any lawyer knows that.
Like what?
But of course you guys just chose to ignore that altogether and focus on the following huge if:
What will convince a jury (the part you accuse me of ignoring is neither here nor there. They might very well be filled with people who fall for the inferences others leave when they say "she was very depressed months before the incident" without thinking further about it.
Of course, physical injuries might go a way towards determining the case as well. Unfortunately for Mr. Bryant it doesn't seem purely he-said/she-said. I have little doubt it wouldn't have gotten this far on a 19-year-old's word alone.
------
trumptman:
Nice canned rant, you must have these trite pieces of genius stored up in .txt files waiting to be copy/pasted.
He said women and men should both be punished according to company policy. But you go on with your ranting anyway.
Originally posted by groverat
or -- used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea> <sink or swim>, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases <lessen or abate>, or approximation or uncertainty <in five or six days>
Alternative = opposite? This girl or that girl?
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
Nice canned rant, you must have these trite pieces of genius stored up in .txt files waiting to be copy/pasted.
He said women and men should both be punished according to company policy. But you go on with your ranting anyway. [/B]
Naw Grove, I just have some nice applescripts that generate them after I enter a few variables.
The rant wasn't about gender, it was about the openness of the definition of harassment. If you are trying to figure out what the hell that tattoo is on your co-workers ankle, should you have the possibility of a reprimand or firing due to the fact that your started for 10 seconds versus 5 and thus were ogling someone?
I thought my replies were pretty gender neutral. The original illusion to sexual harassment was because when it first started it was thought of as a man on woman issue with the male having the power (being the boss) and using it to get something from the woman. It has basically moved on to just politcal correctness and attempts at thought control.
Nick
Here you go Mr. The World is Against Me.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/vii.html
That's what.
>In some cultures smiling excessively is considered how women solicite for
Who the hell cares about other cultures?! I am only commenting on the US of A.
> prostitution. If you smile too much at your co-workers should the file suit?
> Different cultures accept different degrees of touch for daily interactions and
> And different cultures don't allow women to go outside without covering all parts of their skin. We are talking about the USA and in this country this
> also have different definitions of personal space. Should you lose your job because someone felt you were seeking a sexual advance on them due to being in their personal space excessively. Suits have been filed for what is defined as ogling according to the distressed co-worker. Should you be fired for looking at someone for what they deem is too long?
Moronic. Person getting stared at complains. Person staring gets write up told to stop immediatly, told rules again. Person staring does not stop. Person staring gets fired. A large part of the reason why those suits had to be brought was because the nimrod employeer did NOT take action.
Like these fools
http://www.eeoc.gov/press/1-21-98.html
> Sexual harassment started with people (men typically) who used their power to get sex out of women with threats of job loss or no promotions or pay raises.
And I assume you agree with at least that use. No wait i probably shouldn't assume when it comes to you. But hey now. once the slipery slopes dives into getting in the way of me asking my coworker repeatedly "will you my suck my schlong" that's when things get a little iffy .
> Instead you advocate a reality where you should get written up or fired if you stare out your co-workers ankle tattoo for a couple second too long.
What a moronic "comeback" I advocated no such thing. Make up what you like. Belittle the sexual harrasement laws all you like but don't bring up the tired who defines what policy.
Because this does:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/vii.html
When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim?s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.? Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)
and he's one for all those tatoo starers in the audience...
"mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee" would not affect the conditions of employment to sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII); Henson, 682 F.2d at 904 (quoting same). For sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive "to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment." Ibid. Respondent's allegations in this case -- which include not only pervasive harassment but also criminal conduct of the most serious nature -- are plainly sufficient to state a claim for "hostile environment" sexual harassment.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (USSC+)
Opinions
REHNQUIST, J., Opinion of the Court
And its up to the employeers to make sure the rules are defined too all and followed by all.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html
But let me play you for a second. But keyboard what if there are employee's writing obsene graffiti in the bathroom. That's not sexual harrasment is it? I as an employer can not be held responsible can i?
Yep.
http://www.eeoc.gov/press/1-7-00.html
>Explicit is defined as...
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/vii.html
Not clear enough? That's why we have a court system.
> Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
>
> So if you tell a joke with innuendo is that sexually explicit?
Go for it. Test the law. I'll sit back and wait for how turns out.
>
> Should I have filed claims on all my female coworkers/teachers when they held a bridal shower and suggested I could jump out of the cake since I was the only man under 35 working at the school?
.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/vii.html
Isn't great to live in a country that if you felt threatend or demeaned by that act you have a recourse without fear of losing one's job?
http://www.eeoc.gov/press/2-23-99.html
>I'll keep my reality, thanks...
>Nick
Keep it, try not to share.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
>Really and what constitues dirty or hostile Mr. Bring on the Thought Police?
Here you go Mr. The World is Against Me.
Keep it, try not to share.
Boy you sure don't get it do you. You only care about what we do in the U.S of A, did it occur to you clueless boy that the U.S. has people from just about everywhere you can imagine. They bring the language, culture and understandings associated with them. I mentioned the smiling incident because it happened here in California in a Korean neighborhood. Korean bank tellers wouldn't smile at the customers. (Many folks think Koreans especially unfriendly and they are joked about in many black comedy films as a result) However in Korea the women doing all the smiling were prostitutes and other Korean women didn't want to be thought of in that manner. It as an issue HERE, in the U.S.
And as for your example, why should the person get written up? Your prove my point. You would write up someone for simply where they looked. Nothing about intent, no sexual advance or intent. It was "harassing" just because one person thought it so. What rules would they be breaking since you said they would be told them again? Don't happen to let your field of vision be entered by your co-workers? Define for me what rules you would tell them. I would love to read how you would define ogling in a manner that doesn't show your own hypocracy. Your definition of harassment is basically, someone felt bad so it is wrong. If it isn't write or link to the definition or court decision that proves it wrong.
That's pure BS and to claim that if you don't support it then you must be slippery sloping to the far suck my schlong repeatedly camp is just you tossing dirt since you can't support your weak reasoning.
Now as for these quotes, you better get started digging...
When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim?s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.? Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)
What defines the words abuse and alter? You can dig up the court cases to flesh that out. Until then it appears open ended.
Just to give you an idea of where I stand....
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
I agree with that entire statement except for the word offensive. Someone being offended does not create a hostile workplace. It doesn't affect how they do their job. It does allow the scenario I mentioned to you about the ankle tattoo. I have no doubt that the clear majority of courts would find that you looking at someone's ankle does not constitute an hostile action. However offensive is pretty much defined by the recipient. Likewise the word offensive is defined as simply being disagreeable or causing anger or displeasure.
You shouldn't be written up or fired for that. You find the rule that defines how to insure none of your coworkers ever disagree, get angry or express displeasure with you.
Likewise don't try your slippery-slope nonsense. I have stated that I am fully in agreement with 99% of the law. You are the one who said you would write up and if necessary fire someone for looking at an ankle tattoo. Find the rule that clearly defines how to deal with this issue. If five co-workers have noticed and mentioned the tattoo the day after he or she got it, would that constitute a hostile work environment? According to the law that would be repeated. The workplace would be permeated with people noticing his/her ankle tattoo.
Nick
Alternative = opposite? This girl or that girl?
Your quote:
I mean, are you more inclined to believe a girl who goes straight to the police or one who *is* an emotional wreck who brags about Kobe's penis?
Tell me what that means, then, if you didn't mean it in the way that it reads in English.
------
trumptman:
If you are trying to figure out what the hell that tattoo is on your co-workers ankle, should you have the possibility of a reprimand or firing due to the fact that your started for 10 seconds versus 5 and thus were ogling someone?
Setting up a theoretical as the rule again?
The original illusion to sexual harassment was because when it first started it was thought of as a man on woman issue with the male having the power (being the boss) and using it to get something from the woman.
Illusion?
Also, is there a need to quote a giant post that you don't even directly address? I can understand a point-by-point breakdown (because that's my style) but to just re-post what is right above you and then go into a general refutation is a huge waste of space.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
Setting up a theoretical as the rule again?
Illusion?
Also, is there a need to quote a giant post that you don't even directly address? I can understand a point-by-point breakdown (because that's my style) but to just re-post what is right above you and then go into a general refutation is a huge waste of space.
I apologize for the posting style. I sent you a PM to explain how to better break down the posts with quotes and answers as you do.
Allusion...I'm not typing any more posts on my 6500 anymore. It is so slow I can't even tell what I am typing sometimes.
The theoretical isn't a science experiment with an unknown answer. The law clearly states what is and isn't permissable. I suppose if I said that if you plotted to kill your mother and then did so with a gun, it would be "theoretical" that they would charge you with first degree murder.
However since I try to please...
EEOC - 1.3 million
keyboard posted to an EEOC document and I did a bit more reading on it. The company basically settled to avoid havin the EEOC try repeatedly to give it class action status. On otherwords they took the cheap way out against a government agency that could spend them into bankruptcy.
A summary of the case...
The case, EEOC v. Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc., No. 98-C-1601 (N.D. Ill.), was brought by both EEOC and an individual plaintiff named Ferguson under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against both Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc., and Pipefitters Association, Local 597. The complaint alleged that the Robbins, Illinois worksite was a racially hostile work environment, and at that both Foster Wheeler and the union permitted the portable toilets, or port-a-johns "to remain covered with racially offensive graffiti" and that they did not "take effective action to remove such graffiti and prevent its recurrence." There were also allegations of crude sexually offensive graffiti on the same portable toilets. Ferguson also complained about racist symbols at the site, including a swastika, a noose, and a "KKK" symbol.
An interesting ending...
The Foster Wheeler case also reflects an increased EEOC enforcement sensitivity to purely verbal (as opposed to physical) harassment. Raising some legitimate free speech questions with regard to employer liability for pure speech directed by one employee to another, the EEOC is taking head-on the issue of hostile work environments resulting from slurs, and other purely verbal activity. In January of this year, for example, the EEOC filed an action in the federal court in Milwaukee in which it seeks to hold a Burlington, Wisconsin employer liable because it "failed to take appropriate action to prevent or correct the hostile work environment" created when a female worker subjected other female co-workers to sex-based harassment, "including, but not limited to, use of sexual and sex-based epithets" and "sexually derogatory comments." Thus, employment liability for a hostile work environment may rest entirely upon workplace speech which is found derogatory and objectionable.
As I mentioned it isn't about sex in instances like this. It has become thought control and speech control. In the case mentioned the whole case started because one worker complained of grafitti in portable toilets.
For a good time call... the EEOC... to the tune of 1.3 million.
Nick