0
   

Sexual Harassment Redefined

 
 
Baldimo
 
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2005 09:00 pm
Sexual Harassment Redefined



The California Supreme Court has ruled that workers can be victims of sexual harassment even if their boss never asked for sexual favors or hit on them, reports the LA Times.

In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that a supervisor who engages in consensual sexual affairs with subordinates may be successfully sued by other workers.

"Even in the absence of coercive behavior, certain conduct creates a work atmosphere so demeaning to women that it constitutes an actionable hostile work environment," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the court.

Source
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What in the world is the work place coming to. If people at work want to sleep together while not at work what concern is it of the other co-workers? I don't see how this could be considered sexual harassment. Could those of the legal profession please explain this?

In my eyes as long as there is no signs of favoritism what is the big deal. I have worked with lots of people who had relationships with co-workers and no one cared. They weren't having sex at work and they didn't even kiss while at work. They keep it professional, the way it should be.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,197 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2005 09:01 pm
To me it looks like family values gone awry.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2005 10:33 pm
Re: Sexual Harassment Redefined
Baldimo wrote:
In my eyes as long as there is no signs of favoritism what is the big deal.

You may want to take the opportunity to read the article that you linked:
    The ruling overturned two lower court decisions that had thrown out a lawsuit brought by female employees of the state Department of Corrections. In their lawsuit, [b]the women charged that a prison warden had shown job favoritism[/b] toward three women with whom he was having affairs. "[b]Widespread favoritism[/b] based upon consensual sexual affairs may imbue the workplace with an atmosphere that is demeaning to women because a message is conveyed that managers view women as 'sexual playthings,'" George wrote.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2005 11:01 pm
Re: Sexual Harassment Redefined
joefromchicago wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
In my eyes as long as there is no signs of favoritism what is the big deal.

You may want to take the opportunity to read the article that you linked:
    The ruling overturned two lower court decisions that had thrown out a lawsuit brought by female employees of the state Department of Corrections. In their lawsuit, [b]the women charged that a prison warden had shown job favoritism[/b] toward three women with whom he was having affairs. "[b]Widespread favoritism[/b] based upon consensual sexual affairs may imbue the workplace with an atmosphere that is demeaning to women because a message is conveyed that managers view women as 'sexual playthings,'" George wrote.


Was it proven or was it just charged? I don't think it is stated.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 08:08 am
Re: Sexual Harassment Redefined
Baldimo wrote:
Was it proven or was it just charged? I don't think it is stated.

Why do you care? You said: "In my eyes as long as there is no signs of favoritism what is the big deal." You didn't ask for established facts, you said you'd be satisfied with "signs" of favoritism. That's what the plaintiffs here provided. You should be happy with the court's ruling.
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 09:44 am
So Joe, do you actually agree with the ruling or are just enjoying arguing with Baldimo?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 09:53 am
Quote:
In such a situation, other employees may believe "that the way required to secure advancement is to engage in sexual conduct with managers," he added.

Lawyers for California employers had argued that office romances are common, and that a ruling against the Department of Corrections would unfairly require employers to police them.

But the court said an employer would not be vulnerable for a manager's sexual favoritism unless it were widespread.

"An isolated instance of favoritism on the part of a supervisor toward a female employee with whom the supervisor is conducting a consensual sexual affair ordinarily would not constitute sexual harassment," George wrote.

Sounds like they don't want folks to view their subordinates as a harem.

What's all the hubbub, bub?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 10:16 am
Sounds like more government intruding in personal activities, to me.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 10:54 am
Re: Sexual Harassment Redefined
Baldimo wrote:
Was it proven or was it just charged?


from your link

Quote:
The California Supreme Court decided today that a supervisor who engages in consensual sexual affairs with subordinates and favors them with unmerited promotions may be successfully sued by other workers.


from the LATimes

Quote:
The case involves former employees at the Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla who complained about then-warden Lewis Kuykendall, who was sexually involved with at least three women at the same time.

<snip>

A lower court ruled against the women, saying they "were not themselves subjected to sexual advances and were not treated any differently than male employees." The state Supreme Court overturned that decision Monday.

<snip>

An Internal Affairs investigation in 1998 resulted in Kuykendall's retirement.


link

looks like it was proven. but it's sort of irrelevant in regard to a specific case. it has meaning on a larger scale than one case.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 11:05 am
roger wrote:
Sounds like more government intruding in personal activities, to me.


hi roger

I think that's perhaps not the best way to consider the matter.

One could argue - I would - that government has no proper role in criminalizing certain consentual sexual behaviors (eg oral-genital contact, sodomy, etc) or in, say, disallowing the sale of vibrators (as in Alabama).

But the case above is quite something else. Yes?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 01:44 pm
blatham wrote:
... that government has no proper role in ...disallowing the sale of vibrators (as in Alabama).


is this for real ??

damn. no wonder they act so stressed out and uptight. :wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 07:56 am
tommrr wrote:
So Joe, do you actually agree with the ruling or are just enjoying arguing with Baldimo?

I have not read the ruling so I can't offer any opinions on it. As for arguing with Baldimo, I consider it a civic duty. I do it pro bono publico.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 07:59 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
blatham wrote:
... that government has no proper role in ...disallowing the sale of vibrators (as in Alabama).


is this for real ??

damn. no wonder they act so stressed out and uptight. :wink:

It's technically illegal in Texas. But there is an exception for "educational" purposes.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 01:53 pm
DrewDad wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
blatham wrote:
... that government has no proper role in ...disallowing the sale of vibrators (as in Alabama).


is this for real ??

damn. no wonder they act so stressed out and uptight. :wink:

It's technically illegal in Texas. But there is an exception for "educational" purposes.


"they hate our freedom". truer words were never spoken.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 07:17 pm
Last year a manager got fired where I work here in Texas after a charge of sexual harassment was filed against him. All that the charge amounted to was that he'd flirt with and suggestively touch certain women in his department, and that behavior offended the woman who filed the complaint. After that incident, the entire office staff had to take a harassment seminar and sign statements declaring their familiarity with harassment laws thereafter.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 07:26 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
Last year a manager got fired where I work here in Texas after a charge of sexual harassment was filed against him. All that the charge amounted to was that he'd flirt with and suggestively touch certain women in his department, and that behavior offended the woman who filed the complaint. After that incident, the entire office staff had to take a harassment seminar and sign statements declaring their familiarity with harassment laws thereafter.


In the last 2 years I have had to attend no less then 8 of those BS classes between the military and my civilian job. If I have to take one more I will file charges against those making us take the classes because I feel harrassed. You should only have to take one of those classes and no more. You will give people the impression that they are to stupid to remeber what SH is.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 07:55 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
Last year a manager got fired where I work here in Texas after a charge of sexual harassment was filed against him. All that the charge amounted to was that he'd flirt with and suggestively touch certain women in his department, and that behavior offended the woman who filed the complaint. After that incident, the entire office staff had to take a harassment seminar and sign statements declaring their familiarity with harassment laws thereafter.


Is there some portion of this story which seems a justice problem?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 09:02 pm
just gonna latch on to that "touch suggestively" thing aren't ya blatham ?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 09:08 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
just gonna latch on to that "touch suggestively" thing aren't ya blatham ?


If it gets me a promotion or a raise then I don't mind getting touched. Just no kissing! Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 02:01 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
just gonna latch on to that "touch suggestively" thing aren't ya blatham ?


DTOM

I SO don't have a problem with folks in a work (or any such) environment getting educated on harrassment issues. Likewise, I have no problem with ensuring fairness in the workplace when the boss is humping Suzy Secretary. Recent stats have come out on unwanted molestations of females in the US military which make me want to take that whole damned institution and drown it in the bathtub.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

annoyed in texas... - Question by nicole88
You're unwelcome. - Question by boomerang
workers in dubai - Question by calli morgan
School Administrators gone wild - Discussion by hawkeye10
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sexual Harassment Redefined
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 07:18:53