Sexual Harassment Redefined

In my eyes as long as there is no signs of favoritism what is the big deal.

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.

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.

Was it proven or was it just charged?

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.

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.

Sounds like more government intruding in personal activities, to me.

... that government has no proper role in ...disallowing the sale of vibrators (as in Alabama).

So Joe, do you actually agree with the ruling or are just enjoying arguing with Baldimo?

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:

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.

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.

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.

just gonna latch on to that "touch suggestively" thing aren't ya blatham ?

just gonna latch on to that "touch suggestively" thing aren't ya blatham ?