Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should Clinton resign? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim B who wrote (335)	9/14/1998 9:48:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 567

all I know is that in the last 2 years I've worked for 2 FORTUNE 100 companies... at the first job a guy got fired for telling a dirty joke... as deemed it was sexual harassment.. at the other job a guy got fired for asking a woman out... when the woman found out the guy was going to be fired, she argued in his defense saying she simply wanted him to understand NOT to ask her out again.... but still he was let go.. Let me ask you something. Do you thing what you have just described is RIGHT? I think it is horrifying. I had no idea that it is that bad. I have practiced at a leading law firm and at served at a high level at an investment bank that might have serviced your company (before forming my own firm), but it was nowhere near that bad there. Of course there are sexual harassment standards, but nothing like what you are describing. You are describing a new inquisition. If this is true, why do we not rise up in rebellion? What you describe is utterly outrageous, unfair, and unsupportable. Any company that dismissed me on grounds you described would be facing millions in damages and I would be pursuing them until I died. Consider the victory of the Miller Brewing exec. He won 8 figures on facts similar to what you describe. While I think that sexual harassment is a real evil, and sexual harassment remedies for women are very important, I also think the law as it exists now, in half formed state, is subject to grotesque abuse. In other words, its a bit of a lottery. Some companies have chosen to adopt the most extreme possible interpretations as their private "law", and met out punishment accordingly. Don't just accept injustice. Fight it. I had already thought that this was the new McCarthyism, the area of greatest over-zealotry. But you have reinforced that view. Doug

To: Jim B who wrote (335)	9/14/1998 11:21:00 PM
From: Harry Simpson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

Jim, Let me help you out on your two examples of terminations for alleged sexual harassment, since I work in the field of Employment Practice Liability. Sexual harassment occurs if there is a demand for quid pro quo for sex, "Sleep with me for a promotion", or "Sleep with me or be fired", or secondly if the actions create a hostile work environment. The two cases you cite we obviously overreaction by the employer. These type of cases are often drummed up by those who want either to show how dumb the law is (for which the cases you cite are bad examples) or to show why someone should be fired, or in the present case, resign. Hope that clears it up for you. The two people who were fired were mistreated by their employers, not the sexual harassment statutes.