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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (5028)	9/23/1998 3:25:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Les, Under the current sexual harassment laws, I believe someone in the WH could file a claim against this President for "harassment". For example in the "notes" section (E#303)of the Starr report I noticed that it says "(Keating. 2/25/98 GJ at 76. The Pentagon position had a higher salary than Ms. Lewinsky White House job, Lewinsky 8/3/98 Int. at 5. Ms. Lewinsky's supervisor Jocelyn Jolley, was also transferred that day. Unlike Lewinsky, Ms. Jolley was given a demotion: a temporary job at the General Services Administration. Now we don't know why Ms. Jolley was demoted. But unless there was some type of specific, documented job performance issue question. It seems to me that Ms. Jolley could easily file a "sexual harassment" suit against the POTUS, using the argument that preferential treatment was afforded Lewinsky as a result of her sexual involvement with Clinton. Thus she "suffered job discrimination" since she had not given sexual favors to the president. bp

To: Les H who wrote (5028)	9/23/1998 4:00:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I think to seek to pursue "sexual harassment" through rooting out every case where someone might possibly have been rewarded in some way in connection with a relationship is going very far afield, and tips way too far in the direction of the sex police. If one can make a case of a hostile work environment, perhaps, because that is the only way, or virtually only way of getting ahead. Ok. But it should be extreme. Otherwise, lets keep in mind that people are rewarded for friendships in the workplace all the time. Also we start moving very far in the direction of thinking most women are whores, which I think is most offensive, and certainly wrong. I'm aware that some extreme feminists, such as Gloria Alred (sp), disagree. I don't think most who support women's rights and true equality do disagree. Otherwise, what sort of harassment are we talking about. And you start moving a lot closer to prohibiting all dating among co-workers, since everything becomes litigable. Not just rotten treatment. Doug