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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: P.T.Burnem who wrote (7349)	9/29/1998 2:44:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Respond to of 13994

Now, THAT'S telling it like it is!!! Go!!!

To: P.T.Burnem who wrote (7349)	9/29/1998 3:03:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 13994

First, Jones claims that she has been retaliated against. Judge Wright ruled that Jones had produced no credible evidence at all to support that claim, and to support a jury finding that she had. Second, a couple of month ago SJC ruled that mere threats of retaliation constitute sexual harassment(Clinton: "you're a smart girl... I know your boss personally"). There was speculation that the Supreme Court might decide the Burlington case on the basis of threats being enough to establish "quid pro quo" sexual harassment, and that was one of the arguments that plaintiff's attorneys made. It was not the basis of the decision. Plaintiff did win but for other reasons. The Supreme court determined that the employer could be held liable (vicarious liability) for one of its mid level managers actions even under the "hostile work environment" theory (which the District Court had ruled she had established). (However, employers can overcome their potential liability if they affirmatively show several things, including an adequate sexual harassment policy.) The Burlington decision does not help Jones. Third, an environment in which those have sucked the boss' dick get promoted, and those who have not - do not, is a bona fide hostile work environment. No retaliation is required. If the language I made bold in fact established, you are right. It would have to have reached the point where female employees are generally blocked from advancement unless they did in fact comply with sexual requests. Jones evidence did not remotely demonstrate such an environment. A few instances of someone receiving favors within a large organization don't cut it. And the fact that Jones in fact was promoted cuts heavily against the argument. Why do you think Bill Clinton is about to fork a cool $1M to PJ and her lawyers?. For a number of reasons. One, he will end up paying some subset of that just to continue the appelate argument. Two, if the summary judgment order is reversed, the effect on the President will be dreadful, regardless of how the case is finally determined, given his somewhat precarious situation. The risk is simply too great. Finally, there is a substantial chance that the reversal could occur, but not for any of the reasons you mention. And not because of the President's possible perjury either (though that may somewhat cloud the views of the Appelate judges in ways they would not directly admit). Doug