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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6917)	10/3/1998 5:04:00 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Hi Michelle Harris; I'll answer for dougjn; (We agree on an amazing amount of stuff.) regarding sex in the workplace. Paraphrasing the famous statement about whether blockade was an "act of war", we can safely say: An employer / subordinate relationship does not constitute sexual harassment if the employer is in such an exalted position that he need report to no one. Examples abound. Try Microsoft. It is always a little prettier if the relationship leads to marriage, and is one between people of close to the same age and status. But it is a fact of biology that women will exchange sex for power. It is perfectly natural, and certainly nothing that the law should have anything to do with. Same with prostitution, of course. -- Carl

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6917)	10/3/1998 5:28:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<hey doug aren't you a lawyer?>>. Yep, though not currently earning my daily bread that way. Did for a number of years. << In your opinion, is having an affair with a subordinate from the office sexual harassment or not (assuming both parties are interested)?>> In short, no, it's not. Some companies and other organizations do adopt internal sexual harassment rules which make such affairs a violation of the policy. Or establish a presumption of a violation, etc. Generally this requires a direct subordinate, or someone who the superior evaluates. Sometimes companies require that relationships be disclosed if there is a direct enough supervisory relationship. A few places, including sometimes Universities, have some very broad rules. A great many places do not have any such rules, even if they do have rules against any coercive sexual harassment practices and hostile work environment practices. Sexual harassment law itself (outside of private rules) always requires proving some element of coercion. Either a quid pro quo type of put out or get out threat, or a pervasive and severe pattern of sexually based belittlement ("hostile work environment"). This is the point to make back to the absolutists. It's true. (Though it may also be true that their own company is tougher.) The trouble is that beyond a few more words along those lines, this evolving area of judge made law leaves the really tough decision making up to juries, with precious little guidance from higher courts. It also leaves a lot up to the individual trial judge, through jury instructions and what evidence she will let be presented. (E.g. Lewinsky type of consensual evidence in a Jones harassment trial sometimes is, and sometimes is not, allowed. Judge Wright let it come in for a look see, then decided it was "not essential" to a fair determination of Jones's claims. A bit late, some might say.) Some companies become concerned that a relationship that goes bad may lead to a subordinate claiming, if she/he feels wronged in some way, or even if she/he is just litigiously oriented, or looses her job for some completely legitimate reason, that she has been retaliated against. Or promised things on the job which she wasn't given. Much then depends on who the jury, and the judge, finds most sympathetic. Faced with this hard to predict jury situation, some companies get very scared and issue some really draconian rules. Which are then widely ignored by young dating couples (and others). Which quiet breaking of the rules the goes completely ignored. Unless someone complains. When some very unfair results CAN occur. But usually don't. But its a big RISK. It's an area of the law which is really open to enormous abuse, and in which I think the pendulum has swung too far. Many people with some civil libertarian views think so as well. I think it should be ILLEGAL to have an absolute ban on anyone superior in an organization dating anyone inferior. But its not. I also think there should be laws analogous to rape shield laws which prohibit plaintiff's from delving into the consensual sexual past of the accused (though not prior instances in which harassment has been alleged against them.) We do that for alleged rape victims, who can generally no longer be subjected to the same sort of questioning. It is true now that really zealous over application of company rules can also lead to company liability. E.g., the Miller Brewing exec. who won millions after he was dismissed for repeating a Seinfeld episode which one female employee found so offensive as to be actionable under the Company's over broad policy. So, in long, the whole area is a mess. Doug