While it is instructive to know what the law proscribes, a prudent man would realize that corporate HR departments are risk averse.

You might be vindicated in a court of law, if it evr got that far. Unemployed, and potentially unemployable folks don't generally have the money to pay lawyers to fight it out for them. You might be vindicated, if you get to court. If you live long enough, you might even get your job back.

Oh, and if you are terminated for cause, you are not even eligible for unemployment.

If you like those odds, go ahead.

There is no chance anything I say at work will ever come close to that line.

Speaking of harrassment (I'm trying to stay on topic): My new favorite gay porn... Bring it on, Big Boy.

It always amuses me when people claim there is no problem with sex harrassment laws and its men who do all the harrassing.

My late mother won a hostile workplace suit (or rather the city settled) after she walked in on the married city manager "meeting with clothes missing" with the sanition dept. manager. The city manager proceeded to make mom's job hell and ultimately had her fired, apparently for fear that the secret would come out. Gotta love small town politics, it all happened in a town of 2000 people. The city manager got what was coming to her though. Took 4-5 years and she ended up divorced and finally out of a job.

As MarkD points out, many risk adverse companies take it one step further and define sexual harassment as something that is merely offensive to a specific set of protected or privileged groups. It's a form of legislated political correctness.

I'm reminded of a scene in the film 9 to 5 where the evil white male boss sought to have a sterile workplace where employees couldn't personalize their cubes or mix personal and professional life. Today, it's shown that it's worse today: No more Christ-mas parties. No more personalized pictures that might be offensive.

I suspect Cain's sexual harassment was him telling a woman she looked nice, or complimenting her dress, or saying good morning and these women had a grudge against him or just wanted the attention of leveling a complaint.

My theory is that they pay these women off so they'll just GO AWAY. I've worked at two places where a woman had essentially been paid off to quit after claiming harrassment. If an entire company has to walk on eggshells around someone because she's easily offended (and likely to cause trouble), it's in the company's best interest to help her out the door as quickly and smoothly as possible.

court cases, hah. In this one, all it takes is for whispers against a candidate the media don't like, and they will go the extra mile to make sure that the electorate knows: "someone said somethin' about someone..."

All they need is the shadow of doubt. Meanwhile they gave John Edwards a complete pass, and dissembled on his behalf.

Meanwhile my HR group is very risk averse, and the compliance training every year is to not say nothin' to nobody. It doesn't matter what the court cases are, this is a private business policy.

For a hostile-environment claim to succeed, the conduct--sexual advances or hostile behavior--must be unwelcome, based on gender, and severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive work environment as judged by an objective, reasonable person.

In other words, the law is subjective and potentially limitless - exactly how lefties want this and other "protect the poor dears" legislation.

This is bad law, and should be discarded.

These laws exist to give women power over men in every area in which the interests of men and women may diverge -- which of course implies that women are weak and incompetent; little more than children, really. I don't think that women are necessarily weak and incompetent -- but then again, I'm not a feminist.

"All they need is the shadow of doubt. Meanwhile they gave John Edwards a complete pass, and dissembled on his behalf."

There is a difference between John Edwards having a mutually consensual affair that produced a child and sexual harassment. I don't really care that he cheated on his wife. I have a feeling there's a lot in that marriage that we don't know about. I care more that he had a child that he refused to acknowledge because it could hurt his political career. Don't worry though. You may think he got a pass, but where is his career now?

"Workplace Sexual Harassment" is redundant. It can occur nowhere else. Which is as it should be. In any other situation, you have the option of walking away. Sexual harassment is restricted to the workplace because of the unique reliance on the job and vulnerability of employees to coercive pressures. Also, sexual harassment can occur ONLY among employees. Think a customer can sexually harass a cashier at the grocery store? Think again. He can be a complete boor, and management can kick his ass out permanently. The cashier might even have a case for harassment or assault, but sexual harassment? She does not.

People overuse the term and think it means any offensive behavior of a sexual nature.

That said, he does a fair job of explaining it, and the two types: quid pro quo and hostile work environment. The only objection I have is that he maintains it's "gender based."

Oh, no, it's not. What does that even mean? So, a gay person couldn't sexually harass someone, since the object of his desire is the same gender? I beg to differ. Can a heterosexual male make lewd comments and make explicit sexual references to his heterosexual male coworker? Yes, he can and yes it is sexual harassment.

Ben-David: In other words, the law is subjective and potentially limitless - exactly how lefties want this and other "protect the poor dears" legislation.

There are all kinds of laws that are based upon a "reasonable person's" perspective. If that's your reason for throwing out the "hostile work environment" aspect of sexual harassment, you'll need a better reason than that.

There is a difference between John Edwards having a mutually consensual affair that produced a child and sexual harassment.

Perhaps it would be worth a few minutes to discuss Bill Clinton and free passes.

true Kristen, but we are evaluating character about a presidential candidate. If you don't care about Edward's adultery, why would you care about unsubstantiated allegations about harassment by Cain 10 years ago? Do they rise to similar heights?

The bad thing about the allegations now, are that they are unprovable, and don't rise to a level that the govt cares about, they are only about doubt...

This will never be proven in court or anything, just public opinion.

"true Kristen, but we are evaluating character about a presidential candidate. If you don't care about Edward's adultery, why would you care about unsubstantiated allegations about harassment by Cain 10 years ago? Do they rise to similar heights?"

A candidate who cheats on his wife is not something I care about. I think the political system is a joke and that divorce, at one time and maybe still, was a big no no for most candidates. They had to portray a "family" image and leaving a miserable marriage was not part of that image. I don't think that Elizabeth Edwards was the sweet gentle woman shocked by her husband's infidelity as painted by the media. People may slam me for this but she got a lot of sympathy because she was fighting cancer. Who is going to say she was a screaming shrew who's husband couldn't stand her? I do think that was a political partnership much like Bill and Hill. There may have been friendship and companionship at points, and the agreement to look away as long as nobody got caught. So no, not a character issue for me.

I'd rather people focus on the actual issues and solutions to problems. Rudy Giuliani royally screwed up marriage and being a father. I don't think he's the greatest person but he was a great Mayor. His marital problems should never have affected his ability to run for office. Donna Hanover had the right to be pissed that he was a shitty husband and father but his ability to fix NYC from many problems were not hindered.

And for the record, Swiss, I never gave an opinion about Cain. I simply stated there is a difference between an affair and sexual harassment.

"There are all kinds of laws that are based upon a "reasonable person's" perspective. If that's your reason for throwing out the "hostile work environment" aspect of sexual harassment, you'll need a better reason than that."

The Ninth Circuit, in Ellison v. Brady, specifically rejected the "reasonable person" standard. They substituted a standard that is explicitly gender-based. And, as they have interpreted their own ruling, if the (female) accuser says she was harassed, then she was -- the intent of the defendant doesn't matter.

There are many employers, and their insurance companies, that just settle a sexual harassment or a similar case. The adjusters sit there and look at 6 months or a year's pay ($25K-50K) versus taking the time, money and lawyers ($45-80K) and a few years and say we'll settle with a non-disclosure agreement, no admission of guilt, and the payout.

A former co-slacker was fired about a year back. She filed a discrimination suit on race and gender. Another former co-slacker testified for the first one. Then a current co-worker was subpoenaed and went and gave her deposition. She blew the first slackers case out of the water.

What probably happened is Cain gave his description of the event. They had two people give the same description supporting her side. The adjusters read the deposition, and said it was cheaper to settle. And you have this crap come back many years later.

"What probably happened is Cain gave his description of the event. They had two people give the same description supporting her side. The adjusters read the deposition, and said it was cheaper to settle. And you have this crap come back many years later."

Or Jim P, he could be guilty. As I discovered my boss had a long history of sexually harassing other women. I didn't sue nor did I seek to have him fired. I just wanted him to leave me alone. But the company apparently had an idea of what he was doing. I don't know that Cain is guilty but I'm also not so quick to write it off as something that was settled because it was easier and not as true.

The sad part is we will never know what happened and I do feel sorry for him because its not something that can be proven or unproven and if he's innocent, this will always be something he's associated with. It also is more proof of just what a dirty business politics is.

Kristen,

You may be right. He may be a total lech.

I can handle a total lech that fucks every piece of pussy he can get his hand on, and vetoes every single bill that has more spending in it.

It will still be better than a totally faithful person that raises the national debt by $5,000,000,000,000 in three years.

Actually if you are looking for a true comparison of a free pass, you really should be comparing to Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. And the way the media treats him even today.

Actually if you are looking for a true comparison of a free pass, you really should be comparing to Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. -- Joe J at November 7, 2011 10:30 PM

I would have -- but all the Kennedy's would have spent us into bankruptcy while still being a total lech.

I wonder how many women realize that claiming "sexual harassment" when a man is simply being polite amounts to creating a genuinely hostile environment?

Jim P, Today's NY Post lead story is calling the four women gold diggers and speaking of one of them as having "painted on make-up" as if this is proof she is lying. This is what bothers me. People form opinions that never seem to based on facts and its pretty sad what passes as journalism these days. She could wear the most hideous make-up and still be a victim. She could also be a liar. With reporters taking sides in such blatant ways as news stories, how does the public ever form a solid opinion?

Cousin Dave: The Ninth Circuit, in Ellison v. Brady, specifically rejected the "reasonable person" standard. They substituted a standard that is explicitly gender-based. And, as they have interpreted their own ruling, if the (female) accuser says she was harassed, then she was -- the intent of the defendant doesn't matter.

Sounds like a terrible ruling, Dave. I hope it was overturned on appeal.

"Today's NY Post lead story is calling the four women gold diggers"

This is why I quit watching Fox "News". When the bias is so blatantly obvious I just find a source that's less slanted.

There's no such thing as 100% objectivity in the media. But there are some outlets that aren't total dreck.

per a SunTimes reporter the newest chick was hugging him and whispering in his ear only a month ago:
"wwwDOTsuntimesDOTcomSLASH8592168-417SLASHsneed-witness-says-cain-accuser-hugged-him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago-DOT-html"

et tu, brute?

*will not let me post the full link...

"There's no such thing as 100% objectivity in the media. But there are some outlets that aren't total dreck."

I know, Gog, the Post always leaned a little more towards the sensational, but there's not a lot left to read as far as local papers go. They're going too much the route of the tabloids. More gossip, less news. I probably can't tell you all you need to know about Cain, but I'm sure I can fill you in all about Lindsey Lohan.

"Sounds like a terrible ruling, Dave. I hope it was overturned on appeal."

As far as I know, the SCOTUS has never taken up the question. Which has created a weird situation for people who litigate this sort of thing, because the law isn't consistent across the federal circuits. It's my understanding that some other circuits go by the Ninth's ruling, some don't, and some make it up as they go. Maybe someone has better info than I do; I did some Googling and couldn't find any instance of it being addressed recently.

The way Cousin Dave describes it is how the rules were described in the last corporate anti-sexual harassment I attended.