4 ms·

I personally believe that short of committing a felony, every employee gets a warning first. I'm not going to be held hostage by the abstract threat of frivolo

by maxcan 10y ago

I personally believe that short of committing a felony, every employee gets a warning first. I'm not going to be held hostage by the abstract threat of frivolous lawsuits. And yes, with everything including the PIP being documented, that would be a frivolous lawsuit.

tptacek 10y ago
Twice in my career I've seen sexual harassment claims raised at a company I worked for after someone departed the company, and twice I've been led to believe the result was a very large cash settlement for the accuser. (Neither case occurred in a company I was in management at). If your firm has any money in the bank at all, the accuser's lawyer will take the case on contingency, knowing both that you are unlikely to prevail and that your likelihood of prevailing is besides the point because the case will cost a fortune to litigate and taken years to dispose of, during which time you will be frozen on any major business development moves. You can call these kinds of suits "frivolous" or "unfair" or anything else you'd like. I don't care, as long as you don't also call them "ineffective". I think there are better places for employees to learn basic standards of professional conduct than in a deposition.
- maxcan 10y ago
  Yeah, my point is that there are better ways to avoid lawsuits than just firing anyone the minute someone shows an inappropriate text message.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    This isn't responsive to what I just wrote. Not terminating is what risks the lawsuit. Terminating forecloses on that lawsuit.
    - kelukelugames 10y ago
      Because of bad luck, I know way too much about employment law. Ongoing harassment is required for the legal definition [1]. The company only has to demonstrate reasonable effort in addressing the problem to avoid a lawsuit. So termination after a MILF comment is overkill in the legal sense. The cases that make it to court are god awful. [2] The variables are how badly does the employer want to avoid negative press and an EEOC investigation. On the other hand, lawyers wouldn't take a case on contingency unless the litigant had a chance. In fact, it's a litmus test. Don't sue for discrimination if no lawyer will take the case on contingency. For example, Ellen Pao had to pay for her own lawyers. I chatted with my employment lawyer friends and they said her case was weak. [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm [2] https://www.eeoc.gov/search/search?q=sexual&btnG=Search&entqr=0&ud=1&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&client=press_frontend&proxystylesheet=press_frontend&site=PressReleases&filter=0 https://www.eeoc.gov/search/search?q=sexual&btnG=Search&entq...
      - tptacek 10y ago
        My experience has been the opposite. I've probably been much luckier than you (I've never been a party in a suit), but I've watched companies settle up over weak-seeming claims. It's not just ongoing harassment, but also claims of retaliation when someone who has complained about sexual harassment is later terminated for (ostensibly) other reasons. Pao's case was extraordinarily expensive.
        kelukelugames 10y ago
        Retaliation is a different beast. It's human nature. A poorly trained manager's first instinct is to retaliate. If they don't retaliate illegally then they will do it in some other way. After investigating, the EEOC shares their evaluation. So both parties should know how strong or weak the claims are. The requirements for a case are stringent, as you can see from the previous link. This is because EEOC understands the damage done by frivolous cases.

by maxcan 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

Twice in my career I've seen sexual harassment claims raised at a company I worked for after someone departed the company, and twice I've been led to believe the result was a very large cash settlement for the accuser. (Neither case occurred in a company I was in management at). If your firm has any money in the bank at all, the accuser's lawyer will take the case on contingency, knowing both that you are unlikely to prevail and that your likelihood of prevailing is besides the point because the case will cost a fortune to litigate and taken years to dispose of, during which time you will be frozen on any major business development moves. You can call these kinds of suits "frivolous" or "unfair" or anything else you'd like. I don't care, as long as you don't also call them "ineffective". I think there are better places for employees to learn basic standards of professional conduct than in a deposition.

maxcan 10y ago
Yeah, my point is that there are better ways to avoid lawsuits than just firing anyone the minute someone shows an inappropriate text message.
- tptacek 10y ago
  This isn't responsive to what I just wrote. Not terminating is what risks the lawsuit. Terminating forecloses on that lawsuit.
  - kelukelugames 10y ago
    Because of bad luck, I know way too much about employment law. Ongoing harassment is required for the legal definition [1]. The company only has to demonstrate reasonable effort in addressing the problem to avoid a lawsuit. So termination after a MILF comment is overkill in the legal sense. The cases that make it to court are god awful. [2] The variables are how badly does the employer want to avoid negative press and an EEOC investigation. On the other hand, lawyers wouldn't take a case on contingency unless the litigant had a chance. In fact, it's a litmus test. Don't sue for discrimination if no lawyer will take the case on contingency. For example, Ellen Pao had to pay for her own lawyers. I chatted with my employment lawyer friends and they said her case was weak. [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm [2] https://www.eeoc.gov/search/search?q=sexual&btnG=Search&entqr=0&ud=1&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&client=press_frontend&proxystylesheet=press_frontend&site=PressReleases&filter=0 https://www.eeoc.gov/search/search?q=sexual&btnG=Search&entq...
    - tptacek 10y ago
      My experience has been the opposite. I've probably been much luckier than you (I've never been a party in a suit), but I've watched companies settle up over weak-seeming claims. It's not just ongoing harassment, but also claims of retaliation when someone who has complained about sexual harassment is later terminated for (ostensibly) other reasons. Pao's case was extraordinarily expensive.
      - kelukelugames 10y ago
        Retaliation is a different beast. It's human nature. A poorly trained manager's first instinct is to retaliate. If they don't retaliate illegally then they will do it in some other way. After investigating, the EEOC shares their evaluation. So both parties should know how strong or weak the claims are. The requirements for a case are stringent, as you can see from the previous link. This is because EEOC understands the damage done by frivolous cases.