4 ms·

Does it sound plausible that the following thought crossed her mind: "I feel uncomfortable with this, but if I turn it down, the future of my career might be je

• randyrand 8y ago
  see my edit. as to your first point, it’s not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It’s harrassment to do it repeatedly in a harassing way. If “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is all it took for any advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment! you don’t need to be someone’s boss in order to have the ability to do harm to someone. Not hiring someone over a sexual denial, stalking, rape, spreading false rumors about people - these are all illegal for a reason - so that we can deny people without constant fear of harm. What this google exec did was not harassment.
  • eesmith 8y ago
    "it’s not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It’s harrassment to do it repeatedly in a harassing way." That is not a correct interpretation of US law. Sexual harassment in the workplace includes any unwelcome sexual conduct. Quoting from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html : > Sexual harassment is "unwelcome . . . verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature . . . ." 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a). Because sexual attraction may often play a role in the day-to-day social exchange between employees, "the distinction between invited, uninvited-but-welcome, offensive- but-tolerated, and flatly rejected" sexual advances may well be difficult to discern. Barnes v. Costle, 561 F.2d 983, 999, 14 EPD ¶ 7755 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (MacKinnon J., concurring). But this distinction is essential because sexual conduct becomes unlawful only when it is unwelcome. The Eleventh Circuit provided a general definition of "unwelcome conduct" in Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d at 903: the challenged conduct must be unwelcome "in the sense that the employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive." The specific legal definition is at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11 . Note that "repeated" in not in that definition. For example, going back to the EEOC guidelines: "in "quid pro quo" cases a single sexual advance may constitute harassment if it is linked to the granting or denial of employment benefits." That seems to be the exact issue at hand, yes? Furthermore, even in the context of 'hostile workplace', which is distinct from 'quid pro quo', Barrett v. Omaha National Bank established that even "a single, unusually severe incident of harassment" may be enough to "constitute[] actionable sexual harassment". "Not hiring someone over a sexual denial" is quid pro quo harassment, hence illegal. Was there some other law you were thinking of which made it illegal? "If “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is all it took for any advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment!" Which why the law doesn't say that. The same EEOC guidelines say: > In determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment, the harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective standpoint of a "reasonable person." Title VII does not serve "as a vehicle for vindicating the petty slights suffered by the hypersensitive." It then gives an example: > Example - Charging Party alleges that her coworker made repeated unwelcome sexual advances toward her. An investigation discloses that the alleged "advances" consisted of invitations to join a group of employees who regularly socialized at dinner after work. The coworker's invitations, viewed in that context and from the perspective of a reasonable person, would not have created a hostile environment and therefore did not constitute sexual harassment. and, regarding hostile workplaces: > As the Court noted in Vinson, "mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee would not affect the conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII."
    • randyrand 8y ago
      I appreciate the legal perspective. It seems rather reasonable, but leaves a lot up the the interpretation of the judge/jury if it goes to court. There's also something to be said for public social opinion/corporate standards which are distinct from law. Google has its own set of rules based off of public opinion that are only allowed to be more strict than the law. I think this deserves more discussion than the current law as far as this point about hypothetical harm is concerned - law follows public opinion and right now the law is kept very general. I'm glad we agree that “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is irrelevant to the law, and I argue it should be for public opinion as well. It's unfortunate how common this refrain is, but I think it is the minority opinion.
      • eesmith 8y ago
        Do you understand that your previously stated views concerning the definition of sexual harassment aren't correct? "I think this deserves more discussion than the current law" You were the one who connected this issue to the law when you wrote that '[n]ot hiring someone over a sexual denial' was illegal but not sexual harassment. I wanted to show how that characterization was incorrect. "I'm glad we agree that “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is irrelevant to the law," I have no idea what you are talking about. Quid quo pro harassment specifically concerns the topic 'something bad might happen to me if I say no' - it's very relevant.
        • randyrand 8y ago
          I think we are talking past each other a bit. Not hiring someone over a sexual denial is sexual harassment. Not sure where the miscommunication happened there. Its literally the ground I stood on when saying 'something bad might happen to me if I say no' is a bogus way to culturally define SH' - because that's true of all human interaction. Law is what helps make us forget about the fact that my neighbor could stab me if I deny them something they want - yet we don't make it illegal for our neighbors to ask us for things - which is what some are proposing. We are talking about 2 things here: 1. should it be legal to make a sexual advance even though you could theoretically harm them if they say no. 2. should it be legal to not hire someone because you sexually denied them. I'm using the fact that #2 is already illegal to strengthen my point that #1 should remain legal and culturally acceptable, and that doing otherwise is ridiculous.