3 ms·

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.

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.

eesmith 8y ago
You said that a sexual advance on its own is not sexual harassment, but rather that multiple sexual advances are required before it can be termed sexual harassment. I pointed out that US case law says that even a single incident of an unwanted sexual advance may be severe enough to be considered sexual harassment under US law. I do not think you accept that your personal definition is not appropriate when discussing the workplace. Since (I assume) you are involved in a workplace, I think it's important to let you know, in order to help reduce the misinformation about what sexual harassment law actually covers. Your "theoretical" in #1 has two common interpretations. 1) minor or abstract, as might be perceived by the 'hypersensitive'. This is already rejected by case law and widely agreed that it is irrelevant. But theoretical can also mean 2) speculation which is not yet realized but may turn out to be correct. As examples #2, antimatter was theoretical in Dirac's 1928 paper, and discovered by Anderson in 1932; Neptune's existence was theoretical when Bouvard used perturbations in Uranus's orbit to deduce that Neptune existed, before Galle observed it in a telescope. It is not hard to come up with examples where the a supervisor may make an unwanted sexual advance where employee does not know if there will be negative job consequences to saying no, but does not say 'no' for fear of the - at that point - theoretical negative consequences for saying no. Eg, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. > Taylor treated her in a fatherly way and made no sexual advances. Shortly thereafter, however, he invited her out to dinner and, during the course of the meal, suggested that they go to a motel to have sexual relations. At first she refused, but out of what she described as fear of losing her job she eventually agreed. According to respondent, Taylor thereafter made repeated demands upon her for sexual favors, usually at the branch, both during and after business hours; she estimated that over the next several years she had intercourse with him some 40 or 50 times. The District Court originally declared "if respondent and the supervisor did have a sexual relationship, it was voluntary and had nothing to do with her continued employment at the bank, and that therefore respondent was not the victim of sexual harassment." The Court of Appeals reversed that decision, and the Supreme Court agreed. This is the court case which determined that sexual harassment can be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nor must there be actual negative consequences. It is the unwelcomeness which makes it harassment, and from the Meritor decision, 'harassment that, while not affecting economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive working environment'. The legal question isn't "does an unwanted sexual advance count as sexual harassment?" but "does an unwanted sexual advance count as sufficient level of sexual harassment so as to constitute workplace discrimination?".
- randyrand 8y ago
  For your first 2 paragraphs, yes. Agreed. I don't understand the distinction you're making between "1) minor or abstract" and "2) speculation which is not yet realized but may turn out to be correct." Could you elaborate on #1. Again I also want to make the point that at least for this discussion I'm putting myself in the position of someone who is creating the law - not following it. But yes we should know what the current law is and what the case law is - yes. It can help us guide us there. So thanks for your insight there.

eesmith 8y ago

You said that a sexual advance on its own is not sexual harassment, but rather that multiple sexual advances are required before it can be termed sexual harassment. I pointed out that US case law says that even a single incident of an unwanted sexual advance may be severe enough to be considered sexual harassment under US law. I do not think you accept that your personal definition is not appropriate when discussing the workplace. Since (I assume) you are involved in a workplace, I think it's important to let you know, in order to help reduce the misinformation about what sexual harassment law actually covers. Your "theoretical" in #1 has two common interpretations. 1) minor or abstract, as might be perceived by the 'hypersensitive'. This is already rejected by case law and widely agreed that it is irrelevant. But theoretical can also mean 2) speculation which is not yet realized but may turn out to be correct. As examples #2, antimatter was theoretical in Dirac's 1928 paper, and discovered by Anderson in 1932; Neptune's existence was theoretical when Bouvard used perturbations in Uranus's orbit to deduce that Neptune existed, before Galle observed it in a telescope. It is not hard to come up with examples where the a supervisor may make an unwanted sexual advance where employee does not know if there will be negative job consequences to saying no, but does not say 'no' for fear of the - at that point - theoretical negative consequences for saying no. Eg, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. > Taylor treated her in a fatherly way and made no sexual advances. Shortly thereafter, however, he invited her out to dinner and, during the course of the meal, suggested that they go to a motel to have sexual relations. At first she refused, but out of what she described as fear of losing her job she eventually agreed. According to respondent, Taylor thereafter made repeated demands upon her for sexual favors, usually at the branch, both during and after business hours; she estimated that over the next several years she had intercourse with him some 40 or 50 times. The District Court originally declared "if respondent and the supervisor did have a sexual relationship, it was voluntary and had nothing to do with her continued employment at the bank, and that therefore respondent was not the victim of sexual harassment." The Court of Appeals reversed that decision, and the Supreme Court agreed. This is the court case which determined that sexual harassment can be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nor must there be actual negative consequences. It is the unwelcomeness which makes it harassment, and from the Meritor decision, 'harassment that, while not affecting economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive working environment'. The legal question isn't "does an unwanted sexual advance count as sexual harassment?" but "does an unwanted sexual advance count as sufficient level of sexual harassment so as to constitute workplace discrimination?".

randyrand 8y ago
For your first 2 paragraphs, yes. Agreed. I don't understand the distinction you're making between "1) minor or abstract" and "2) speculation which is not yet realized but may turn out to be correct." Could you elaborate on #1. Again I also want to make the point that at least for this discussion I'm putting myself in the position of someone who is creating the law - not following it. But yes we should know what the current law is and what the case law is - yes. It can help us guide us there. So thanks for your insight there.