3 ms·

Or a subordinate? If you're a guy you are always going to be open to accusations of impropriety with or from a woman. Whether yours the boss or the subordina

Or a subordinate? If you're a guy you are always going to be open to accusations of impropriety with or from a woman. Whether yours the boss or the subordinate doesn't make a difference. Best approach is to keep the relationship friendly, cordial and at a distance.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> Best approach is to keep the relationship friendly, cordial and at a distance. How would that help defend you against the accusation that you resented her not wanting to date you?
- csallen 2y ago
  Because if your relationship is friendly, cordial and appropriately distanced, there would then be no evidence that you resent her not wanting to date you. Come on guys, this stuff is pretty simple.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    There would also be no evidence that you didn't. They look exactly the same. All this would do is provide support for the idea that she didn't want to date you, and you were aware of that.
    - csallen 2y ago
      The legal system doesn't require you to prove your innocence
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        Those are just words; they don't describe the actual behavior of the system.
        csallen 2y ago
        Example?
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4334 https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedeta... If you don't know how things work, maybe you shouldn't talk as if you do know.
      - lelanthran 2y ago
        > The legal system doesn't require you to prove your innocence Only in criminal cases. In civil suits, you'll have to prove your innocence.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > How would that help defend you against the accusation that you resented her That's the "cordial and friendly" part; if you've never expressed any negativity about her it boosts your credibility. > not wanting to date you? That's the "distance" part. If you've never approached her in private, or for watercooler chat, or had lunch in the cafeteria together, or got coffee together ... that buys you some credibility. In short, you never reached out to her for anything other than a work request, made in a work-provided channel (email, slack, etc), and only reached out verbally/telephonically/in-person when urgency was required.
  - lynx97 2y ago
    I agree with you. However, there are cases were even that kind of behaviour is turned around to stab you as a male... Not making any personal connection is considered creepy by some, and there have been cases were that was reported to HR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UZetLBx5AA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UZetLBx5AA
  - ty6853 2y ago
    This kind of risk mitigation is probably a losing strategy. Lawyers will find any reason to crucify you.
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      > This kind of risk mitigation is probably a losing strategy. Lawyers will find any reason to crucify you. Right, but much better for them to have flimsy reasons that literally won't pass even a cursory glance by a court (like alone time with someone), than give them situations which allows them to introduce doubt about your innocence.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      Refusing to work for or hire the opposite sex is also one of those reasons...
DannyBee 2y ago
or, and hear me out here: just don't ask them out on a date. If you read the court transcript, he actually did ask her out on a date and she said no :)
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > If you read the court transcript, he actually did ask her out on a date and she said no :) I didn't read the court transcripts, but my understanding from the various stories was that she claimed he asked her out on a date. She claimed lots of things, much of which appears to have been outright lies.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    No, the stories are very careful, but i get it - they parse words. AFAIK, he did not deny that he made romantic overtures (or whatever the hell phrase they used, i can look it up again if you care). If he denied it, i don't see it. What he denied was that he was resentful she said no, and in any way used it against her :) If they had no evidence, etc, it would not be an even mildly viable way of attacking his credibility (IE ignoring whether it's smart/dumb/ethical/etc, if wouldn't be effective). It would also be cut off by a judge very quickly because you'd lack any foundation. So it would be a very short questioning, too. IE you'd end up STH like this: "Q:Did you ever ask her out on a date A: No Q: Did you ever flirt with her A: No <3 other ways of asking the same question> Q: So you weren't resentful she declined to date you or flirt back A: No " At this point, if you try to go further, you have no basis on which to do so, it will be objected to, you will be forced to move on. Actually, you probably won't even get to ask the last question if they answer no to all the others, it will get objected to, you will have to withdraw it, the jury will think you are an ass. You'd have to have evidence to impeach them or ask them about (IE conversations they admitted to, etc). Or they'd have to say yes to one of these questions, so you could hammer them some more. A ton of no's like the above where you have nothing else just make you look desperate to a jury, and worse than doing nothing, so you really wouldn't do it, even if you are losing badly.
    - lelanthran 2y ago

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> Best approach is to keep the relationship friendly, cordial and at a distance. How would that help defend you against the accusation that you resented her not wanting to date you?

csallen 2y ago
Because if your relationship is friendly, cordial and appropriately distanced, there would then be no evidence that you resent her not wanting to date you. Come on guys, this stuff is pretty simple.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  There would also be no evidence that you didn't. They look exactly the same. All this would do is provide support for the idea that she didn't want to date you, and you were aware of that.
  - csallen 2y ago
    The legal system doesn't require you to prove your innocence
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      Those are just words; they don't describe the actual behavior of the system.
      - csallen 2y ago
        Example?
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4334 https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedeta... If you don't know how things work, maybe you shouldn't talk as if you do know.
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      > The legal system doesn't require you to prove your innocence Only in criminal cases. In civil suits, you'll have to prove your innocence.
lelanthran 2y ago
> How would that help defend you against the accusation that you resented her That's the "cordial and friendly" part; if you've never expressed any negativity about her it boosts your credibility. > not wanting to date you? That's the "distance" part. If you've never approached her in private, or for watercooler chat, or had lunch in the cafeteria together, or got coffee together ... that buys you some credibility. In short, you never reached out to her for anything other than a work request, made in a work-provided channel (email, slack, etc), and only reached out verbally/telephonically/in-person when urgency was required.
- lynx97 2y ago
  I agree with you. However, there are cases were even that kind of behaviour is turned around to stab you as a male... Not making any personal connection is considered creepy by some, and there have been cases were that was reported to HR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UZetLBx5AA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UZetLBx5AA
- ty6853 2y ago
  This kind of risk mitigation is probably a losing strategy. Lawyers will find any reason to crucify you.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    > This kind of risk mitigation is probably a losing strategy. Lawyers will find any reason to crucify you. Right, but much better for them to have flimsy reasons that literally won't pass even a cursory glance by a court (like alone time with someone), than give them situations which allows them to introduce doubt about your innocence.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    Refusing to work for or hire the opposite sex is also one of those reasons...

DannyBee 2y ago

or, and hear me out here: just don't ask them out on a date. If you read the court transcript, he actually did ask her out on a date and she said no :)

lelanthran 2y ago
> If you read the court transcript, he actually did ask her out on a date and she said no :) I didn't read the court transcripts, but my understanding from the various stories was that she claimed he asked her out on a date. She claimed lots of things, much of which appears to have been outright lies.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  No, the stories are very careful, but i get it - they parse words. AFAIK, he did not deny that he made romantic overtures (or whatever the hell phrase they used, i can look it up again if you care). If he denied it, i don't see it. What he denied was that he was resentful she said no, and in any way used it against her :) If they had no evidence, etc, it would not be an even mildly viable way of attacking his credibility (IE ignoring whether it's smart/dumb/ethical/etc, if wouldn't be effective). It would also be cut off by a judge very quickly because you'd lack any foundation. So it would be a very short questioning, too. IE you'd end up STH like this: "Q:Did you ever ask her out on a date A: No Q: Did you ever flirt with her A: No <3 other ways of asking the same question> Q: So you weren't resentful she declined to date you or flirt back A: No " At this point, if you try to go further, you have no basis on which to do so, it will be objected to, you will be forced to move on. Actually, you probably won't even get to ask the last question if they answer no to all the others, it will get objected to, you will have to withdraw it, the jury will think you are an ass. You'd have to have evidence to impeach them or ask them about (IE conversations they admitted to, etc). Or they'd have to say yes to one of these questions, so you could hammer them some more. A ton of no's like the above where you have nothing else just make you look desperate to a jury, and worse than doing nothing, so you really wouldn't do it, even if you are losing badly.
  - lelanthran 2y ago