2 ms·

At that time she was complaining about a coworker making her work "more difficult" after their relationship ended. Do you believe this falls under sexual harass

by zone411 12y ago

At that time she was complaining about a coworker making her work "more difficult" after their relationship ended. Do you believe this falls under sexual harassment?

pmorici 12y ago
Yes, that is pretty much a textbook legal definition of sexual harassment. A relationship was no longer welcome and as a result one individual did things that interfered with the job performance of the other. The fact that they had a prior relationship doesn't excuse the behavior. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassment http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassm...
- zone411 12y ago
  Then please point me to the part of this reference that applies. It states that "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when..." Those are not actions about which Pao complained to Lane.
  - nl 12y ago
    To expand your quote a little: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when 1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, 2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or 3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Pao discontinued the relationship, then Nazre started cutting her out of work. It's pretty easy to see a case that submitting to the sexual relationship was implicitly a term of her employment in the same role, or that after the relationship was discontinued her working environment became hostile.
- 001sky 12y ago
  Your conflating standard "harrassment" with "sexual harassmenet" they are not at all the same thing. Sexual harassment requires (by the definition you cite) things of a a sexual nature to be integral to the harassment. But that's not the same thing as assigning somebody busy work or whatever. That's just being an a$$hat of a colleague. Per your definition: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment ===when=== -submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, -submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or -such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980]) Lots of people are jerks at work, and lots of people are jerks to their ex, but neither are per-se sexual harassment under the third bullet point.

by zone411 12y ago

At that time she was complaining about a coworker making her work "more difficult" after their relationship ended. Do you believe this falls under sexual harassment?

pmorici 12y ago

Yes, that is pretty much a textbook legal definition of sexual harassment. A relationship was no longer welcome and as a result one individual did things that interfered with the job performance of the other. The fact that they had a prior relationship doesn't excuse the behavior. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassment http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassm...

zone411 12y ago
Then please point me to the part of this reference that applies. It states that "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when..." Those are not actions about which Pao complained to Lane.
- nl 12y ago
  To expand your quote a little: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when 1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, 2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or 3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Pao discontinued the relationship, then Nazre started cutting her out of work. It's pretty easy to see a case that submitting to the sexual relationship was implicitly a term of her employment in the same role, or that after the relationship was discontinued her working environment became hostile.
001sky 12y ago
Your conflating standard "harrassment" with "sexual harassmenet" they are not at all the same thing. Sexual harassment requires (by the definition you cite) things of a a sexual nature to be integral to the harassment. But that's not the same thing as assigning somebody busy work or whatever. That's just being an a$$hat of a colleague. Per your definition: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment ===when=== -submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, -submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or -such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980]) Lots of people are jerks at work, and lots of people are jerks to their ex, but neither are per-se sexual harassment under the third bullet point.