Sexual Harassment Ruling in CA

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

What a ridiculous concept. TC, you’d better steer clear of any cute office girls you bring with you down to San Diego… the other ones could get jealous and sue yo’ ass…

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/19/sexual.harassment.ap/

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) – A manager who has affairs with subordinates can create a work climate that constitutes sexual harassment even for uninvolved employees, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

Phil Horowitz, of the California Employment Lawyers Association, who submitted a brief to the court in support of a lawsuit filed by two women, called the decision “groundbreaking.”

“It’s the first major decision saying women can sue if they are treated worse because they’re not the paramour of the supervisor,” Horowitz said.

Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s office, said the decision is a warning to business owners.

“It tells employers that having an anti-nepotism policy is not enough. You need to do more to make sure that you have a hostility-free work environment even when employees are having consensual sexual relationships,” Barankin said.

The case involves former employees at the Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla who complained about then-warden Lewis Kuykendall, who was sexually involved with at least three women at the same time.

The plaintiffs, Edna Miller and Frances Mackey, sued the Department of Corrections for sexual harassment in 1999.

A lower court ruled against the women, saying they “were not themselves subjected to sexual advances and were not treated any differently than male employees.” The state Supreme Court overturned that decision Monday.

An isolated instance of favoritism would not ordinarily constitute sexual harassment, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote in the unanimous decision.

But when it is so widespread that “the demeaning message is conveyed to female employees that they are viewed by management as ‘sexual playthings’ or that the way required for women to get ahead in the workplace is by engaging in sexual conduct,” it constitutes harassment, he wrote.

Both women subsequently left their jobs, and Mackey died in 2003. An Internal Affairs investigation in 1998 resulted in Kuykendall’s retirement.

2

“the demeaning message is conveyed to female employees that they are viewed by management as ‘sexual playthings’”

God I wish I had some sexual playthings…

Anyway BB, a couple of questions:

  1. how was Italy; and

  2. Is this decision based on the fact that the manager was rooting everything in sight and the two girls felt left out, or did they feel disadvantaged because continual favouritism was shown to the ladies who were putting out.

To me, the last one makes sense. If your boss isn’t giving you opportunities because you aren’t rooting him/her, but they are giving these opportunities to employees that are giving it up, then it makes sense that it is some sort of discrimination.

I don’t believe it would be sexual harrassment unless the hard word was put on the employee i.e. root me or you have no future prospects for advancement.

If the feeling in the work place is “if you want to get anywhere, you’d better root the boss”, then there are obviously problems. All the boss had to do give those ladies he wasn’t rooting a fair go and he could have kept his little group of playthings going.

Or have I missed the point?

3

[quote]Massif wrote:
“the demeaning message is conveyed to female employees that they are viewed by management as ‘sexual playthings’”

God I wish I had some sexual playthings…

Anyway BB, a couple of questions:

  1. how was Italy; and [/quote]

It was great, thanks. =-) The Mrs. and I had a great time, and all that pasta and pizza only added about a lb. per week…

[quote]2. Is this decision based on the fact that the manager was rooting everything in sight and the two girls felt left out, or did they feel disadvantaged because continual favouritism was shown to the ladies who were putting out.

To me, the last one makes sense. If your boss isn’t giving you opportunities because you aren’t rooting him/her, but they are giving these opportunities to employees that are giving it up, then it makes sense that it is some sort of discrimination.

I don’t believe it would be sexual harrassment unless the hard word was put on the employee i.e. root me or you have no future prospects for advancement.

If the feeling in the work place is “if you want to get anywhere, you’d better root the boss”, then there are obviously problems. All the boss had to do give those ladies he wasn’t rooting a fair go and he could have kept his little group of playthings going.

Or have I missed the point?[/quote]

I haven’t actually read the decision, so I’m just going on what the article wrote.

The problem to me is the huge expansion in the definition of sexual harassment that this entails. Sexual harassment basically comes in two legal flavors – quid pro quo (basically your example of someone overtly saying “root the boss” to either receive positive treatment or avoid reprecussions) or hostile-environment harassment.

This makes it sound as if the ruling establishs a precedent, at least for CA, that a “hostile environment” can be created by a randy boss and his willing playmates, and if some other lady THINKS she isn’t getting the same benefits or that her lackluster reviews come from her not putting out for the boss, then she can sue and the company will end up liable.

The real kicker is that such a precedent will make it harder to throw ridiculous harassment cases out of court, and will end up creating an environment of official corporate policies (even moreso than we already have) frowning on, or even punishing, employee canoodling. Not good, not good at all – especially for those poor folks (like some of my single attorney friends) who spend the vast majority of their time at work.

4

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

The real kicker is that such a precedent will make it harder to throw ridiculous harassment cases out of court, and will end up creating an environment of official corporate policies (even moreso than we already have) frowning on, or even punishing, employee canoodling. Not good, not good at all – especially for those poor folks (like some of my single attorney friends) who spend the vast majority of their time at work.[/quote]

Glad you had a good time in Italy!

I have worked for several companies that had policies on employee canoodling, but the only real concern was when the was a power differential between the two parties, i.e. between a manager and an underling. This was due to problems down the line should the relationship breakdown. Basically, managers and the like who root their underlings had better be very careful over the long term or they could lose their house.

Would the defence against a pissed off worker who received a bad review be to show the good reviews of other people who the boss hadn’t rooted? Would that be enough to show that it would be work related and not based on the rooting?

5

Hey, my boss is rooting a coworker. Yeah, she’s skinny-fat and looks like a cricket, but dangit, he’s doing it. She also gets the favorable hours, makes more sales,etc.

Therefore, I will be suing RS, my manager, and everyone else up the line because I’m not making that much money.

6

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The problem to me is the huge expansion in the definition of sexual harassment that this entails. Sexual harassment basically comes in two legal flavors – quid pro quo (basically your example of someone overtly saying “root the boss” to either receive positive treatment or avoid reprecussions) or hostile-environment harassment.

This makes it sound as if the ruling establishs a precedent, at least for CA, that a “hostile environment” can be created by a randy boss and his willing playmates, and if some other lady THINKS she isn’t getting the same benefits or that her lackluster reviews come from her not putting out for the boss, then she can sue and the company will end up liable.

The real kicker is that such a precedent will make it harder to throw ridiculous harassment cases out of court, and will end up creating an environment of official corporate policies (even moreso than we already have) frowning on, or even punishing, employee canoodling. Not good, not good at all – especially for those poor folks (like some of my single attorney friends) who spend the vast majority of their time at work.[/quote]

That is not a good arguement.

7

its to the point now a days to where sexual harrasment is what ever a woman says it is.

depending on the guy who makes the advances, a guy a woman doesnt like cant get away with shit. Although a guy she has the hots for can whisper all sorts of dirty thins in her ear and she feels its fine…

im not an ass I know sexual harrasment is an issue and it need to be seriously dealt with but its almost to the point where you cant even give a woman a compliment on how they are looking for fear of some sort of lash back.

there is way to much grey area