Posted on 10/31/2011 9:53:51 AM PDT by Qbert
In light of last night’s Politico story about allegations against Herman Cain, it is important to clarify the legal meaning of the term “sexual harassment.” Specifically, Politico reports allegations that Herman Cain made an “an unwanted sexual advance” and engaged in “innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature.” Politico suggests that this amounts to sexual harassment, using the term at least six times.
The truth is that the reported allegations, even if true, do not constitute sexual harassment under the law unless – as the Supreme Court has stated – they are “sufficiently severe or pervasive” to “create an abusive working environment,” among other requirements. Even the guidance of the decidedly liberal U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cautions that “sexual attraction may often play a role in the day-to-day social exchange between employees” and that
“[S]exual flirtation or innuendo, even vulgar language that is trivial or merely annoying, would probably not establish a hostile environment.”
The “severe or pervasive” requirement is not a legal technicality. Trivializing the term “sexual harassment” undermines the seriousness with which cases of severe and pervasive harassment are taken. There is no suggestion in the Politico article that Cain’s alleged behavior was either severe or pervasive, so at least for now, the suggestion of sexual harassment is unsupported.
Politico places a lot of weight on the report that “there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints [against Cain].” In fact, without knowing more about the details of the settlements, it’s impossible to draw any conclusions from them. Corporate America is very risk averse when it comes to negative publicity, and in-house settlements often occur even when the evidence of harassment falls far short of the threshold needed to be taken seriously by a court.
Thanks- great links.
The fact there was a financial ‘settlement’ involved in two women leaving their employment with the NRA could mean many things besides a payoff for sexual harassment complaint. Has Politico ever heard the term ‘severance package’?
For example Poltico reported on just such an event involving ACORN in 2009...............Acorn has filed a lawsuit (POLITICO has the complaint) on behalf of itself, plus two employees caught on video tape handing out advice on how to avoid paying taxes on a brothel and hush up the employment of underage sex workers. Acorn claims Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams “suffered extreme emotional distress with attendant physical symptoms and injury to their reputations.” I guess Acorn ought to know; the group’s chief, Bertha Lewis, fired the employees and trashed them on the TV talk shows last weekend.
Acorn’s lawsuit seeks $500,000 in damages for each of the employees they fired, plus $1 million for each in punitives, presumably due to the damage to their reputations inflicted by Acorn. Of course, the real goal here is to intimidate the heroic filmmakers, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, along with Andrew Breitbart who publicized the shocking footage, with harassing litigation designed to drain their wallets and publicly slime them.
I think this is going to backfire on their lying a$$es.
Cain’s numbers are going to go up, not down, as a result of this.
What are Barry, Willard and Karl going to do???
You’re welcome.
Let's say there was a ‘financial settlement’ (just speculating not saying there was) over some ‘accusation’. That would be in return for them dropping accusations, only to break the agreement by making them again anonymously in an attempt to get Cain to bring out the ‘accusations’ publicly himself. If that was the case then what if Cain denies it?? They bring out other 'witnesses' outside of the agreement ?
“The fact there was a financial ‘settlement’ involved in two women leaving their employment with the NRA could mean many things...”
—Yep. Common examples:
“...Attorneys settle cases all the time under confidential terms. I certainly have. The point is of settlement, instead of taking the risks of litigation which is as certain as a crap game no matter how innocent you are, a reasonable party will pay to make it “go away.” Does this mean culpability? Of course not! It means that instead of paying attorneys buckets of money to defend spurious claims, you pay to settle. It is the cost of living in this litigious world. And settlements of this type are routine in this country and are happening every day.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/when_did_you_stop_beating.html
I witnessed exactly this thing happen last summer. My boss was in an office with two women, the door was wide open, and there were other people in the hallway. Both women in that office hated my boss, but he didn't realize the extent of their hatred until later. One of the women was pregnant, and he made a comment to the effect of, “How's the baby? Have you picked a name yet? Maybe you could name him Frank. Frank is a good name.” Frank was my boss's name (fictional name for this story).
The pregnant woman took EXTREME offense to that, because she hated him so much. She accused him of being inappropriate, and that his comment implied that they had had sex! She found that thought so repugnant that she retained a LAWYER!! And she had the “witness” because of the other woman.
My boss nearly got run off, even though his comment was intended to be friendly in nature. Both of those women were absolutely useless as employees, and should have been dismissed long ago because of their horrible work performance. They knew it, and there were massive layoffs coming, so they used this to keep their jobs for several more weeks (until the project ended). My poor boss had to put up with their superior attitudes during that time because they had a lawyer.
Women can be extremely vicious, and Men are always on the defensive when it comes to these things. It's always “guilty until proven innocent” in these cases.
Time will bring all the details out in the open. We'll see how it all shakes out.
First the msm were after Rubio. Now they are after Herman. All with BS articles. Who’s next?
"And as Fox News pointed out, the mere fact that there were “two” women doesn't mean there were two separate cases. It could have been a one-time thing, where two women were present at the same time, and they both jumped on the “gimme a check” bandwagon."
- Exactly. Furthermore, it could've been related to the one case that apparently was brought to court (Cain not only prevailed, but the woman making the sexual harassment claim also had to pay his attorney fees):
"Cain... described a case in which he fired an employee in 1990s and the woman alleged sexual misconduct or harassment. Cain told the campaign staffer he had won the case and that the woman had paid his legal fees. The aide had no further details."
“The fact there was a financial ‘settlement’ involved in two women leaving their employment with the NRA could mean many things besides a payoff for sexual harassment complaint. Has Politico ever heard the term ‘severance package’?”
—Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is thinking the same thing:
“However, it’s not clear from the story whether the settlements themselves are settled legal complaints, or merely small golden parachutes that don’t make any reference to the reason for the departure of the two women.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/31/cain-denies-sexual-harassment-claims/
Tell it, brother.
Might ask Warren Buffett (he has Post shares) why he's hanging around with Communist agents of disinformation who work for Fidel Castro? Is he maybe thinking jumping ship to get a shot at that oil in the Florida Strait?
I used to be in HR and we did this all the time to get rid of an employee, higher up, that we did not want. We’d make an arrangement with them to leave on their own and give them a 6 month’s salary severance.
“I used to be in HR and we did this all the time to get rid of an employee, higher up, that we did not want. We’d make an arrangement with them to leave on their own and give them a 6 month’s salary severance.”
Great point.
NBC is now hyping that one Cain accuser received a cash settlement... which, of course, means anything and nothing in these cases:
I’ve met a member of the Clinton Legal Team, who later went on to define the Sexual Harassment policy at Yale University (When I worked there).
This woman is ****ing crazy. I mean, she’s totally unhinged. The policy is a jaw-dropper of insanity, and my disagreement with her was part of my ultimate dismissal from Yale University.
She helped Bill Clinton out of sexual harassment cases (Many, many cases) and went on to join him in the White House. From there, their immoral insanity only grew stronger to a point where policy from their legal urination gave birth to modern law texts.
I say it again, the current state of Sexual Harassment policy is insane.
Sexual Harassment cases are never levied against a good looking guy. Just the rich and the ugly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.