Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You're really not paying any attention to the world around you, are you?

If I did not make that joke, i’d be accused, and guilty, of whiffing.

Have a Xanax, Francis.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Curious -- when you say "we've all had," are you referring to the people in this current conversation, people on this board, lawyers in your office, everyone in your office (including the assistant), people generally?

Everybody looks at the naughty pictures on the internet. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wasteoids, dweebies... we all do it.

ETA: and I highly doubt there’s anyone here under 50 who hasn’t had an intimate photo of an SO at one time or another since the advent of the iPhone.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If you have a work environment in which you degrade women with others as part of ongoing jokes within the earshot of someone who doesn't find that shit funny, there may be no intent, but that is surely harassment.

TM

I agree. I think in that instance, there is intent. You are saying things you know to be offensive in the presence of people you should know maybe offended.

Even if you did that accidentally, you are still intending to degrade women.

If, however, a female colleague overhears you talking dirty with your girlfriend while at the office late at night, that cannot be considered harassment. If you had no intention of being heard, and assumed you were not being heard, and we’re not saying anything degrading about women, that’s not harassment. May be a negligent violation of company policy, but not harassment.

[LessinSF]

Can I discriminate in hiring by asking questions to determine who is not sensitive to workplace sexual hijinks, i.e. cannot (or is unlikely to) claim a hostile work environment? Can I disclose that there are nudie calendars on the walls and lewd, raunchy and gross jokes made frequently, and insulate myself from liability?

LessinNYC

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree. I think in that instance, there is intent. You are saying things you know to be offensive in the presence of people you should know maybe offended.

Even if you did that accidentally, you are still intending to degrade women.

If, however, a female colleague overhears you talking dirty with your girlfriend while at the office late at night, that cannot be considered harassment. If you had no intention of being heard, and assumed you were not being heard, and we’re not saying anything degrading about women, that’s not harassment. May be a negligent violation of company policy, but not harassment.

Dude, in the end it doesn't matter what the guy intends. What matters is what the woman experiences. If a guy creates a hostile work environment through being malicious, obtuse or negligent, the result is the same, and it's harassment.

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Can I discriminate in hiring by asking questions to determine who is not sensitive to workplace sexual hijinks, i.e. cannot (or is unlikely to) claim a hostile work environment? Can I disclose that there are nudie calendars on the walls and lewd, raunchy and gross jokes made frequently, and insulate myself from liability?

No. Because we do not live in a libertarian's world.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Dude, in the end it doesn't matter what the guy intends. What matters is what the woman experiences. If a guy creates a hostile work environment through being malicious, obtuse or negligent, the result is the same, and it's harassment.



No. Because we do not live in a libertarian's world.

Cite, please.

[Replaced_Texan]

Observation from a friend on Facebook on Franken:

At the risk of starting a fight, there’s one reason and one reason alone Franken ended up being the high-profile casualty where so many others have walked away unscathed: there’s a picture. No, the accuracy of the photo doesn’t matter. I watched the story spread. The preview pic on social media and the headline is ALL a huge number people saw. No one read the rebuttals. Heck, I’m willing to bet most people didn’t even read Tweeden’s original article. We’re a meme people now. We killed reading comprehension.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Dude, in the end it doesn't matter what the guy intends. What matters is what the woman experiences. If a guy creates a hostile work environment through being malicious, obtuse or negligent, the result is the same...

Experience is subjective. There has to be some objective threshold where reasonable people agree harassment starts. A sort of “know it when I see it” thing, as SCOTUS defined pornography. Otherwise, almost anything can form the basis for a complaint because it made someone feel a certain way.

There has to be some objective criteria, so we might weed out ludicrous claims by noting, “No reasonable person could have felt harassed here. You are not reasonable, and you do not have a claim.”

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Experience is subjective. There has to be some objective threshold where reasonable people agree harassment starts. A sort of “know it when I see it” thing, as SCOTUS defined pornography.

Perhaps we should start by discussing the meaning of "objective" and "subjective".

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Can I discriminate in hiring by asking questions to determine who is not sensitive to workplace sexual hijinks, i.e. cannot (or is unlikely to) claim a hostile work environment? Can I disclose that there are nudie calendars on the walls and lewd, raunchy and gross jokes made frequently, and insulate myself from liability?

LessinNYC

Well, how did Uber do with this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Cite, please.

Laws govern discrimination in hiring, not just discrimination in the workplace. Do you really think what you suggest is legal?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Experience is subjective. There has to be some objective threshold where reasonable people agree harassment starts. A sort of “know it when I see it” thing, as SCOTUS defined pornography. Otherwise, almost anything can form the basis for a complaint because it made someone feel a certain way.

There has to be some objective criteria, so we might weed out ludicrous claims by noting, “No reasonable person could have felt harassed here. You are not reasonable, and you do not have a claim.”

What a man meant is no more objective than what a woman experiences.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What a man meant is no more objective than what a woman experiences.

Using that, anything can form the basis of a harassment claim.

Courts already apply some objective criteria. Otherwise, some screwball could claim harassment because her boss had his bookshelf adorned with pictures of his daughter, a hot competitive swimmer, or track star, in form-fitting outfits.

“Other males looked at those photos, and it made me feel harassed as a woman.”

Sounds implausible, right? Well, that’s the kooky crap you’ll see filed if we apply an exclusively subjective “feel” test.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Laws govern discrimination in hiring, not just discrimination in the workplace. Do you really think what you suggest is legal?

Not well. Those are hard to prove.

But you can expect to see this emerge as a growth area for lawyers on both sides.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Perhaps we should start by discussing the meaning of "objective" and "subjective".

Well put. I walked into that.

I’m struggling to find an objective line. I guess reasonableness works. If it’s generally unreasonable to feel harassed at something, you can’t make a claim for it.

A good analogue might be Jesus Freaks. They get offended at everything and apply extreme standards to behavior.* And they’re rightly ignored. If you’re citing Andrea Dworkin in establishing that you’ve been harassed because your co-worker constantly talks to other men about how hot he thinks Taylor Swift is, no claim for you.

—
* Except in cases of preserving Senate majorities?