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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What are you talking about with this nonsense? This is the current standard and none of this bullshit happens.

Also, who the hell puts up an offensive amount of photos of their daughter in form-fitting clothes?

TM

It happens a lot. People rarely hear about it because the claims are bought off in exchange for confidential agreements.

"That claim is retarded."

"Yeah, but it'll pass a motion to dismiss and cost a bunch in fees."

"Right. Kill it cheap."

Rinse, repeat. In Philly, the cost of nuisance claims of harassment and discrimination are assumed. It's basically an unofficial tax.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Women can experience anything as harassment." Uh, no.

How do you square that with the statement, "Harassment is entirely subjective, within the victim's mind."?

If there's an objective baseline which must be passed in order for someone's claim to be legitimate, it cannot be an entirely subjective thing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

It may surprise you, but people don't make crazy ass ludicrous claims, because why the fuck would they?

They do it when they're fired. And if HR hasn't papered the file adequately in terms of prior discipline, they'll get a lawyer, and if they're in a protected class, the sensible economic decision is almost always to write them a check.

There isn't a huge pot of gold at the end of the only-the-accuser-thinks-they-were-harassed rainbow.

Agreed. It's usually when fired.

Almost everyone has gone through training and everyone understands what crosses the line. When someone does make a claim that doesn't meet any sort of established standard, they are almost always shut down.

Faced with a he said/she said situation, it's almost always cheaper to write a small check.

If you're going to say, "But what about Franken?" Well, we didn't have an investigation and there was no punishment through any workplace channels.

We agree on Franken. Franken got fucked.

How do you function knowing that a lot of the law is based on what a reasonable person would do? You must be drowning in creative hypotheticals.

That's only half the standard. Economically, it almost always makes sense to write a check, even for the shittiest claim. The other, often more compelling standard is:

Does the potential cost and aggravation approach, meet, or eclipse the cost of $$$ this person will take to walk away? Unless it risks setting a bad precedent, buying off risk at annoyance cost is almost always the prudent course. You never know where this stuff goes. Why take even the long odds of a dollar cost where you can kill the risk for a dime?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It happens a lot.

Cite, please.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Cite, please.

TM

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/confidential

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Cite, please.

TM

Sebby knows things, TM.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/confidential

Yeah. You sound like Trump. "A lot of people are saying..."

Your post is about as convincing as the belief that white people are being constantly screwed by reverse discrimination.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yeah. You sound like Trump. "A lot of people are saying..."

Your post is about as convincing as the belief that white people are being constantly screwed by reverse discrimination.

TM

I've actually seen one where a bigot, being fired for being a bigot, got paid on a retaliatory sex discrim claim. Serve: You're a bigot. You gotta go. Return: Yeah? Well my boss is a sexist, and he treated me badly. Volley back: Damnit. Here's a check. Sign this release and fuck off.

Shit happens all the time.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've actually seen one where a bigot, being fired for being a bigot, got paid on a retaliatory sex discrim claim. Serve: You're a bigot. You gotta go. Volley: Yeah? Well my boss is a sexist, and he treated me badly. Return: Damnit. Here's a check. Sign this release and fuck off.

Shit happens all the time.

I do not believe you. Maybe you saw this occur (although I think 70% of the examples you've experienced or heard are completely made up). But I do not believe this happens often and I happen to know quite a few people who work in talent development at a number of places (departments which handle terminations). It is rare. And organizations almost *always* fight it when there's no evidence of discrimination.

I bet in the case you reference, the bigot's boss was indeed a sexist asshole. Whether a bigot should be rewarded for experiencing sexism is beside the point. You make it sound like she made it up on the spot. And if your story is true (and I kind of think you made it up), you bet your ass there was evidence of sexism.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I do not believe you. Maybe you saw this occur (although I think 70% of the examples you've experienced or heard are completely made up). But I do not believe this happens often and I happen to know quite a few people who work in talent development at a number of places (departments which handle terminations). It is rare. And organizations almost *always* fight it when there's no evidence of discrimination.

I bet in the case you reference, the bigot's boss was indeed a sexist asshole. Whether a bigot should be rewarded for experiencing sexism is beside the point. You make it sound like she made it up on the spot. And if your story is true (and I kind of think you made it up), you bet your ass there was evidence of sexism.

TM

All. the. time.

Whether you believe me or not is immaterial. If you fire someone who has a scintilla of a claim, there's a decent chance you'll hear from a lawyer.

I don't believe you know much about the subject, or you wouldn't say what you have. This shit isn't some hidden wisdom. It's well known to almost any employment lawyer.

It's a risk free method to collect a few dollars on the way out the door. Sure, people fight it. But a lot more make simple business decisions. You know this. You're just being a pain in the balls.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yeah. You sound like Trump. "A lot of people are saying..."

Your post is about as convincing as the belief that white people are being constantly screwed by reverse discrimination.

TM

Fact is no one talks much about the justified discrimination claim or the claim that should have been brought because someone is just racist as hell or openly harassing people because, well, these things are everyday and not surprising to anyone. Just looking at law firms where I've worked, a fraction of the claims that could be brought are.

Everyone talks about every single "reverse" discrimination or unjustified discrimination case brought because they're few and far between. I've seen precisely one discrimination case that shouldn't have been brought,but it's one of the cases I've ended up talking about a fair bit because it has some unique features that make it interesting.

Sure, all kinds of stuff happens. The monkey does occasionally type a line from Shakespeare. But the stuff that happens every goddamn day is what we ought to be focused on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

But a person's sensitivity is not a classification protected by laws. Thyere must be some sort of waiver, "assumption of the risk" or "coming to the nuisance" doctrine. Otherwise, how can strip clubs operate?

I think you're confused about what civil rights are. The government's protection of a right to a workplace that is free of sexual harassment is not an effort to solve a market failure that inhibits bargaining between private parties around what the optimum workplace should be like (Boss: I really value the ability to grope my subordinates. Potential subordinate: I'm not crazy about being groped, but the other job I'm looking at has a longer commute, so for the right price I guess I'm fine with that.). Civil rights are inalienable rights that you get by virtue of being a human and a citizen, and so cannot be bargained away.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How do you square that with the statement, "Harassment is entirely subjective, within the victim's mind."?

If there's an objective baseline which must be passed in order for someone's claim to be legitimate, it cannot be an entirely subjective thing.

I'm not having the subjective/objective discussion. You are, but I'm not sure with whom. (The point I was making, which you are either missing or ducking, is that your description of what might or might not be harassment assumes a male point of view, for no apparent reason other than that it is your own.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And if your story is true (and I kind of think you made it up), you bet your ass there was evidence of sexism.

Of course there was. It was a workplace that involved men. By now we should know it's everywhere.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think you're confused about what civil rights are. The government's protection of a right to a workplace that is free of sexual harassment is not an effort to solve a market failure that inhibits bargaining between private parties around what the optimum workplace should be like (Boss: I really value the ability to grope my subordinates. Potential subordinate: I'm not crazy about being groped, but the other job I'm looking at has a longer commute, so for the right price I guess I'm fine with that.). Civil rights are inalienable rights that you get by virtue of being a human and a citizen, and so cannot be bargained away.

Less might want to consider this story.