# Sexual Harassment: I've had enough thankyouverymuch. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2001, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521 "2001-08-22T12:10:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/21 "2001-08-22T16:03:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by navtechie \* > \*\*What does everyone think about frivolous\ lawsuits, and what do you think the final solution will be? > > frivolous being like the Hot Coffee McDonalds lawsuit. > \*\* :::::sigh::::: I’ll make it clear from the outset that I am laying a trap for you, but can you, for the sake of clarity, outline for us all **exactly** what happened in the “Hot Coffee McDonald’s lawsuit”? More specifically: 1. What were the specifics of the incident which led to the filing of the suit? 2. What sorts of evidence concerning the defendant were presented at trial? 3. What was the finding of fault in that trial, and what was the award, if any? 4. Were the findings of fault upheld on appeal? 5. Were the damages upheld on appeal? Thank you in advance. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/22 "2001-08-22T16:08:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by navtechie \* > \*\* > The, “because”, you use was not what the court said, it is what the plaintiff used as their basis for the lawsuit. “I was reprimanded because I was a woman” The jury did not ‘find’ that this was so, they merely agreed with the case that the plaintiff brought before them. \*\* Trite but effective - defending a vague argument with total nonsense. I give it 7.0 on the troll-o-meter. |------x—| ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/23 "2001-08-22T16:09:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by navtechie \* > rephrased question: > > What does everyone think about frivolous\ lawsuits[?] Uh, were you seriously thinking anyone supports “frivolous” lawsuits? ---
**Author:** ![navtechie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b19c9b/32.png) [@navtechie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/navtechie)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/24 "2001-08-22T16:36:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Uh, were you seriously thinking anyone supports “frivolous” lawsuits? That’s not the question, I asked what everyone thinks about frivolous lawsuits and possible solutions. did i hear an echo? > [@](#): > > I’ll make it clear from the outset that I am laying a trap for you, but can you, for the sake of clarity, outline for us all exactly what > happened in the “Hot Coffee McDonald’s lawsuit”? More specifically: Ok, bad example, but we all know of some petty lawsuits, and bullocks to citing some. Can you now just answer the question instead of posing another question that has nothing at all to do with the topic? ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/25 "2001-08-22T16:37:51Z")
An [LA Times](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000065808aug13.story?coll=la-features-business) article on the case. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/26 "2001-08-22T16:42:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by navtechie \* > **Ok, bad example, but we all know of some petty lawsuits, and bullocks to citing some.** If you aren’t going to cite any, how are we to decide for ourselves whether they are “petty” or “frivolous”? We can probably all make up a petty or frivolous lawsuit, but that’s what’s referred to as a “straw man argument.” If you’d like to cite some real-world examples, I’m sure we’d all be happy to respond to them. We even have real live lawyers here who can discuss them knowledgeably. Most honest-to-goodness “frivolous” lawsuits, I would venture to guess, are dismissed by the judge before they even get to _voir dire_. > [@](#): > > \*\*Can you now just answer the question instead of posing another question that has nothing at all to do with the topic? \*\* Are you going to change the question **every** time that someone dismantles one of your premises? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/27 "2001-08-22T16:56:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by navtechie \* > \*\*Thoughts? \*\* 1. This is a ridiculous expansion of the concept of sexual harassment, which was designed to protect against women being forced to have sex in order to get a job. 2. The amount of the award is ridiculous. 3. Unfair things happen in the workplace every day. You can’t have a system of a jury second-guessing every management decision and handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars when they disagree. 4. It’s striking that the attorney received three times as much as the plaintiff. 5. Since the defendant was a state school, the impact of this case is to punish all citizens of California, which seems unfair. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/28 "2001-08-22T17:00:38Z")
Thanks for the link, **amarinth**. According to the LA Times story: > [@](#): > > The unanswered question in the Banack case is why she became a target. Banack’s attorney, Keith Walden, said that gets to the heart of the sexual harassment allegations. He said the other professors the committee dealt with were older, mostly male, had worked at the university for years and ignored many of the committee’s directives. > > When a younger woman came under their purview, Walden said, some committee officials decided to show her they were in charge. > > “A jigsaw puzzle came together like a quilt that showed a couple of people were out to sabotage this woman, and the administration foolishly participated, either by ignorance or not doing the proper investigation,” he said. So according to the plaintiff’s lawyer, the plaintiff (Ms. Banack) was subjected to an adverse employment decision because of her gender, and there was apparently evidence to back that up. The jury agreed. Where’s the frivolousness? **navtechie:** Frivolous lawsuits are bad. They should not happen. Does that take care of your proposed “debate,” or would you care to do a little work by specifying what makes a lawsuit frivolous and how we should weed them out? Or would you just prefer to talk about things in a vacuum? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/29 "2001-08-22T17:18:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gigi \* > I think the case used in this editorial is an extreme one, but as was discussed, it was proven in court that her gender affected the way she was treated, whether or not she “screwed up.” In general, being harassed is a painful thing and it takes a lot to level charges. Women who have been raped talk themselves out of pressing charges, let alone women who been harassed in non-assault ways. This is especially true where there is an environment where levelling such charges is considered petty and vindictive. In my workplace, jokes are made about a hostile environment, etc., and I put up with questionable things because of the crap I would get if I complained. I have to believe that if someone comes forwward, they must have been facing pretty bad circumstances. I don’t think that the fact that **you** wouldn’t be comfortable filing this sort of suit means much about whether other people would be comfortable. Some people are assholes. Perhaps the reason you’re reluctant to give people the benefit of the doubt is because you’re not an asshole. But that doesn’t mean that no one else is. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/30 "2001-08-22T17:18:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > > 1. This is a ridiculous expansion of the concept of sexual harassment, which was designed to protect against women being forced to have sex in order to get a job. Bovine excrement. Sexual harassment law has _never_ been exclusively about quid pro quo harassment. Either back up that assertion or withdraw it, please. > [@](#): > > 1. The amount of the award is ridiculous. Why is $75,000 for a gener-motivated letter of reprimand ridiculous when it is likely to spell the difference between tenure and unemployment? > [@](#): > > 1. Unfair things happen in the workplace every day. You can’t have a system of a jury second-guessing every management decision and handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars when they disagree. You’re right. That’s why the plaintiff has to present evidence of gender discrimination or the case will be dismissed right quick. The Federal Reporter is filled with cases doing exactly that. But gender discrimination _is_ illegal, and rightfully so, which is why we do let juries decide when there is evidence of discrimination. Would you prefer to let employers harass and terminate on the basis of gender to their hearts’ content? > [@](#): > > 1. It’s striking that the attorney received three times as much as the plaintiff. Federal Title VII (and analogous state laws) entitles a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorney’s fees, based on the hours actually worked by the attorney in litigating the case. The idea is that most instances of gender/race/religion/etc. discrimination in the workplace would never be challenged if the victim had to shell out the bucks for an attorney. Thus, employers are not able to get away with small-scale discrimination that would otherwise slip through the cracks because the plaintiff couldn’t pay a lawyer or find one who would take a small-stakes claim on contingency. If you want to eliminate workplace discrimination, this is an excellent idea. > [@](#): > > 1. Since the defendant was a state school, the impact of this case is to punish all citizens of California, which seems unfair. Is it fairer to just let the state of California sexually harass the plaintiff? Besides, the people of the California (through their representatives in the state legislature) have already given their consent for the state to be sued, so they seem to be quite happy that way. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/31 "2001-08-22T17:18:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*1. This is a ridiculous expansion of the concept of sexual harassment, which was designed to protect against women being forced to have sex in order to get a job. > \*\* This is not true. I’m not going to ask you for a cite, since I know you never provide them, but will rather simply point out that sexual harrassment law stems from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the title which covers Equal Employment Opportunity. While “quid pro quo” harrassment is undoubtedly addressed by Title VII, and is patently illegal, Title VII also covers the concept of “hostile working environments,” and has several decades of Supreme Court case law backing it up. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/32 "2001-08-22T17:25:11Z")
I agree, \*\* minty\*\* Frivolous lawsuits are bad. But don’tchathink what’s worse is reading a two paragraph editorial about a lawsuit and deciding that you’ve got sufficient information to judge the merits of the case? reading the facts from the news source (thanks!!!), the U issued a written reprimand to an Assoicate professor. The reprimand was based on a letter of complaint that had been sent. However, the facts contained in the letter were shown to be wrong. And, after it was shown that the facts were wrong, the U refused to withdraw the reprimand. So, I don’t see that it’s a frivolous suit at all, and the awards in the case seem appropriate (how much do you think the punishment should be for harming some one’s work reputation based on a lie and refusing to withdraw it after the lie has been demonstrated? Hmmm?), the seperate award to the attorney should demonstrate also to the U that when you’re in the wrong, fighting it is not the fiscally responsible thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![Fiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e274bd/32.png) [@Fiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiver)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/33 "2001-08-22T17:30:14Z")
I’ve read both provided links, and neither tells me what Banack supposedly did to get in trouble with the Wildlife Service, or why the fact of her reprimand (or maybe the text of the reprimand) is about her gender. Could someone please summarize or supply a link that does? And **navtechie** , you’re not going to get far or last long in GD with attitudes like “bullocks to citing.” This is not the forum for wild-ass guesses and declarations. ---
**Author:** ![navtechie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b19c9b/32.png) [@navtechie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/navtechie)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/34 "2001-08-22T17:41:29Z")
Here is a site that lists some cases brought to court. [http://www.litigationfairness.org/stories.html](http://www.litigationfairness.org/stories.html) ---
**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/35 "2001-08-22T17:43:13Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. This is a ridiculous expansion of the concept of sexual harassment, which was designed to protect against women being forced to have sex in order to get a job. _sputter_ While that certainly falls under the pervue of sexual harassment, your definition seems a wee bit narrow (though I’ll keep it in mind while I go pinch my extremely attractive coworker’s ass ;)). > [@](#): > > 1. The amount of the award is ridiculous. > > 2. Unfair things happen in the workplace every day. You can’t have a system of a jury second-guessing every management decision and handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars when they disagree. > > … > > 1. Since the defendant was a state school, the impact of this case is to punish all citizens of California, which seems unfair. I’m impressed that you managed to pull all of that out of minimal detail presented in a newspaper article. Or do you have a source I’m missing? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/36 "2001-08-22T17:55:06Z")
Navtechie, here’s a hint… When you want to discuss frivolous lawsuits, don’t title your thread “Sexual Harrassment: I’ve had enough thankyouverymuch” then cite a case where whether sexual harrassment even occurred (vs. gender discrimination) is questionable. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/37 "2001-08-22T18:10:00Z")
**Fiver** according to the news link: > [@](#): > > A key piece of evidence was a letter written to Fish and Game by Vickie Langille, who worked as staff assistant to the animal care committee. > > The letter laid out many of the accusations, which Banack later challenged. > > Atwell wrote the reprimand to Banack without discussing it with the professor. > > “Every piece in the [Langille] letter was proven false,” jury forewoman Boutin said. So, what happened is that the professor apparently did not break any rules. Some one wrote a letter claiming she did, the U chose to reprimand her w/o investigation of the substance of the allegations. In the trial, all of this came out, which would explain why the jury forewoman said ‘every piece in the letter was proven false’. As to if it was sexual harassment or not. It apparently is the U’s position that it(the reprimand itself, the failure to investigate the substance of the allegations, the refusal to withdraw the reprimand when it was shown the allegations were wrong) wasn’t due to her gender. I’m not sure what they’re claiming is really well thought out. The facts, as determined by the jury were that this employee was harmed (ie reprimanded) based simply on allegations in letter that were later proven false. So their defense is that **all** employees are subjectable to harm based on false charges w/o investigation? Think about it - some one writes a letter to your employer claiming you did all sorts of awful things, you get punished as if it were true, and it wasn’t true in the first place. Then, after it’s shown to be false, the employer refuses to withdraw the reprimand? I am having a difficult time believing that an attorney (for the U) didn’t advise them to withdraw the letter of reprimand, and settle this one out of court ASAP. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/38 "2001-08-22T18:14:34Z")
You lawyers will always win the battles of the words. I can back up my assertion with the dictionary. What does “sexual harassment” mean? Well, “harass” means 1. To irritate or torment persistently. 2. To wear out; exhaust. 3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids. I’m at work so I’m blocked out from looking up “sexual,” but we know what it means. To the man on the street, the term “sexual harassment” meant persistently demanding sexual favors or tormenting in some sexual way. At the time the law was passed, I thought it covered a boss feeling up his subordinate’s breasts. I didn’t know that it covered criticizing a subordinate for wrong-doing. Of course, **Minty** and **pld** are correct; the law as written turned out to be much broader. But, it seems to me that the OP asked less about what the law is, than about what it ought to be. > [@](#): > > Why is $75,000 for a gener-motivated letter of reprimand ridiculous when it is likely to spell the difference between tenure and unemployment? The amount of the award paid by U was $311,000. > [@](#): > > That’s why the plaintiff has to present evidence of gender discrimination or the case will be dismissed right quick. The Federal Reporter is filled with cases doing exactly that. But gender discrimination _is_ illegal, and rightfully so, which is why we do let juries decide when there is evidence of discrimination. Would you prefer to let employers harass and terminate on the basis of gender to their hearts’ content? The question is, did the court do justice? Based on the facts as reported, I don’t think so. More generally, I have limited confidence in jury’s ability to do justice. So, in my ideal world, they’d only look at gross cases of misbehaviour. How well do you think this Great Debates site would function if a poster could be fined $311,000 because of a post that some jury didn’t like? Would that sort of structure be conducive to more effective functioning? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/39 "2001-08-22T18:24:31Z")
It’s not just about “something the jury didn’t like,” december. It’s about proving to the jury that illegal gender discrimination occurred. Here, the jury determined that Prof. Banack received a reprimand because she was a woman, and awarded damages accordingly. If this isn’t justice, what would your version of justice look like? Also, the $311,000 figure you cite was not an award of damages. Damages were assessed by the jury at $75,000, and that’s what the plaintiff received. The additional money is an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, as determined by the judge. The plaintiff doesn’t receive a penny of the attorney’s fees. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521/40 "2001-08-22T18:28:00Z")
Here is a link to some info on sexual harrassment law: [http://www.sexharassment.net/law2.htm](http://www.sexharassment.net/law2.htm) What is describe is not sexual harrassment under federal law (or EEOC interpretation of federal law - California law may be different, and once again IANAL) but may be gender discrimination. Neither article outlines what “pieces formed a quilt” that made the case that this was gender based discrimination. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexual-harassment-ive-had-enough-thankyouverymuch/77521.md?page=3)