Perhaps they won’t fire him until he actually rapes someone.
:mad:
Sounds terrible. Why can’t the women seek criminal charges against the man? It seems to be something the police rather than the school board should be investigating.
According to the article, the women have chosen not to pursue criminal charges, thought they are considering a lawsuit.
It doesn’t sound like just harassment to me - it sounds more like actual sexual assault.
Wow, that’s one tolerant dude. If I worked with him, I would sure revel in the knowledge that I could poop in his coffee without it impacting my job security.
If they refuse to persue criminal charges, it leaves the board with a he said she said. I don’t see how the board could have gone any other way without facing huge legal expenses. If they are willing to accuse, go all the way, don’t wimp out. Then they can get done what they want. If they don’t go all the way with a complaint, they run the risk of getting some half-assed resolution from the school board.
Ooops, did I speak to late? It looks like that is exactly what happened.
I don’t mean to blame the victim here, but look at it from the board’s perspective.
From the article:
No one posting to this thread had the opportunity to hear and evaluate the demeanor and truthfulness of the witnesses. The ones that DID have that opportunity were unpersuaded of the truth of the allegations.
On what basis, then, do you substitute your judgement for theirs and declare that the man should have been fired?
Hmmm?
- Rick
Hope the dude had a little saved up. 3 months w/o pay could put the squeeze on him, and not the kind he would want to tell his ladyfriends about on the phone.
Fagjunk Theology: Not just for sodomite propagandists anymore.
5-HT precisely. It sounds like they have no proof and little solid evidence, or why else avoid criminal investigation.
Bricker Very few posting to this thread has declare that the man should have been fired. So don’t get in such a huff, or directly address the posts you believe to be damming the guy.
Yeah, but here’s what the article gives as the conflicting testimony:
Huggy and kissy is NOT tongue, folks.
On the basis that the board concluded, without a dissenting vote, that he had been harassing their female employees.
Happy to. The OP’s clear inference is that the man should have been fired:
RTFirefly:
Are you suggesting that the penalty for any incident which is found to be harrassment be automatic dismissal, no matter how minor the incident is?
If you’re not suggesting that, then it’s unclear to me what relevance the board’s finding of harrassment has. The thrust of the OP is that the board should have fired the man. I am suggesting that the board had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and judge for themselves what actually happened. The fact that they imposed a suspension but not a dismissal suggests that they found some culpable behavior, but that they didn’t believe the accusations in their entirety.
- Rick
Not a very satisfying resolution. If he did the things he is alleged to have done, he shoud definitely be fired. Some of gthe things are alleged to have been done in front of students.
I.e.: . Another told the Times he had tongue-kissed her in front of her students and rubbed himself against her.
Why didn’t anyone ask the students what they saw? And why would the teacher claim these things were done in front of the students when it would be so easy to disprove? Did the board accept students’ testimony that the janitor embraced the teacher and kissed her on the mouth as “huggy feely”?
Something smells rotten in Pittsburgh.
Yeah, I’d have to agree that something’s not quite adding up.
It said that this harrassment had been going on for years. Years? Why didn’t anyone say anything until now? I’m very familiar with the area this happened it and trust me, it’s not like any of these women were unaware of what constituted harassment, that they don’t have to tolerate it and what to do if they feel they’re being harassed.
It’s also not as if the guy had any power over them. He’s a custodian. They’re teachers. It’s not like it was the principal, or a member of the board. I’m not saying that these women are lying, I wasn’t there to hear the testimony, I’m just saying that IMHO, it sounds a little fishy.
Also the allegations themselves. They sound rather extreme. To the point of “why the fuck did you let this go on?” I mean tounge kissing? Comon’. NO one is naiive enough to think that being tounge kissed is okay. And rubbing up against them? Calling them up saying that he’s mastrubating? These are all very serious acts. Like I said before, serious to the point of making me wonder what’s happening with these women that they allowed the behavior to go on for years from someone lower on the totem pole than themselves.
Also, not pressing charges. Huh? All of these accusations fall into the realm of sexual *assult/i]. And the fact that some of these incidents happened in front of students. Well, you’ve got a room full of witnesses. Why not even try to question any of them? I know they’re elementary aged children, but you can phrase something in a way as to not traumatize them.
It seems very strange that the school board would make a decision that would paint them in such a negative light. Who can get behind letting a employee with a record of sexual harrassment retain his job at the very place he committed the harrassment? They had to have had reason. I just can’t believe anyone would set themselves up for that much critisism unless they had good reason.
Like I said before, I don’t know whether the allegations are true or not, I wasn’t there. The above things just make me question the truthfulness of the claims.
[nitpick]
Pittsburg, no “h.” It’s near San Francisco, in the East Bay (Contra Costa County).
I don’t want to make excuses for anyone, or to imply that I know what was going on in this case, beyond reading the article. But I’ve seen/heard of harrasment and innappropriate behavior type stuff go on for years. Sad thing is, the bad guy can have as many people on his or her side as the victims. In one case, in my district, both the accused and the accuser were being represented by lawyers hired by the same union. If the bad guy fights off one accusation, it could be years before another victim or group of victims gets enough evidence together, and then screws up their courage enough to bring the matter to the admin. I don’t think I’m telling any secrets when I write that school boards, just like any board, really, really don’t like firing people and would rather reassign duties or give a slap on the hand. Lawsuits for being ‘unfairly’ fired are expensive.
And oddly enough, I can see a custodian getting away with this sort of behaviour a lot more easily than an administrator. For one, I see my custodian much more often and in more casual circumstances, with fewer adults around to corroborate. Never mind there are people who will try to say there are different standards of behavior for classified and certificated employes. Sort of a boys will be boys attitude, only with classified employees.
As for whether the kids’ testimony would or would not be accepted, it depends on the district and the board involved. I know that in my district, kids are assumed to lie and/or be very dubious witnesses. The thinking is that they don’t understand what’s going on and could lie depending upon their allegiances and how they’ve been questioned. While that might have some merit, since the first people to interview the kids might just be some asst. principle with no expertise in the matter, it is galling.