Another Absurd Californy Ruling!

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by IntheNet, Jul 19, 2005.

  1. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Court Rules On Sexual Office Affairs
    Tuesday, July 19, 2005; Posted: 9:14 a.m. EDT (13:14 GMT)
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/19/sexual.harassment.ap/index.html
    SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A manager who has affairs with subordinates can create a work climate that constitutes sexual harassment even for uninvolved employees, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday. Phil Horowitz, of the California Employment Lawyers Association, who submitted a brief to the court in support of a lawsuit filed by two women, called the decision "groundbreaking." "It's the first major decision saying women can sue if they are treated worse because they're not the paramour of the supervisor," Horowitz said. Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for the Attorney General's office, said the decision is a warning to business owners. "It tells employers that having an anti-nepotism policy is not enough. You need to do more to make sure that you have a hostility-free work environment even when employees are having consensual sexual relationships," Barankin said. The case involves former employees at the Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla who complained about then-warden Lewis Kuykendall, who was sexually involved with at least three women at the same time.

    ~

    California Progressivism == check
    Stupid Decision == check
    Likely to be overturned == check
     
  2. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Re: Another Absurd IntheNet thread!

    How'd I know if you read the whole article you'd get the idea that it's not as black and white as the threadstarter seems to think:

    An isolated instance of favoritism would not ordinarily constitute sexual harassment, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote in the unanimous decision.

    But when it is so widespread that "the demeaning message is conveyed to female employees that they are viewed by management as 'sexual playthings' or that the way required for women to get ahead in the workplace is by engaging in sexual conduct," it constitutes harassment, he wrote.
     

Share This Page