"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Couldn't help but muse, though, that the ruling, as summarized
in the media, sounded like a how-to manual for bosses
(allegedly) seeking to hit-on-subordinates-for-sex.
Some examples that come to mind:
- Pick people far down on the employment chain -- (where the
solicitor's influence need only be symbolic/assumed/perceived) --
while the distance-between-their-two-positions-on-the-organizational-
chart gives the solicitor cover: numerous intervening persons
and processes affecting the target's career. In the lower echelons,
attrition also tends to be high, so career derailments will
not look abnormal. Using security personnel for the contact
has a certain cachet, and avoids using persons in the
person's chain-of-command.
- Play the field: one-incident-per-target will weaken the
argument that it created a hostile workplace.
- Be brash: As long as there's only one verifiable incident-per-target,
the more outlandish, the less credibility the target's claim will have.
Ron
Women have their faults. Men have only two.
Everything they say. Everything they do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
