On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Pollak, Melissa F. <[email protected]> wrote: > P-Gage, here are the facts in the Broderick case as I see them: > > 1. She only experienced a little sexual harassment herself -- when she > first starting working at the agency. > > 2. She did not think she should have to work in an environment in which > her colleagues and their bosses were sleeping with each other -- and she > complained about it. > > 3. Because she complained, she received bad performance ratings and > wasn't promoted. [As an aside, believe me, I know first-hand what > happens to those who complain -- or speak up -- at a federal agency when > things aren't the way they should be.] > > From the AP piece I linked: > > "Although Broderick herself was the victim of only isolated incidents of > direct sexual overtures, 'conduct of a sexual nature was so > pervasive...that it can reasonably be said that such conduct created a > hostile or offensive work environment which affected the motivation and > work performance of those who found such conduct repugnant and > offensive,' [Judge] Pratt said."
Good - so at least we can establish that basics that we can agree on. Where I seem to differ from you is that it seems clear from the record of the Broderick case that the Judge concluded that it met the reasonable woman standard of what kind of environment would be deemed hostile is because of the specific verbal and physical behavior that occurred in the office. In the Broderick case, not only had she been subject to sexual come on's (you are right this was minimal compared to the other events going on, but it was an important part of making her case), but she was able to show that there was pervasive sexual behavior and comments about the sexual behavior in the workplace. She was also able to show that she was disadvantaged by not participating in the either the behavior or the conversation about the behavior. In Scovell's case, by her own report, nobody came on to her, she never suffered any workplace disadvantage, and there was no overt sexual behavior or discussion about the sexual behavior in the workplace. In other words, Broderick could not avoid the sexual behavior of co-workers and supervisors, because it was carried out at work, and talked about. This is what made it pervasive, and this is what convinced the judge that a reasonable woman would find it hostile. Scovile, OTOH, says she knew from rumors and common knowledge that sexual behavior was going on, but does not report actual sexual behavior in the workplace, or frequent conversations or comments about it, and the sexual behavior and comments were not pervasive (except perhaps in her own imagination). Now, perhaps Scoville has not revealed all of the facts, and she really did experience a pervasive exposure to sexually related behaviors and comments of coworkers and their supervisors. If she adds to her story, and those additions are supported by appropriate evidence, then we would be talking about something different. There is no doubt in my mind that Broderick was exposed to a hostile work environment. One area where we seem to disagree is that you think the workplace that Scoville describes meets the Broderick standard - I don't think it even comes close. This may be related to what seems like a second area were we disagree; an environment in which colleagues and bosses are sleeping with each other does not constitute, ipso facto a hostile work environment. To support the claim of a HWE, an employee has to do more than simply demonstrate that supervisors are sleeping with employees, and assert that this makes them feel uncomfortable. That employee would have to demonstrate that these sexual behaviors had some kind of pervasive influence on the working environment of the employee (other than simply the employee's disapproval). To make this more TV related: Angela may not approve of Jim sleeping with Pam, but her disapproval alone is not sufficient to support a claim of a HWE. If Jim started joking about Pam's sexual attributes or talents, or commented on them in the course of business, or had sex with Pam in the break room, or suggested that Angela would have a better chance of advancement if she loosened up and had sex more like Pam, then she might have a claim. However, note that a paper company is different than a late night comedy program. A judge is likely to give significantly more leeway to sexually suggestive humorous comments in the workplace of a late night comedy show than to those in a paper company. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
