Irrefutable proof that life ain't fair.

[theredbaron47]

ITA LostMyMind, I gotta agree with you 100% on this. The lawsuits sound fishy at best, and it's not like they didn't know what they were getting into when they first took the job. And I agree with your porn star comparison also.

I'm with LostMyMind as well. To me, it seems that they had to have known full well what they were getting themselves into when they took that job. The porn star comparison comes into play here, and I also agree completely with that as well. And even if they didn't, why didn't they say something about the extent to which is was taken before? They saw this happening apparently all the time, and yet they never said anything while it was happening. Waiting until they were terminated to file the lawsuit is -very- fishy.

[TNT]

By the same token, this company operates it's head office like one big hippy party. That's fine, it's his business (and quite successful running it like that). But those "ladies" were told before they were hired that how it is. And that makes them stupid and a gold digger looking for another pay day.

The courts have never been fond of businesses that try to get to waive their rights... For example, a coal mine owner can't tell prospective miners, "I've elected not to implement any safety procedures. Because I've told you that, you agree not to complain." A business owner can't say to female employees, "If you take this job, I'm going to harass you endlessly... that's part of the job." (Similarly, landlords that include provisions in a lease that say, "Tenant agrees to give up all rights they made have under existing and future landlord-tenant laws" aren't going to be able to enforce that in court.)

I agree with Recoveringkinkoid that this guy is dangerous because his behavior seems to be as reckless outside of work as it is in his own company. I surely wouldn't want to be an investor in the company.

[theredbaron47]

TNT, you have nothing to say about how the lawsuits were filed after they were terminated? I'm sorry if you don't feel this way, but that just reeks of fishiness to me.

And now that I think more deeply about it, his actions outside of work, outside of his company, leave a lot to be desired. But this specific incident of Mary Nelson, or whatever her name was, seems to me like a gold-digging case, specifically because she waited until -after- being terminated to speak up. I know I keep harping on that, but it is such a huge, glaring point - I cannot overlook it.

[TNT]

TNT, you have nothing to say about how the lawsuits were filed after they were terminated? I'm sorry if you don't feel this way, but that just reeks of fishiness to me.

I see your point. But then again, I don't see much unusual with the timing. I wouldn't think a lot of people would file lawsuits at work when things are going well. It's when someone is terminated or denied promotion that they look back and say, "Yes, things were very wrong at this place."

I'm not saying the woman has a good case, or any case at all. But, I don't think there's much glory to be gained... there's the stress of the proceedings, the unkind publicity, the slow pace and the vagaries of the justice system... and when it's over, the lawyers get a lot of the money. (Although, I know several sue happy people who look at every incident in life in terms of its civil suit potential.)

[Banrion]

The courts have never been fond of businesses that try to get to waive their rights... For example, a coal mine owner can't tell prospective miners, "I've elected not to implement any safety procedures. Because I've told you that, you agree not to complain." A business owner can't say to female employees, "If you take this job, I'm going to harass you endlessly... that's part of the job."

Actually just last term a Federal judge ruled in favor of NBC & the producers of Friends in a very similar case. The logic being that the woman knew that she would be involved in meetings to discuss content of the show which had been known to deal with sexual content. And that due to the creative nature of the job it is only reasonable to assume that someone may say something spur of the moment in a flash of creativity.
I am still looking for a link to the official decision. Will edit to add when I find it.

[gundam40]

I'm another supporter of LostMyMind's argument. This is a gold grab.

However, this Don guy's behaviour outside work is unacceptable.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Don't get me wrong here. I agree with the idea that the suits being brought after termination are a bit fishy. I'm not arguing that. My point is simply that the guy is a predator.

While I am certainly not one to "blame the victim", I have to say that this guy's sleaziness is SO quickly obvious, SO immediately noticeable, that anyone taking a job with him surely must know how working in the this environment will be. Do they have a valid complaint? Yeah, I think they do. However, did they set themselves up for trouble? Absolutely. Yes, they have a right to work without being victimized. But they have a certain amount of personal responsiblity for their own self preservation, too. As much as I LOATH to say they asked for it...well...they asked for it.

Our typesetter didn't have anything to do with him because she was a smart young woman who identified what he was immediately, and then protected herself from him. She didn't call a lawyer. She just took herself out of the equation.

[LostMyMind]

I agree with you RecoveringKinkoid (you need a short nic ) on the issue the guy is a sleaze bag. However, if you decide to work for a known sleaze bag. Complaining about it afterward is way too fishy.

I just don't equate being sleazy as being a predator. By all reports so far, he backs off of females who said they're not interested. Several ladies came forth and said that. The ladies suing weren't even "approached" by this guy, they're gripping about seeing/hearing him "romance" (I use that term loosely) the ladies that were interested (who don't want to come forth for privacy reason).

As far as his behavior outside the office. that is a matter of indecent exposure (depending on the local laws), not a lawsuit asking for "damages" to ones ego for seeing or hearing such sleaze. We're adults not kids, the first action should be to avoid the guy not file a lawsuit.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

"By all reports so far, he backs off of females who said they're not interested."

Can't speak for anyone else, but I CAN speak for our typsetter. Not only was he repeatedly told, by her, that she wasn't interested, but he was also repeatedly told, by her, that he needed to knock it off entirely. He refused to respect her request.

Finally, my husband, who was her supervisor, told him to knock it off and he STILL refused, saying, and I quote, "Why do I have to stop?"

When he wants to make some uncomfortable, to badger someone in a sexual way, he doesn't care if they are not willing. How they feel about the encounter is the furthest thing from his mind. I would argue that that is indeed predatory behavior. A decent person would be embarassed and contrite to think he'd made someone feel the way he made our typesetter feel. A predator gets off on it.

I do agree with you that the women pursuing a lawsuit are probably gold diggers. They willingly placed themselves into this environment. That is suspect, expecially in light of the fact they themselves were not targets.

Obviously, "no" from a woman means nothing to this guy. It was only after the veiled threat of a beatdown happened that he backed off. I am curious where this guy would draw the line. I have a feeling he wouldn't draw one at all.

[LostMyMind]

Well, I think we all can agree the guy is a sleaze bag. As far as "reports", it's all third or fifth hand information. Since, you're alittle closer to the "action". I'll bow out and give you the point

[Banrion]

I agree with you RecoveringKinkoid (you need a short nic )

I vote that we just call her Kink!

[gundam40]

I vote that we just call her Kink!

I say Kinky... the "y" really adds endearment

[RecoveringKinkoid]

HA!

[Primer]

I say Kinky... the "y" really adds endearment

But then she would be on the ballot for Governor of Texas in the fall!

(Kinky Friedman)

[lordlundar]

I'd say this thread went downhill, but I don't think it's possible.