Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html
For the first time in his 25 years of employment, a female employee has made a verbal allegation of sexual harassment against a male friend of mine. "John" was notified of this by his immediate supervisor via an email. The email did not indicate an incident or complaint but rather was framed in the context of "feedback" advising John to be carefull when it comes to dealing with female employees. It went on to say that comments, compliments, innuendos, flirting, wandering eyes, etc. can be misperceived and possibly jeapordize his job. Needless to say, John was absolutely astounded. He immediately approached his supervisor and demanded clarification. The supervisor indicated that a female employee had verbalized the allegation. He then clarified his position on the matter by stating that he has never witnessed any such behavior by John nor believes any incident occurred. What bothers John however, is why was the email sent in the first place? Does it constitute some form of written warning? The employee handbook states that standard operating procedure requires a verbal warning first and then written warning followed by a final written warning and then termination. Were John's civil rights violated?
The work environment today in the United States is becoming more and more polarized. Women are flagrantly disregarding company dress codes in order to flaunt there sexuality. It was interesting to discover how narrowly defined sexual harassment has become. A clause in the code mentions "visual harassment"; defined as any display that promotes the sexuality of what is depicted, or draws attention to the private parts of the body, even if there is partial clothing. Consequently, men are flagrantly disregarding verbal and visual inhibitions as they react to the sexual stimulus. The question that remains however, is which side constitutes criminality? Is it the sexual provocation or is it the sexual reaction? Do wandering male eyes encourage women to dress more provocatively or does female attire encourage wandering male eyes? Does a loose verbal atmosphere in the work place exacerbate the problem? Would clamping down constitute a violation of freedom of speech? What about the constant bombardment of sexual messages facilitated through various media? The 1960's ushered in the sexual revolution. Perhaps it is time for the counter revolution.
Full Version: Sexual Harassment
I just love the way JOE puts "same" in the 2nd line. Makes me 
Sometimes, people who attempt to bully [a female who is attempting to bully a male] will make accusations.
Sometimes the accusations and rumors are simply symptomatic of the campaign to remove someone from work through "other means". This typically happens when someone [the male target in this case] is one who has high integrity, doesn't play politics, and is perceived to be a threat to the others.
A notice like this is an indicator used by outside auditors and invistigators on the health of the organziation.
I would hope that such signals be used in the trading decision--this e-mail is a sign that the culture is creating a barrier to new ideas, and reather than reform and modernize to stay competitive, is hoping to entrench.
The source of this e-mail is simply a dying organization; it remains to be determined through future research the time between e-mail alert, and the arrival of the auditors.
Rest assured, you are not alone; that there are many others. Whether you retain a lwyer is up to you. If you are going to leave, there is nothing stopping you from turning over meeting minutes, signed poilcy statements, budgets, and ohter information that will be useful to auditors, investigators, and certfiied fraud examiners.
Take the e-mail as a validation of your being a threat to the organizations possible unlawful activity. Remember, their accusations are about their fears, your strenght, and their inability to control you using logic. The smart ones have already found jobs elsewhere in work environments that are more accomodating and rewarding.
Your choice. Choose your battles wisely. Time continues to tic.
Sometimes the accusations and rumors are simply symptomatic of the campaign to remove someone from work through "other means". This typically happens when someone [the male target in this case] is one who has high integrity, doesn't play politics, and is perceived to be a threat to the others.
A notice like this is an indicator used by outside auditors and invistigators on the health of the organziation.
I would hope that such signals be used in the trading decision--this e-mail is a sign that the culture is creating a barrier to new ideas, and reather than reform and modernize to stay competitive, is hoping to entrench.
The source of this e-mail is simply a dying organization; it remains to be determined through future research the time between e-mail alert, and the arrival of the auditors.
Rest assured, you are not alone; that there are many others. Whether you retain a lwyer is up to you. If you are going to leave, there is nothing stopping you from turning over meeting minutes, signed poilcy statements, budgets, and ohter information that will be useful to auditors, investigators, and certfiied fraud examiners.
Take the e-mail as a validation of your being a threat to the organizations possible unlawful activity. Remember, their accusations are about their fears, your strenght, and their inability to control you using logic. The smart ones have already found jobs elsewhere in work environments that are more accomodating and rewarding.
Your choice. Choose your battles wisely. Time continues to tic.
Are you being falsely accused of something at work by buillies?
If you're going to lose your job, let the world see you go down in flames. And take as many with you as you bask in your new public figure-status.
Reality TV: The new TV show to expose false accusations of sexual harassment.
They played dirty. Now it's your turn to be dirtier. Turn that angst into public entertainment.
If you're going to lose your job, let the world see you go down in flames. And take as many with you as you bask in your new public figure-status.
Reality TV: The new TV show to expose false accusations of sexual harassment.
They played dirty. Now it's your turn to be dirtier. Turn that angst into public entertainment.
Constantpated, Thanks so much for your thoughts!! I have a friend going through this right now. It doesn't involve sexual harrassment, just a team effort to get rid of him. He has an excellent work history, is completely honest and innovative and a delight to be around, no past employment problems. This might shed further light on the problem for him.
Summary
Joe took a vacation from writing over Christmas, but decided to post his concerns in Cleveland. Because it appears he has no friends he can ask athese qauestions of and must rely on a bot, it appears he can't afford to hire a lawyer.
Joe's has additionally made comments about the mortgage industry, indicating that he is not only in the industry, but could very well be in the middle of this mess. In my book anyone who's using the web to ask these kinds of legal questions admitting he can't afford an attorney. Anyone who has this kind of mess on thei rhands but doesn't have enough money to hire an attorney, indicates that despite all the economic activity," the real margins are poor; in fact, so poor that Joe can't get a raise to hire an attorney.
Translatoin: Joe's bot-posting, and subsequent discussion of real-estate-mortages, and a single post in Cleveland about this "John" indicates the real story is "there's more to the story going on in the mortage industry." Joe appears to be telling us that the margins in the mortgage-industry are abysmal. So where are the mortgage-backers hiding their real losses; or will that only be known when the defaults occur when the housing bubble explodes? Can you say LTCM.
Indeed, if we take Joe's comments at face value, the actual "spectacular results" are unrelated to actual margins, sales, resutls; but fraud.
More details on what was said
The rest of the story. Notice that a random phrase from the post in Cleveland doesn't appear anywhere else on the web; meaning: Joe didn't use his web-robot to post a follow-up. Also, notice the writing style doesn't match the clean style of Joe's normal "cuts and pastes" suggesting that this is a "real human post" with some "more valuable, more likely to be real" information.
The fatal error
When someone is writing and under some pressure, they make an error. This situation is no exception.
Notice the following sentence from the long-quote which follows: Well, it didn't take long for John to put "two and two together" or shall I say "one and one together".
Think about how that is written: "for John to"....changes to "or shall I say". Did he realize he realize that he gave himself away? What he did was "write the comment" then replaced all the "I" with "John", then re-wrote it to "make it make sense." This means the above sentence likely changed from Well, it didn't take long for me to put "two and two together" or shall I say "one and one together". , which changed to Well, it didn't take long for John to put "two and two together" or shall I say "one and one together".
Quoting from Joe's Cleveland Post... [that has been changed; the following comments have been deleted, and re-added in this post]
Joe took a vacation from writing over Christmas, but decided to post his concerns in Cleveland. Because it appears he has no friends he can ask athese qauestions of and must rely on a bot, it appears he can't afford to hire a lawyer.
Joe's has additionally made comments about the mortgage industry, indicating that he is not only in the industry, but could very well be in the middle of this mess. In my book anyone who's using the web to ask these kinds of legal questions admitting he can't afford an attorney. Anyone who has this kind of mess on thei rhands but doesn't have enough money to hire an attorney, indicates that despite all the economic activity," the real margins are poor; in fact, so poor that Joe can't get a raise to hire an attorney.
Translatoin: Joe's bot-posting, and subsequent discussion of real-estate-mortages, and a single post in Cleveland about this "John" indicates the real story is "there's more to the story going on in the mortage industry." Joe appears to be telling us that the margins in the mortgage-industry are abysmal. So where are the mortgage-backers hiding their real losses; or will that only be known when the defaults occur when the housing bubble explodes? Can you say LTCM.
Indeed, if we take Joe's comments at face value, the actual "spectacular results" are unrelated to actual margins, sales, resutls; but fraud.
More details on what was said
The rest of the story. Notice that a random phrase from the post in Cleveland doesn't appear anywhere else on the web; meaning: Joe didn't use his web-robot to post a follow-up. Also, notice the writing style doesn't match the clean style of Joe's normal "cuts and pastes" suggesting that this is a "real human post" with some "more valuable, more likely to be real" information.
The fatal error
When someone is writing and under some pressure, they make an error. This situation is no exception.
Notice the following sentence from the long-quote which follows: Well, it didn't take long for John to put "two and two together" or shall I say "one and one together".
Think about how that is written: "for John to"....changes to "or shall I say". Did he realize he realize that he gave himself away? What he did was "write the comment" then replaced all the "I" with "John", then re-wrote it to "make it make sense." This means the above sentence likely changed from Well, it didn't take long for me to put "two and two together" or shall I say "one and one together". , which changed to Well, it didn't take long for John to put "two and two together" or shall I say "one and one together".
Quoting from Joe's Cleveland Post... [that has been changed; the following comments have been deleted, and re-added in this post]
| QUOTE |
| Last time, I wrote about the false sexual harassment allegations made against my friend "John". Well, it turns out there is a lot more to the story. John works as an underwriter for a lender in the non-conforming loan business. This lender receives its loan applications (via company sales personnel) from licensed brokers across the country. His job is to review all credit, income and collateral documents that are used to qualify a borrower for a mortgage loan. In the first few months of his new job, John was given extensive training by his supervisor much like an apprentice gets feedback as he hones his knowledge, skills and abilities. Ocassionally, John would discover fraudulent income documents and immediately report this to his supervisor. Surprisingly, the supervisor would handle it in a somewhat cavalier manner. He would simply instruct John to hand the file back to the salesperson. John never saw the file again. At the time, this did not appear odd to John as he was new at the company and was not educated yet about the company culture. All that changed the day John received the sexual harassment email from his supervisor. After recovering from the sting of such a false allegation, John began to wonder why and who would make such a libelous and slanderous charge. What was their modus operandi? Well, it didn't take long for John to put "two and two together" or shall I say "one and one together". A few weeks after receiving the email, John was informed by a trusted contact that his accuser had accidently blabbed over drinks of what she had done. His accuser was not the woman his supervisor had hinted at but rather someone who had much to gain by seeing John removed. After all, it was mostly her loans that contained fraud. This woman contributes well over a quarter of the entire sales team's loans each month bringing her very large commissions The supervisor for her and John receives a very large commission each month as well. John earns a straight salary. Who has the competitive political advantage? Or better yet, who has the most to lose? What are John's options? Should he continue to work for this company? Should he report any further fraud from his accuser? Can John trust his supervisor? How far up the corporate ladder does the corruption go? Should John contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or Homeland Security? If John does nothing, can he be considered an accessory after the fact? What should John do? |
- Who has the competitive political advantage?
If you have to ask, it means you don't have it. - Or better yet, who has the most to lose? Depends on whether you call the FBI before they call you.
- What are John's options? Call your lawyer.
- Should he continue to work for this company? If you have to ask "people you don't know" for advice on this, I'm not clear that any answer is going to satisfy you.
- Should he report any further fraud from his accuser? Meaning, "There's aready been fraud"?
- Can John trust his supervisor? What answer would satisfy you?
- How far up the corporate ladder does the corruption go? The White House is a good place to start.
- Should John contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or Homeland Security? They might ignore you; what does your lawyer say?
- If John does nothing, can he be considered an accessory after the fact? Your lawyer can answer this.
- What should John do? Lawyer.
So what's going on? Joe's got a real problem. He's publicly discussing something that his bot can't erase; Joe's got a problem at work; and has nobody he can talk to about it; and it too poor to hire an attorney, despite him being in the mortgae-business.
What does this mean as an indicator? Well, the margins in the mortgage business must be so low, that "despite the roaring economy" [ha!] the "high volume of mortgate refinancing isn't translating into sufficient margins: THey're insufficient to justify raises.
IN other words, Joe has given us a valuable piece of information about the health of the economy, the "robustness" of this mortgage-backed-"recovery" and the true state of the mortgage-lending business: It's not what it appears to be.
The question becomes "where are the hiding the losses" and "how long before this disaster explodes"? Place your bets!
What is this sex ed Stool? Remember that women were officially property not that long ago. Women are the ones who usually get treated unfairly for sexual reasons.
On the other hand, I have noticed that totally unfounded complains of sexual harassment usually come from fat, ugly women who couldn’t attract flies. Why is that?
On the other hand, I have noticed that totally unfounded complains of sexual harassment usually come from fat, ugly women who couldn’t attract flies. Why is that?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.