The Supreme Court and Sexual Harrassment
Mar. 31st, 2004 04:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fabrisseI'm home sick today. I'm supposed to be traveling tomorrow and all I can hope is that I get well soon. I want to see my cousin Nettie on Friday and visiting a 95 year old woman when I have severe bronchitis is just a hugely bad idea.
Now, about the topic in the subject line. Go read this. I'll wait here and hum a little tune.
First, a small disclaimer -- all I know about the case is what you just read above.
Every time I hear about a sexual harassment case the first words out of someone's mouth are, "Why didn't she just quit?"
This is why. In an economy where jobs are being lost every day, and the new jobs being created are at minimum wage level, quitting is only an option if recompense is possible. You can't collect unemployment if you quit.
Worst of all, in at least one case I know of, the woman being harrassed was overweight and not exactly fashion magazine beautiful. The person harassing her actually said, "Tell someone. They'll never believe that I would go after someone who looks like you." She filed suit within her department and it took nearly a year to get it settled and get the man moved to another department (with a black mark). The harassment didn't stop; it escalated. He tried to get her to withdraw the suit by using the same tactics that had led her to bring the suit. Part of the reason that it took so long was that several members of the committee couldn't believe that an attractive man like him would bother with someone who looked like her.
The aggressor has all the power in sexual harassment. If he picks his victims wisely, he may never be caught. (Yes, there are a few cases of woman/woman or woman/man harassment, but by far the greatest number are man/woman and that's the way the pronouns are going to go.)
My own experience with a professor in college was such that until someone who was responsible, older, and in no way connected with the school convinced me that I'd done nothing wrong, I firmly believed that I had "tempted" him. Somehow, his trying to cheat on his wife and fail an uncooperative student (me) was all my fault because I'd had a nice conversation with him on the bus at a class trip. I was flattered at first. Then I found out that he was A) married and B) trying to seduce me (I know, I was way too naive at 20). I said no -- a firm, resounding no. A no that made me a challenge to this person. A no that got me groped in class in front of the other students (not one of whom said a word to anyone in authority). It took a credible threat to his career from a man (the aforementioned responsible older someone) for this creep to leave me alone for a little while. He actually stalked me across two countries before giving up over a year later.
So I really hope that when this case comes before the Supremes, they recognize that forbidding this kind of suit after the woman has quit is against the best interests of fairness.
The aggressors accomplished what they wanted to. They got rid of the woman who was invading their boys club. I'm sure every last one of them will have excuses like "women just can't take a joke" or "she knew what policemen were like" or "girls just can't handle the stress."
The Pennsylvania State Police is a public department and should be held to the highest public standards.
Now, about the topic in the subject line. Go read this. I'll wait here and hum a little tune.
First, a small disclaimer -- all I know about the case is what you just read above.
Every time I hear about a sexual harassment case the first words out of someone's mouth are, "Why didn't she just quit?"
This is why. In an economy where jobs are being lost every day, and the new jobs being created are at minimum wage level, quitting is only an option if recompense is possible. You can't collect unemployment if you quit.
Worst of all, in at least one case I know of, the woman being harrassed was overweight and not exactly fashion magazine beautiful. The person harassing her actually said, "Tell someone. They'll never believe that I would go after someone who looks like you." She filed suit within her department and it took nearly a year to get it settled and get the man moved to another department (with a black mark). The harassment didn't stop; it escalated. He tried to get her to withdraw the suit by using the same tactics that had led her to bring the suit. Part of the reason that it took so long was that several members of the committee couldn't believe that an attractive man like him would bother with someone who looked like her.
The aggressor has all the power in sexual harassment. If he picks his victims wisely, he may never be caught. (Yes, there are a few cases of woman/woman or woman/man harassment, but by far the greatest number are man/woman and that's the way the pronouns are going to go.)
My own experience with a professor in college was such that until someone who was responsible, older, and in no way connected with the school convinced me that I'd done nothing wrong, I firmly believed that I had "tempted" him. Somehow, his trying to cheat on his wife and fail an uncooperative student (me) was all my fault because I'd had a nice conversation with him on the bus at a class trip. I was flattered at first. Then I found out that he was A) married and B) trying to seduce me (I know, I was way too naive at 20). I said no -- a firm, resounding no. A no that made me a challenge to this person. A no that got me groped in class in front of the other students (not one of whom said a word to anyone in authority). It took a credible threat to his career from a man (the aforementioned responsible older someone) for this creep to leave me alone for a little while. He actually stalked me across two countries before giving up over a year later.
So I really hope that when this case comes before the Supremes, they recognize that forbidding this kind of suit after the woman has quit is against the best interests of fairness.
The aggressors accomplished what they wanted to. They got rid of the woman who was invading their boys club. I'm sure every last one of them will have excuses like "women just can't take a joke" or "she knew what policemen were like" or "girls just can't handle the stress."
The Pennsylvania State Police is a public department and should be held to the highest public standards.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-31 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-31 08:49 pm (UTC)Talk to you when I'm back from D.C.?
no subject
Date: 2004-03-31 09:46 pm (UTC)Lisa is finally making the admin area changes I requested, and, who knows, we might actually integrate the admin area this week. (In all fairness, the reason she disappeared from the face of the earth was an illness in the family.)
no subject
Date: 2004-04-01 08:00 am (UTC)But yeah, it seems odd that someone would be penalized for quitting to get away from the harassment.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-01 09:46 am (UTC)Even if we assume that *most* of the negative things said about her were trumped-up or exaggerated, if the following is true, then I think it pretty much shuts down her case: "Suders was aware of the state's anti-harassment policies and procedures to complain but sought no help until two days before she quit, lawyers for the state argued." If she was being harrassed "Day in and day out", but only tried to have it officially dealt with after a long time, and then gave the system a mere two days to fix itself before giving up, that is fairly damning.
Now, if it turns out that she gave up early because, for example, it was immediately apparent that those policies and procedures were being implemented by the very people who were harassing her, then I think she may have been in the right after all. But I can't tell from that article.