| | Luke,
I don't understand the distinction Summer is making, if any, between "harassment" and "threats."
To me, harassment is a threat. If someone is going that far out of their way to make my life miserable, then I have to assume, for the sake of my own life, that they're a danger to me. Precisely what the law says about this, I haven't a clue. Please note, though, that I'm NOT talking about 'sexual harassment'.
By contrast, an acquaintance who works at a cell phone plant got fired years ago because a female coworker overheard him say "balls" and "felt offended." That word clearly had no content that would threaten physical force, but threats of "sexual harassment" lawsuits that line the pockets of predatory lawyers likely compelled his termination.
There's a difference between 'sexual harassment' lawsuits or being fired from a job and criminal prosecution. As I've stated several times on this thread, I don't agree with sexual harassment laws that would allow for suits and/or criminal prosecution. But I do believe that a private company has the right to hire and fire at the the discretion of management. That's a completely different animal.
There are also "indecent exposure" laws on the books that got another guy fired here long before "sexual harassment" laws. He and a female coworker got into a heated argument on the work floor. He finally exploded, "Why don't you just suck my dick!" She retorted, "Why don't you just whip it out!" He shot back, "All right! I will!" He did. Security confiscated his badge and escorted him off the site
If he wasn't prosecuted criminally, I see no problem with this, as it falls under (what I believe should be) an employer's right to hire and fire as they see fit (although I might question why the woman wasn't fired as well -- as a manager, I might have canned them both).
I should mention that I want to confine the discussion to law rather than to company policy, which might very well justifiably enforce prudish codes of conduct for its employees. All I am saying is that private property owners need to have the liberty to set their own internal policies rather than have them thrust down their throats by the gun-backed PC cops and their hydra-headed laws.
But if the only action taken in the above two cases was termination, then the law never entered into either. Except, perhaps, if the threat of civil action was a contributing factor in the individuals' termination (as may have been the case with the "balls" example).
By the way, even without explicit sexual harassment laws, suits could be brought against an 'offender'. Not saying this is a good thing.
Summer
|
|
