Sexual Harrassment On The "Boston Legal" TV Show

[Saint Johnny B]

Hmm, lemme start off with an apology to Valky, I can see she has many defenders here...In my defense I did suggest she get a lawyer...

 

Now I'd like to move on to the topic of Sexaual Harrassment in general, and how it was the topic on the last Boston Legal TV show.

 

For those of you who have never seen the show, Wiillam Shatner is in it, so is Candance Bergon.

 

Anway, one of the characters is lawyer who seems to be rather intellectual and often horny...but a good lawyer none the less...His charactor makes lewd and lacivious remarks to the pretty females and he has apparently slept with many of his co-workers...and I think he may have slept with his secretary in past episodes...

 

So you have some of the background of the show....

 

In the last episode, his secretary became fed up with this lawyer and complained to Candance Bergon...she's one of the big bosses at the law firm

 

So she calls the lawyer into her office...and this guy is really very glib and basically says he will not change his ways...I waiting for her to say to him "You're fired" but she does not do that...

 

He hits on Candace Bergon too...

 

Then he says to her, along with his other glib excuses which all make perfect sense...that no one has to worry about Sexual Harrassment as far as he's concerned because he makes all his secretaries sign a written Waiver...

 

Later, he calls his secretary into his office and asks her why she did not complain to him first...they banter...then he tells how attractive he finds her....

 

At some point...she says she just wants it to stop.

 

Later, sort of on his own...he kinda rethinks his position...he then decides to reassign her to the secretary pool....I don't think she liked that too much...she liked working for him but wanted him to just stop the talk...

 

So Candace Bergon finds an old woman secretary to assign to him...and she has a foul mouth and likes to tell dirty jokes and whatnot....perfect match for the lawyer and fodder for future episodes

 

Now watching the show...I could see how the lawyer was wrong and should not have been teasing or making sexual innuendos toward his pretty secretary...but she did say she too engaged in it once in a while...she played right along with him...but then she changed her mind and wanted it to stop...and she complained and something was done...that part was good and the right thing to do...

 

I'm only bringing this up, because the show may have colored my comments on another thread...I always ask a lot of questions...sometimes maybe too many...

 

Again, my apologies if I caused any offence

[Angelo Clematide]

what is that

 

Sexual Harrassment ?

[TrancedelicBlues]

DENNY CRANE!!!

[meccajay]

The actors name is James Spader, and he's really the best reason to watch that show!

 

He's been in everything from Mannequin, Wall Street,& Sex Lies & Videotape in the 80's, to Stargate, and 2 days in the Valley in the 90's.

 

For a real treat check him out Dream Lover http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0109665/

 

It's full of surprizes, and generally a wretched good time!

[Rim]

Johnny B., I don't think you're clear of what sexual harassment is so I'll try to explain.

 

(This info is based on a seminar in college that my fraternity attended every year but I don't think it's changed.)

 

I think the biggest point you misunderstand is, there is no defined line on what makes something sexual harassment that applies to everyone - it depends on the person making the claim of sexual harassment.

 

For example, telling a dirty joke to person A is not sexual harassment if person A doesn't feel it's sexual harassment. But if person B feels being told that same joke is sexual harassment and you tell person B that same joke, then it is sexual harassment. It's made this way to account for the fact that different people have different "threshholds" of what is sexual harassment.

 

Here's the kicker (which I didn't know before taking the seminar): Given the previous example, you tell the dirty joke to person A and person A does not consider it sexual harassment, but person C does consider it sexual harassment and person C hears you telling person A that joke. Person C is within legal rights to charge you with sexual harassment, even though you were not telling that joke to person C. This rule is to prevent a "hostile working environment".

 

Now this may seem that any act that is sexually-related, can be considered sexual harassment and in some ways yes. But usually, a sexual harassment charge goes through an arbitrator that speaks individually to the parties involved so the spirit of the law is followed and not abused. And usually, arbitration's initial goal is to "work out" the problem and not necessarily putting someone in jail.

 

So in the example above, the solution is not necessarily "don't tell dirty jokes" but "don't tell dirty jokes if person C will hear it" - tell the dirty joke to person A in another room or something like that.

 

BTW, if a sexual favor is demanded by a boss of an employee for the employee to keep the job, move up or not be moved down, then the term for that specific sexual harassment case is caled "quid pro quo" (loose Latin translation: something for something).

 

Hopefully I have my facts right. If I don't, please step in and correct me.

[Saint Johnny B]

Thanks for the explanation...the problem I see is one where the lines are shifting and blurry...I like it better when we have a clear set of rules...lines that we may not cross...and everybody knows and understands the rules...

 

As for James Spader, the actor, he played a lawyer in another flick. There, he had a pretty secretary too...and they had a strange S&M thing happening where he would spank her and she liked it...eventually they got married...It was a flick with some twists, that's for sure...

 

When the spanking was first introduced, I thought she was gonna sue him...but he fired her...they had some conflicts...and realized they loved each other....despite the S&M stuff which continued after their marrage....

 

I'll bet that role helped him land the part on Boston Legal....

 

But what if you worked in the porn industry? Either in front of the camera, behind the camera or doing mixing or editing work...where would the lines be then?

 

I'm just a guy who is trying to understand what might be appropriate and what would not be appropriate...and I'm confused...I admit it...

 

Does a woman have to say stop it, and she is ingnored, and the behavior still continues despite her request for her to have a legal claim?

 

IOW, does the victim usu have to issue a written warning to the perp or employer before they file suit?

 

And what about horny female bosses hitting on guys, don't kid yourself...it happens...

 

Anyway, understanding is my goal...nothing else....

 

I suspect this is one of those tough areas to deal with....

 

And how far, should we as a society go to protect the ultra-sensitive, what if uncovered females heads or body parts offends some kind of religious zealot? What then?

[Dave The Rave]

The rules are simple Johnny B. At work:

 

1. Don't tell or send email jokes to anyone.

2. Don't stare (gawk) at anyone.

3. Don't comment on anything about anyone's physical appearance, dress sense, smell, demeanor, sexual preference or desirability, ever.

4. Don't gossip - Don't spread or repeat rumours - Don't talk to anyone about anything other than directly work related topics.

5. Don't fish off the company pier - look for dates outside of your workplace.

6. Don't display any picture or item in your office that may possibly offend someone.

7. Don't surf offensive websites on your computer or store any questionable video or picture files on it, ever. If it isn't directly work related, then forget it.

8. If in doubt, don't do it, whatever it was you were about to do or say.

 

Easy! It makes life at work a pretty boring place (compared to how I remember it at work in England) but them's the rules over here....

 

:DTR

[I I mjrn]

As not-quite-clearly stated above, there's a difference between sexual harrassment & just being a rude, crass person...but the functional effect (annoying other people who have no choice but to be around you) is the same.

[Saint Johnny B]

I'd like to hear from some women...maybe get a different perspective entirely....and learn something that may help clarify my thinking

[Rim]

From the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html

 

Sexual Harassment

 

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

 

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when 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.

 

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:

 

* The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.

* The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.

* The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

* Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.

* The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.

 

It is helpful for the victim to inform the harasser directly that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. The victim should use any employer complaint mechanism or grievance system available.

 

When investigating allegations of sexual harassment, EEOC looks at the whole record: the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination on the allegations is made from the facts on a case-by-case basis.

 

Prevention is the best tool to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace. Employers are encouraged to take steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring. They should clearly communicate to employees that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. They can do so by providing sexual harassment training to their employees and by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains.

 

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on sex or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

Statistics

 

In Fiscal Year 2003, EEOC received 13,566 charges of sexual harassment. Almost 15% of those charges were filed by males. EEOC resolved 14,534 sexual harassment charges in FY 2003 and recovered $50 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation).

 

* Charge Statistics: Sexual Harassment

* Trends in Harassment Charges Filed With The EEOC During the 1980s and 1990s

 

That should answer most of your questions.

[Saint Johnny B]

Thanks...that does help...

 

Ok, you've got the "case-by-case" basis thing which may serve to add some sort of "reasonable" standard...but I wonder why the rules do not apply to ALL employers...I see no reason to give employers that have 15 of fewer employees some kind of exemption....what kind of high-priced lobby group from Washinton DC's "K" Street got that loophole shoved in there?

 

IMHO, that rule should be changed so we have a single rule that applies to all...

 

I mean, fair is fair...right?

 

If it's bad, it's bad...whether or not an employer has 2 employees or 100, 000....the number of employees should make zero difference....

 

Makes me think of the new congressional rule that allows Indicted Criminals to be "Leaders," such as Congressman Tom De Lay....

 

I'll bet this SOB would also try to pass some kind of exemption for himself so he can sexually harrass the pages and aides with impunity...

 

There is a lot of nasty things now going on in Washingyon DC, I've never seen such self-serving corruption...

 

YMMV

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

...but I wonder why the rules do not apply to ALL employers...I see no reason to give employers that have 15 of fewer employees some kind of exemption....what kind of high-priced lobby group from Washinton DC's "K" Street got that loophole shoved in there?...

You're still confused, Johnny B.

 

Title VII is part of the civil rights act of 1964. As you might imagine, this was originally passed in reference to racial civil rights and it covers many other civil rights, each with their own specifics, but as a whole they are various forms of discrimination.

 

So why the exemption for businesses under 15 employees? Just imagine what havoc could be wreaked by an unscrupulous person, in the guise of civil rights, against small companies.

 

How many blacks does a business owner have to consider before hiring someone of another racial background so as not to be sued for racial discrimination? (Assuming this isn't a clear cut case of a bigot doing the hiring.)

 

For that reason, companies with so few employees as to make it unreasonably difficult to comply with the letter of the law are held to a different standard. I'm pretty sure if you are a small business owner and are on record as saying you won't hire blacks, or sexually harass someone, there are remedies in court for the victims. They just aren't part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

Can we get a legal opinion here? Anyone with a law degree?

[Saint Johnny B]

Ok, you raise some good points...but it is my understanding that most business in the USA are small businesses...and that would seem to mean that most businesses in America are exempt from Sexual Harrassment laws according to the law cited above...

 

If that's true, it's just flat wrong....

 

And there is no good reason to exempt small businesses from Sexual Harrassment...so that rule should be changed...IMHO

 

YMMV

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

Ok, you raise some good points...but it is my understanding that most business in the USA are small businesses...and that would seem to mean that most businesses in America are exempt from Sexual Harrassment laws according to the law cited above...

What I was saying is I believe (and this is not a legal opinion based in legal fact) there are other, more specific laws that provide remedy if the discrimination doesn't fit that of the Civil Rights Act. Sexual harrassment can occur on the street. Then it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's employer. People charge sexual harrassment all the time outside their employment.

[Prague]

This is SO 90's.

[StoneinaPond]

Originally posted by Prague:

This is SO 90's.

Do you have anything to say about anything that is even remotely relevant or interesting ?

 

EVER?

 

Or are you just a shoot and run artist.

 

(No sexual harassment intended.)

 

[Wewus432]

Rule # 9. You can't sexually harass yourself.

 

or can you?

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

I'd like to hear from some women...maybe get a different perspective entirely....and learn something that may help clarify my thinking

OK, if you want my personal opinion of what would constitute sexual harrassment (which may or may not agree with any "accepted standard"):

 

- I don't care if people tell dirty jokes in my presence. I will probably laugh, and tell some myself. If I find workplace conversation offensive, I just ignore it and go talk to someone else. Personally, I usually find conversation about stock market or the latest TV show more offensive than dirty jokes, but I'm not going to sue anybody over it. I don't expect to go through life without anybody saying anything that offends me.

- If someone at work asks me out on a date, that is fine. Usual rules apply there... if I say no, I mean it, and if I say yes, that doesn't mean we should start making out in the office. And repeatedly asking for a date or sex, or being lewd or flirtatious after I've made it clear I'm not interested, is certainly harrassment.

- Any kind of physical contact besides a professional handshake is off limits, unless we're in a relationship or you're a good friend giving me a hug, or I choke on my coffee and you're giving me CPR. Anything else would most likely qualify as harrassment.

- Any attempts to curry sexual favors in exchange for a job, promotion, raise, etc. is DEFINITELY harrassment, even if it's only implied (e.g. the boss asks for sex and it appears the women who accept his advances are more likely to receive such perks).

 

I dunno, seems like just common sense stuff to me. And I think it applies to female harrassment of men, too. But if you're getting your ethics from watching TV it's no wonder you're confused.

[strat0124]

Discriminating Sex for $200 Alex........

 

Isn't it great everyone is "there" for each other!

 

Talk about putting your bizness in the street..........

[Sylver]

Originally posted by TheWewus:

Rule # 9. You can't sexually harass yourself.

 

or can you?

Well, you can, but if you take punitive action[/a] against yourself, the best you can hope for is too break even. I think in this case it's best to just keep it to yourself and enjoy it.

[Saint Johnny B]

Hmmm, they way Lee decribes it is how I've always acted, I thought those were the commn sense rules, but it looks like some things go beyond Lee's common sense approach.

 

I used to have a shorthand way of saying this to people who worked for me as a reminder to them:

 

"I don't want you dipping your pen in company ink."

 

And I think the young pretty females appreciated my protection, as I never had even one complaint from them.

 

I wanted to make it clear that we were running a professional operation, not some kind of dating service. As a result, the focus was always on running a sucessful business.

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

Hmmm, they way Lee decribes it is how I've always acted, I thought those were the commn sense rules, but it looks like some things go beyond Lee's common sense approach.

Okay, I guess I'm gonna break Ani's "rule" and post here...

 

I think Lee's approach is very sensible and reasonable. But as others have already pointed out, what she considers sexual harassment may differ from others. Some people, for instance, may be greatly offended by comments that have sexual innuendo, while others may think it's really funny and livens up the day.

 

One of the key words of sexual harassment is "unwanted". In other words, if sexual innuendo or come-ons, advances, whatever are wanted, that does not constitute sexual harassment.

 

If you think that's rather vague, you'd be right. And if you think that you should be careful and get to know people first before laying that stuff on 'em, you'd be right too (or if not "right", at least showing reasonable judgment in a workplace! ).

[Prague]

Originally posted by StoneinaPond:

Do you have anything to say about anything that is even remotely relevant or interesting ?

 

EVER?

 

Or are you just a shoot and run artist.

 

(No sexual harassment intended.)

 

Just trying to get to the level of the conversation. I find it numbing that this STILL has to be understood after 15 years. Just like AIDS. After 20 years it STILL needs to be explained. Duh!

 

Every time I hear "We need education" I expect to hear a 2 minute discussion pounded on for the next 10 years.

[Angelo Clematide]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

But if you're getting your ethics from watching TV it's no wonder you're confused.

 

OK, i understand now what harrassment is - thanks for all the expanations.

 

And now, how are the charges when you face the judge; Chain Gang? 20 years prison? or what...

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

I think Lee's approach is very sensible and reasonable. But as others have already pointed out, what she considers sexual harassment may differ from others. Some people, for instance, may be greatly offended by comments that have sexual innuendo, while others may think it's really funny and livens up the day.

Agreed, but the thing is... no one should be able to SUE for sexual harrassment because somebody told a dirty joke at work. Like I said, there are any number of subjects which might come up in the workplace which I personally find offensive. So what? I can ignore it. For people to have to watch what they say every minute in the workplace for fear of being fired or sued... that's ridiculous. It makes a mockery of what the laws are really there for.

 

Sexual harrassment laws are not there to ensure that no one is ever offended by anything. They're there to protect people from being preyed upon at work. Telling a dirty joke isn't preying on anyone.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Angelo Clematide:

And now, how are the charges when you face the judge; Chain Gang? 20 years prison? or what...

LOL... I don't think sexual harrassment is actually a "crime" that can get you jail time (unless a rape occurred of course, or the victim is a minor). It is just something you can sue for and receive monetary compensation from the offender.

[Dan South]

Originally posted by Rim.:

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:

 

* The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.

* The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.

* The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

* Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.

* The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.

 

The whole thing is very complicated, poorly defined, and a legal slippery slope. The bottom line is that anyone can claim to be offended by just about anything, and I don't that that necessarily prevents sexual harrassment as much as it infests the workplace with extreme paranoia.

 

Here's an extreme example. Let's say that a woman goes to the newsstand at lunchtime and buys a magazine about haircuts. She leafs through the magazine and leaves it on her desk. A female co-worker who comes from a religious or cultural background where women's hair is not allowed to be shown in public sees the magazine, decides that it is upsetting and sues the company for creating an uncomfortable workplace. I doubt that the woman would win her lawsuit, but that doesn't prevent her from actually launching it and costing the firm considerable legal fees.

 

One practical suggestion is to refrain from making remarks to a person that you would not make to a person of the opposite sex. So, you might be able to get away with telling someone, "Hey, nice haircut!" because it's gender neutral. But it you say, "Hey, nice haircut! It really makes you look hot!" you're asking for trouble.

 

Of course the overriding test is whether your comment is unwelcome or makes the person feel uncomfortable, and this is almost impossible to tell unless the person is direct with you (which is a lot to ask of a person who feels harrassed). Keep in mind that even a comment like "Nice haircut!" will be taken in an offensive context by some people. You are safest not making the comment at all, but you'd probably have no problem saying it to someone with whom you already have a comfortable working relationship, especially if it's the type of thing that you would routinely say to colleagues of both sexes.

 

The real danger zone is in cases where a previous advance has been made and rebuffed. Forget that that person exists, because if you keep bothering them - even if YOU don't think of it as "bothering" - they can take you to the cleaners, so to speak.

 

As far as avoiding dates with colleagues, it's probably a good idea, but I know a LOT of people who have met their match in the office. You have to use common sense. Proceed very slowly and ONLY if there is a REAL chemistry between you and the other person, not one person wishing for more from the other. In any situation like this, you are skating on thin ice unless you get LOTS of reassurance from the other person that it's okay to proceed. At the first sign of hesitation on their part, stop and do not proceed unless they go out of their way to encourage you to continue.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

...Sexual harrassment laws are not there to ensure that no one is ever offended by anything. They're there to protect people from being preyed upon at work. Telling a dirty joke isn't preying on anyone.

While I agree that sexual harrassment charges often seem to go overboard, I'm surprised to hear you generalize in your last statement. There have been cases of people who are very private, very prudish (for lack of a better phrase) for whom hearing a dirty joke is not only offensive but can create physical discomfort. And there are those who recognize this and deliberately tell their jokes in earshot of such people. This is exactly the definition of a "hostile work enviroment". It seems YOU are guilty of assuming your threshold of offense is an ideal standard for everyone, Lee.

[Saint Johnny B]

Yeah, but what happens when you have "ultra-sensitve" person who has to work on or edit...ummm..."Adult" rated material...be it audio or video...and let's say you've got a deadline and thousands of dollars on the line to make it to air...and the un-sensitive person cannot do it due to some kind of real emergency...like they got hit by a truck...and the only one left to do it is....the ultra-sensative person..then what? What if meeting the the cos. entire payroll depends on getting this job out? Then what?

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by fantasticllama:

While I agree that sexual harrassment charges often seem to go overboard, I'm surprised to hear you generalize in your last statement. There have been cases of people who are very private, very prudish (for lack of a better phrase) for whom hearing a dirty joke is not only offensive but can create physical discomfort. And there are those who recognize this and deliberately tell their jokes in earshot of such people. This is exactly the definition of a "hostile work enviroment". It seems YOU are guilty of assuming your threshold of offense is an ideal standard for everyone, Lee.

Not at all. Like I said earlier, there are a LOT of things that come up in offices on a regular basis which I personally find far more offensive and discomforting than dirty jokes. Yet I'm not about to sue anybody over it. And even though in general I can appreciate dirty jokes, there are some that I definitely find tasteless and offensive. Inappropriate for the workplace? Sure. Worthy of a lawsuit? No.

 

If an employee is making another employee seriously uncomfortable for any reason, especially if it's deliberate, they should report it to a superior. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for somebody to do that, I'm saying that if workers are allowed to sue any time someone at work is verbally hostile toward them, we'd be bankrupted due to court costs. People who work together don't always get along (understatement) and that's why you have a hierarchy and people who are supposed to work such things out within the workplace. I don't think the law needs to get involved unless the person is really being threatened.