CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Lucky and sexual harassment
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: James Elliott <j_c_elliott>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:39:30 -0500
Maybe so, but that IS what we were told. Oh, and by the way, if we raised objections in the course, we were quickly 'put in our place'.
>From: "Hastings, Waller" <hastingw at northern.edu>
>To: "James Elliott"
><j_c_elliott at msn.com>, <BudNotBuddy at aol.com>, <ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu>
>Subject: RE: [CCBC-Net] Lucky and sexual harassment
>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:25:49 -0600
>
>
> If you were told in your sexual harassment course that any
>statement that a member of the opposite sex takes issue with is
>harassment, you were told wrong. I've had to deal with a couple of these
>in my position as union head. The charges stick when the behavior is
>repeated, almost never when they are isolated. Except for the most
>egregious approaches (e.g., "If you don't sleep with me, you won't get
>this promotion" or "Hey, baby, want to ---"), the standard is usually to
>look for a pattern of behavior.
> It is entirely possible that someone might sue you for using the
>word "scrotum" in a conversation, but extremely improbable that they
>would prevail in their lawsuit. Unless, that is, your conversation was
>something like "How'd you like to play with my scrotum?"
>
>waller hastings
>
Received on Mon 19 Feb 2007 01:39:30 PM CST
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:39:30 -0500
Maybe so, but that IS what we were told. Oh, and by the way, if we raised objections in the course, we were quickly 'put in our place'.
>From: "Hastings, Waller" <hastingw at northern.edu>
>To: "James Elliott"
><j_c_elliott at msn.com>, <BudNotBuddy at aol.com>, <ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu>
>Subject: RE: [CCBC-Net] Lucky and sexual harassment
>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:25:49 -0600
>
>
> If you were told in your sexual harassment course that any
>statement that a member of the opposite sex takes issue with is
>harassment, you were told wrong. I've had to deal with a couple of these
>in my position as union head. The charges stick when the behavior is
>repeated, almost never when they are isolated. Except for the most
>egregious approaches (e.g., "If you don't sleep with me, you won't get
>this promotion" or "Hey, baby, want to ---"), the standard is usually to
>look for a pattern of behavior.
> It is entirely possible that someone might sue you for using the
>word "scrotum" in a conversation, but extremely improbable that they
>would prevail in their lawsuit. Unless, that is, your conversation was
>something like "How'd you like to play with my scrotum?"
>
>waller hastings
>
Received on Mon 19 Feb 2007 01:39:30 PM CST
