Have a general question about employment law? Want to share a story? I welcome all comments and questions. I can't give legal advice here about specific situations but will be glad to discuss general issues and try to point you in the right direction. If you need legal advice, contact an employment lawyer in your state. Remember, anything you post here will be seen publicly, and I will comment publicly on it. It will not be confidential. Govern yourself accordingly. If you want to communicate with me confidentially as Donna Ballman, Florida lawyer rather than as Donna Ballman, blogger, my firm's website is here.

Friday, January 25, 2013

The "She Asked For It" Defense Strikes Again

In another example of why women hesitate to bring sexual harassment claims, a judge has ordered twenty two women who are bringing a sexual harassment claim to turn over their cell phones and social networking passwords to attorneys for their former employers. The judge will allow these attorneys to examine their chats, text messages, tweets, private messages, pictures, posts and emails.

The former employer claims that they need the information to explore whether the women used the words they claim offended them, their romantic lives, and other information to determine whether they were indeed subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment and, if so, the extent of their emotional damage.

The big smoking gun the employer pointed to was a shirt one of the women wore in a photo with the word, "Cu**" on it. Apparently, if you wear such a shirt on your own time, no matter your intent, you have extended an open invitation to all your supervisors and male coworkers to sexually harass you. Sort of like the argument that African-American employees who use the n-word can't be offended when someone else uses it toward them.

The judge said this about his reasoning: "I view this content logically as though each class member had a file folder titled “Everything About Me,” which they have voluntarily shared with others. If there are documents in this folder that contain information that is relevant or may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to this lawsuit, the presumption is that it should be produced."

This is a case where twenty-two women say they were propositioned, fondled, and subjected to unwanted comments by their manager. Twenty-two! That means this employer is claiming twenty-two women are all making up the same story. That twenty-two women asked for this behavior.

Which brings me back to the "she asked for it" defense. Too many judges in sexual harassment cases allow the harasser to claim that a woman's use of four-letter words, her clothing, or her sex life with others mean that she wasn't offended when she was groped, insulted or grabbed by her supervisor. If a woman isn't a delicate flower, blushing at the merest hint of foul language or the mention of sex, she's apparently an open target.

So, ladies, open your diaries, love letters, private email, intimate discussions with friends and anything else in your life. If you are bringing a sexual harassment claim, your harasser can see it all so they can claim you asked for it.

I have to say this to management-side employment lawyers who use this tactic to humiliate sexual harassment victims: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

6 comments:

  1. But they admit a variation of this in court rooms across the country every day, don't they? It's the old and tried "He was showing that he had a wallet full of money, so he was asking to be robbed."

    Oh, wait...

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is why I strongly dislike sexual (and other) harassment laws. It's all dependent on how the "victim" feels about what is said. So, the way the law is written, if you can prove the victim felt differently, it's not harassment. They way the laws are written open victims up to this type of thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sure wouldn't be a bad idea to have some things be deemed illegal per se. Then we wouldn't need to put victims through so much heartache.

      Delete
    2. Exactly. Although exactly what I don't know. Ban all sexual relations between (among) people who work at the same company? Have a marriage exclusion? I used to work for a huge pharma company, 30,000 US employees. My site alone had 5000 employees. (Parking was a bear!) You couldn't practically ban sexual relationships when the group is that large.

      Only ban all things sexual on company time? I really have no clue.

      Maybe work should be like one of those kid website where they can only choose from a drop down list of things to say.

      1. How are you?
      2. How's the project going?
      3. Nice day, isn't it?

      Then you and I would be out of jobs, so that's not so good.

      Delete
  3. What we find is that the recovery from the bottom of the recession in January 2009 through June 2009, the official end of the U.S. recession, can only be attributed to policies implemented during the Bush administration, as no policy implemented by the Obama administration could have had any meaningful effect professional resume writing upon the economy during these six months.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Litigation takes a lot of courage given the penchat for judges to allow defense attorenys to seemingly invade every area of their life. I understand social media but cell phones is a bit too far

    ReplyDelete