Started By
Message
re: More terrible LSU news new sexual harassment allegations against Dean of Admissions.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 9:17 pm to GulfCoastOutlaw
Posted on 4/14/21 at 9:17 pm to GulfCoastOutlaw
quote:
No smack talk here or trolling just facts from the advocate newspaper.
Nice link.
0
Posted on 4/14/21 at 9:18 pm to GulfCoastOutlaw
Corn Dogs and Horn Dogs the saga continues
Posted on 4/14/21 at 9:23 pm to labamafan
quote:
So I guess no one is going to tourniquet the bleeding. They’re just going to let LSU bleed out all over the place. It’s like a never ending story
I don't man, this place would probalby dry up if LSU went respspectable.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 9:35 pm to GulfCoastOutlaw
Hot dang LSU is winning this offseason
Posted on 4/14/21 at 9:39 pm to tiger81
quote:
Everyone knows Alabama is an inbred state...
Must be that retard strength that's enabled us to flat out bitch slap own your arse the last decade.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 10:27 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:
Who is he harassing by requiring applicants to be attractive? How is that harassing them?
You don’t understand the legal definition of sexual harassment. Hint: a joke can be sexual harassment. Yes, what he did fits the legal requirements of it. And the requirement of writing papers on pornography? Yikes.
I like you my friend but gotta say you missed the boat on this one bud
This post was edited on 4/14/21 at 10:29 pm
Posted on 4/14/21 at 10:35 pm to Ted2010
quote:
Who is he harassing by requiring applicants to be attractive? How is that harassing them?
Of of these days, he might have the misfortune to find out that sexual harassment is not what you think it is, but rather what the recipient thinks it is.
Logic doesn't necessarily enter into this equation.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 10:39 pm to Ted2010
I'm glad I just so happened to check this thread again because I'm genuinely interested in your opinion.
Yes. That requires contact with the alleged victim.
Who would he be harrasing? The requirement is for the applicants to be attractive. At this point the man hasn't even met the woman yet. I ask again, how can he harrass someone that he hasn't met yet? Is it wrong? Of course it is and he deserves to be fired for it. But, I don't see how someone can sexually harass a person they haven't even met yet. It's more than likely that he would sexually harass them once they were accepted into whatever they were applying for, but not before.
Yeah there's a reason that I never brought that one up. That's pretty self explanatory.
I don’t think so at all. Looks more like people are lumping the two things that the OP listed into one thing and then calling it all sexual harassment.
quote:
Hint: a joke can be sexual harassment.
Yes. That requires contact with the alleged victim.
quote:
Yes, what he did fits the legal requirements of it.
Who would he be harrasing? The requirement is for the applicants to be attractive. At this point the man hasn't even met the woman yet. I ask again, how can he harrass someone that he hasn't met yet? Is it wrong? Of course it is and he deserves to be fired for it. But, I don't see how someone can sexually harass a person they haven't even met yet. It's more than likely that he would sexually harass them once they were accepted into whatever they were applying for, but not before.
quote:
And the requirement of writing papers on pornography? Yikes.
Yeah there's a reason that I never brought that one up. That's pretty self explanatory.
quote:
you missed the boat on this one bud
I don’t think so at all. Looks more like people are lumping the two things that the OP listed into one thing and then calling it all sexual harassment.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 10:41 pm to iglass
quote:
but rather what the recipient thinks it is.
This is what I've been asking. Who is the recipient? At the point of application, there hasn't been any contact with the man being accused of things here.
This post was edited on 4/14/21 at 10:42 pm
Posted on 4/14/21 at 10:49 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:
Yes. That requires contact with the alleged victim.
No sir. The joke just has to make the listener “uncomfortable” and feel sexually intimidated really. No physical contact is required
quote:
Who would he be harrasing? The requirement is for the applicants to be attractive. At this point the man hasn't even met the woman yet. I ask again, how can he harrass someone that he hasn't met yet? Is it wrong? Of course it is and he deserves to be fired for it. But, I don't see how someone can sexually harass a person they haven't even met yet. It's more than likely that he would sexually harass them once they were accepted into whatever they were applying for, but not before.
Why require attractive? For what end? How did he judge the candidate? What was his definition of attractive? What comments did he make to or about the applicants and/or workers? Why was attractiveness a criteria for this position? To satisfy what?
The answers to those means it’s sexual harassment
quote:
I don’t think so at all. Looks more like people are lumping the two things that the OP listed into one thing and then calling it all sexual harassment.
Not really. Sexual harassment is based on how a person perceived or felt something. For example. A co-worker told me about his weekend with a girl from a bar. A female coworker overheard. Never said anything to him. She reported him to HR. He damn near lost his job. He was told he put the company at risk for a sexual harassment lawsuit. He had to do all kinds of sensitivity and sexual harassment workshops.
Sexual harassment isn’t a criminal matter; it’s civil. And as such it is broad as hell.
This post was edited on 4/14/21 at 10:55 pm
Posted on 4/14/21 at 10:49 pm to iglass
quote:
Of of these days, he might have the misfortune to find out that sexual harassment is not what you think it is, but rather what the recipient thinks it is.
Logic doesn't necessarily enter into this equation.
Spot on
Posted on 4/14/21 at 10:55 pm to TigerLunatik
Even telling someone “You look good today” can be grounds for termination for sexual harassment and grounds for a lawsuit if the company doesn’t take action on a complaint. It’s freaking crazy
Posted on 4/14/21 at 10:58 pm to Ted2010
quote:
The joke just has to make the listener “uncomfortable” and feel sexually intimidated really. No physical contact is required
Again, when setting a requirement the woman in this case hasn't been made aware of anything yet. How can the woman be made uncomfortable or intimated?
quote:
Why require attractive? For what end? How did he judge the candidate? What was his definition of attractive? What comments did he make to or about the applicants and/or workers? Why was attractiveness a criteria for this position? To satisfy what?
Now your getting into the selection process which requires some sort of contact. Setting a requirement for an applicant is done before the woman ever even applies. At this point she is unaware of the attractiveness requirement. That requirement is only known to the people making the selections. It's more of a discrimination thing vs a harassment thing.
quote:
A co-worker told me about his weekend with a girl from a bar. A female coworker overheard. Never said anything to him. She reported him to HR.
But, at some point the two people met each other. In the case we are discussing the two people have never seen each other or spoken to each other.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 10:59 pm to Ted2010
quote:
Even telling someone “You look good today” can be grounds for termination for sexual harassment
Again, this requires for the two people to have met.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 11:01 pm to TigerLunatik
It boils down to this. While the applicant may not have met the guy yet, what did the other women in the office think of this requirement? There’s your sexual harassment just right there.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 11:02 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:
Again, this requires for the two people to have met.
Personal meeting is not a requirement for a sexual harassment case. It may be rare, but it is true.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 11:03 pm to TigerLunatik
In any case bud it’s an interesting conversation. About to hit the hay so I’ll catch up here tomorrow. 
Posted on 4/14/21 at 11:03 pm to Ted2010
quote:
what did the other women in the office think of this requirement? There’s your sexual harassment just right there.
Sounds more like discrimination.
Posted on 4/14/21 at 11:30 pm to TigerLunatik
Looks like you've taken the torch from sideshitter on this one and are currently being the ever so brave white knight.
Posted on 4/15/21 at 9:06 am to EarlyCuyler3
I literally had to take a course on this for work - new yearly requirement for all employees. The very short answer is that if you make the environment feel "unsafe" for your coworker, and it's habitual - then it crosses the line into harassment. That goes for women, transgender, gay, etc ... I'm thankful that I work from home so I don't have to be cognizant of perception all day long. Just when on video with coworkers and clients. It is scary what can be construed as bad behavior in the workplace
What I'm reading about this guy goes WAY beyond what the workplace considers harassment these days. I'm stunned that he is still employed.
What I'm reading about this guy goes WAY beyond what the workplace considers harassment these days. I'm stunned that he is still employed.
This post was edited on 4/15/21 at 9:09 am
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News