crs@lanl.ARPA (12/12/85)
Followups to: net.legal
Distribution: usa
References: <704@petrus.UUCP> <119@ISM780C.UUCP> <782@rtech.UUCP> <34503@lanl.ARPA> <785@rtech.UUCP> <2368@amdahl.UUCP>
> When all else fails, hire a lawyer and sue the socks off everyone [(-:]!
Deletion of the smiley face leaves a description of an attitude that
is all too prevalent in modern society.
I hope I successfully directed followups to net.legal since they
obviously don't belong in net.women. Please check this when follow
ups are posted. Thanks.
--
All opinions are mine alone...
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpaT3B@PSUVM.BITNET (12/13/85)
The reason one would want a rule holding a company liable for
sexual harassment is to motivate companies to train their
employees to avoid sexual harassment. When you make the
company responsible for the job-related actions of its
employees, the company will develop methods to control
those actions. And sexual harassment is both a personal
affront *and* a job-related matter, as it usually occurs
in the context of a hierarchical relationship, and occurs
in such a way as to place the victim in both sexual and
professional jeopardy. That's why companies should be held
responsible, in my view.
Tom Benson
Department of Speech Communication
The Pennsylvania State University
227 Sparks Building
University Park, PA 16802
814-238-5277
:akgua,allegra,ihnp4,cbosgd:!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!t3b (UUCP)
t3b%psuvm.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa (ARPA)
T3B@PSUVM (BITNET)
T3B@PSUVM.BITNET (12/19/85)
Tim Smith asks, about company liability for sexual harassment, an
interesting question:
>So what is a company supposed to do? Should the bug all the offices so
>they can keep track of what every employee is doing?
Although it seems to me that under circumstances where the company
could be expected to exert any control (through policy, training,
company tradition), then they are responsible for the actions of
their employees as a matter of legal remedy: as when a woman fired
for resisting sexual harassment sues for damages and/or reinstatement.
But we must grant that the world isn't perfect. No, Tim, your question
is reasonable, and no, I would agree with your implied point that
companies can only exert control over their employees up to a point.
We seem to agree that the employees' right of privacy ought to prevent
the company from bugging their offices, opening their mail, monitoring
their phones, screening their e-mail (!).
The general principle governing such cases as this -- and I really
think that means all cases of public policy -- is that in a particular
case we are trying to make policy or adjudicate a remedy because rights,
principles, or interests are in conflict with each other--and none of
those rights, principles, or interests are inherently without merit.
In the particular sort of sexual harassment case we are talking about,
it seems just to argue that (1) the company ought to be held accountable
if it does not enforce policies against sexual harassment; (2) the
employee should *also* be held personally accountable for engaging in
sexual harassment; (3) and yet, there must be limits on how far companies
can go in enforcing their policies.
In fact, this will result in cases where corporate bodies must assist
in remedying a situation occuring under their jurisdiction, but over
which they were not permitted to have absolute control.
I don't mean to be paradoxical. But isn't justice and policy always
a matter of competing rights and interests, rather than of compelling
facts and perfect logic? If the facts and logic absolutely dictated
our public life, then we wouldn't need policies -- just police.
Sorry for a long posting; I'm trying to indicate my respect for an
argument whose conclusion I disagree with.
Tom Benson t3b at psuvm (bitnet)
Penn State University