Court approves ‘sexual favoritism’ suits — What? I’m starting to conclude that the best way to avoid all of this is to simply stop hiring women!

Favoritism is now harassment in newspeak. Hilarious. It never ends.

Lower courts dismissed the women’s suit, saying the warden’s alleged conduct may have been unfair but wasn’t discriminatory. The two women were not subjected to sexual advances, treated in a sexually demeaning way or denied raises or promotions because of their sex, a state appeals court ruled in 2003.

But the state’s high court said widespread “sexual favoritism” at work may add up to sexual harassment even when the plaintiffs haven’t been personally harassed.

So in other words if you are going to fraternize, you’d better do it with everyone. This is the adult version of ‘if you are going to chew gum in class, you’d better have enough gum for everyone in the class.” It’s crazy!

via Maddog Mike



  1. Rich says:

    LOL
    Hey Look it’s uncle charlie on drumbs…
    The courts should just lock all us men up straight now!
    Have to be an idiot or MaC user not to favor a hot 22 year old in heels over some slob…….just the way it is.

  2. meetsy says:

    You can’t legislate office politics. Offices are made up of all kinds…from the “dead wood” variety, to the morale lifters, to the flirts, to the drama kings and queens, empire builders, and assassins.

    How can any of this — human dynamic — be considered harassment?

    Living is harassment, in that case. Life isn’t “fair”. You have to make your own space in the world…if someone is bothering you, you speak up. It’s part of being an adult. Those who ask for raises get them more often than those who do not ask. You get more flies with “kaakaa” than you do with sugar, but you’ll get more done with lots of sugar.

    Heck, a lot of women I knew (when I was a competitive corporate cog) only attained their coveted fancy titles by standing out and being pleasant. To get ahead, as a female, it was important to be nice, funny, charming, flirty, and competent — and it never hurt to fill out a business suit well. Makeup, heels, nylon stockings, and skirts would get more positive feedback than men’s boxy cut “Anne Hall” look. You could always get further if you didn’t push the B*tch attitude, and avoiding trying to act like a ken-doll (women who acted like little Napolean men…were the worst to work for, worth with, and interact with. Women could be women without being traitors to their sex.)

    Anyway, yeah, the women who were nice people got further than the the dour, pissed off, fashion blighted, complaining, whining jerks..who were also “competent”, sometimes more so…but they were also a pain in the keester. So, now this is “harassment” and “favoritism”? No wonder business sucks so much.

    So, essentially this new ruling is encouraging the whining, abrasive jerks in ugly clothing to legislate change because they can’t get with the concept of a work enviroment and team work. Great.
    (…FYI…I’m not male.)

  3. Richard says:

    This is another one of those legal situations that women will be able use, despite the fact that men are as much victims of this, if not more. But I guess they will just have suck it up, and “take it like a man”, since the work place is unfair.

  4. gquaglia says:

    Not surprising. Just another wacky legal decision coming from the land of fruits and nuts.

  5. meetsy says:

    gquaglia…
    no no no..it’s the “land of granola”…..fruits nuts AND FLAKES. Sheesh, why can’t people on the other side of the Rockies ever get that straight?

  6. Pat says:

    The paragraph I just read stated that the two complainants were discriminated against. The three women that received favored treatment had affairs with the Manager (Prison Warden) while the other two women did not receive the same treatment and faced retaliation when complaining about this.

    The message that the Manager sent is that if you want to receive favored treatment then sleep with him. Sure sounds like sexual harassment to me.

    I am more saddened that the lower courts had dismissed the complaint. The barrier to proving what we know happens is always in the superior’s favor. Although illegal to do it, proving that you were fired or disciplined as retaliation is always extremely difficult.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5492 access attempts in the last 7 days.