Have we mentioned sex pest Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit? He was so notoriously bad that law professors advised their female students against getting clerkships with him, even though a Kozinski clerkship was known as a stepping stone to great things.
I think greenwitch mentioned him. My twitter feed was all over that story as I follow some of the former colleagues of one of the women who was harassed by Kosinski. Yuck.
When she saw the article about how Weinstein convinced Peter and Fran Jackson not to hire her or Ashley Judd.
More on Trent Franks, the man you cringe to think about. I think the ethics investigation on him should continue, even if he says he’s leaving.
Just want to give Mira Sorvino a hug. 
I’m not sure what the point of investigating Trent Franks is now, if he’s already gone (and good riddance).
I find it funny that my DH is absolutely flabbergasted at the number of men accused of improprieties. I, on the other hand, am not surprised at all.
TatinG- in response to post 426. She denies his claim.
I am a strong proponent of identifying those that harass and letting them face the consequences but I do not like the assumption of automatic guilt.
There needs to be a process to stop or at least limit this behavior without thinking it is okay that if innocent people get swept up in our objective that can be acceptable for the greater good.
^^
I would be interested in hearing more from Dave Funkhouser who complained first to the EEOC and then sued the company. Andrea Ramsey denies any memory of the business trip ever taking place-- something that could easily be confirmed or negated.
I would also like to understand why she moved him out of an office and into a cubicle immediately after the alleged business trip. There could be a lot of reasons for that but she has not articulated them. Her only statement was that she terminated his employment because he “was not adequately managing his subordinates.”
Lol. You actually DID point that out, before “bowing out.”
Yup, there are enough stories out there that are in essence “I said yes and went along with it but…” or lob an anonymous grenade and then bow out citing anonymity… clearly some claims are believable but there enough questionable claims now that I just want to hurry up and get to a place where everyone gets a fair shake and there is some scrutiny.
There is a world of difference between being an adulterer, a philanderer, boorish or pursuing someone and being a harasser, assaulter, pedophile or rapist. No wonder everyone one in the world is trying to find the woman whose accusation was so egregious that it caused Matt Lauer to be fired…everything else was known about him and was considered either boorish or adultery, but this anonymous claim had to be so illegal that he had to go. There’s another one in HGTV land that just cost the person jobs, endorsements, and undoubtedly strained his marriage and this one was I “I went along but…” and at least it is not anonymous so will stand up to scrutiny and she owes him a public apology if it comes out that it was, in fact, consensual, you just cringe when you read her statement - like lplease go get some therapy… And these stories are everywhere totally mixed in with the truly egregious and deserving of public punishment so it does not seem unreasonable to me to give all of this some long scrutiny before ruining lives. No surprise that there is now a hashtag #notme. It took the guys a few years of reeling before they started challenging the universities, but once they challenge there’s no going back and they have every right in the world to challenge a claim where the reality is not quite what it seems on surface.
Here are some allegations against Matt Lauer, other than the one where he exposed himself to a staffer and asked for oral sex:
He gave a staffer a sex toy and told her how he wanted to use it on her.
He asked staffers who they had slept with and offered to trade names.
He slept with numerous women who worked for him.
He had a pattern of inviting young staffers to his room late at night when he was on the road.
@momofthreeboys, are you seriously suggesting that this pattern of behavior is not a firing offense? 'Cause yes it is in many companies, and it also throws NBC wide open to lawsuits. No doubt NBC had been protecting a star, but once the behavior became known to the public, there’s no way they could keep him.
I don’t need to know the identity of the woman who lodged the complaint against Lauer that resulted in his termination. She met with Andrew Lack the Chairman of NBC news for 3 hours to relay her experience. It was Andrew Lack who made the decision to terminate his employment, so why not point your cannon at him?
If you believe the most recent account of Addie Zinone who admits to a brief but consensual affair with Lauer, they were regularly having sex in his office and in other places within NBC headquarters during her employment. Like the non-consensual allegation of sex in his office made by another woman, this was occurring during business hours. Zinone has already left the network, but if I were Andrew Lack that alone would be enough for me to terminate an employee.
I always liked Lauer and my impression was that he was a good guy and a consummate professional. So he had me fooled. Maybe he is a good guy in some other way but he certainly is not professional, at least not by my own definition. The day after he was terminated Kathy Lee Gifford says she sent him a text saying “I still adore you.” I don’t feel that way at all.
I’m not suggesting anything other than fairness - I have to assume like everyone that the allegations by the undisclosed accuser rose to the level that required firing (unlike his previous known behaviors) and that may very well be true. Maybe he did slam her into a wall and rip her pants off or something like that. The bigger question is “can we trust”…and are we assuming this isn’t just the adult version of Colleges assuming guilt and expelling without fairness. Too many assumptions in general for me. Anyone can say anything, but if it’s not verifiable then is it fair for businesses to fire, for companies to break contracts and so on without reliable verification. Literally anyone can say anything these days…and they do, and sometimes it goes unchallenged - it is taken at face value. I’m not so sure that is fair. What will happen is alcohol will slowly disappear from company functions, HR will write rules that say no sex on the premises, no gifting and all sorts of rules and regulations by companies will happen and I’m OK with that…if there are rules of engagement then follow them.
I’m not OK with believing without verifying. Not everyone tells the truth and that is a fact. I’m not OK with women (or men) who agree to sex and then renege their consent days, weeks, months and years after saying they were pressured. You agree to something you own that decision. That doesn’t cut it with me unless they are under the age of 16 and then it’s illegal regardless of consent. Which is why I support some of Weinstein’s accusers and other men’s accusers in spirit and others make me roll my eyeballs.
And the simple act of “rolling you eyeballs” says that you find the accusers guilty. All without any evidence. It is clear that the people in charge, who have heard from both sides and have seen the evidence believe these men have violated their terms of employment and have fired them. We have not seen the evidence, and so for us to “roll our eyes” at the accusers is a form of shaming.
Where is the line on “I was pressured” that you would consider it not truly consent but coercion?
I don’t care whether subordinates consented to sex, or consented under pressure, or refused. Asking for sex from a subordinate is a firing offense in my book.
If I consented to sex with someone I worked for when I was in my 20s, I can still look back and say, I shouldn’t have agreed to it and he was very wrong to ask.
I am totally comfortable with my feelings and yes my eyeballs roll sometimes and each is welcome to their opinion. I absolutely staunchly assert my belief that people are entitled to defend themselves no matter what the accusation. Frankly some businesses have rules about relationships between employees and in those cases have every right to can both parties who break the rules. But absent rules if two people are in an ongoing relationship I feel the company has an obligation to figure out who is telling the truth and not make assumptions based on the sex of the accuser who is claiming harassment or whatever is being claimed.
And a this point in time you have absolutetly no evidence that any employer has NOT done his due diligence befored removing these men from their posts. And yet, you, with no evidence at all, have decided that some of these women are not telling the truth. How do you tell which ones are lying and which ones aren’t? Is it by their age (under 16 you are a truth teller), their looks, how they dress? The fact is, you do not have any of the evidence and yet you are ready to condemn the women who reported the incidences and the employers who investigated them, and in fact DO have the evidence in front of them. Why?
“law professors advised their female students against getting clerkships with him”
I was a judicial clerkships advisor for five years at two top-14 law schools. It was my job to know these things about as many judges as possible, and certainly for all the Supreme Court feeder judges. Judge Kozinski’s standard, ungendered abuse of his clerks has been extremely well known for years, and he acknowledged it openly in his job postings in a way that was unique in the federal judiciary. Yes, we would warn applicants about this, but it was generally unnecessary because any student who was a big enough superstar to have a chance of getting an interview already knew. It wasn’t an open secret; it was just open. Students who wanted it looked at it the way Marines view boot camp: a period of voluntary torture that would make them strong enough to withstand anything, and would be recognized as such by everyone in their profession.