harassment law definition
My wife caught this Thursday evening, she looked up how sexual harassment is defined and found that the civil rights act of 1964 defines it as having an element of using positions of power, and creating a hostile work environment. It does in fact as I have been saying, make part of the suggested process for resolving harassment being direct in regard to formally complaining about the offensive behavior.
While there is a certain amount of interpretation involved in determining when the threshold has been crossed, it would certainly take a hostile environment being created by complaints not being acted upon by management.
It would seem Conyers was well within the definition of harassment since a settlement was part of the case. Farenthold crossed into that same zone considering a settlement was paid.
I know this flies in the face of those who feel Franken should immediately resign, but unfortunately it would seem he falls short of the main elements of sexual harassment, and I’m talking by definition.
As I’ve been saying, even touching a woman’s butt is not in itself by definition harassment. Yes it is objectionable, yes it is for all practical purposes unacceptable, but it has not crossed into the realm of harassment until objections are made and then ignored or create a hostile and threatening environment. As I have been saying, the first step of crossing into harassment by definition comes after the victim has registered a complaint, the first complaint which should be directly to the person doing the objectionable behavior. Then if and only if those objections are being ignored or the hostile environment is being created, the victim of this behavior should be filing formal objections with their HR department or management.
At this point is where management would step in and serve formal notice that this is unacceptable. It is at the point where complaints are resulting in the actions and behavior cross into the realm of actionable harassment.
And as I have been saying, the original reported harassment did not even happen after Franken was elected as a senator, negate that one, it matters not to his job as a senator, it’s irrelevant to his job or those who elected him.
I only know of the first additional charge, and it falls far short of harassment by definition. It did not happen in the office, it looked like the picture was taken in front of someone’s house, it was taken by someone else (the woman’s husband?).
As I’ve said, Conyers fits the definition of harassment simply by the fact that a settlement was made that indicates guilt of harassment. Farenthold would fit the same pattern and I would expect that he resign as well.
Franken’s case does not reflect anything on Conyers or Farenthold and the left needs to stop the hue and cry for his resignation. There is a legal definition of harassment, and if Franken has not crossed that he should not resign.
Forget the slippery slope of moral purity.