Re:That Amanda Blum Article on Adria Richards is Not What It...
by dalke on Monday March 25, 2013 @12:30PM
(#5437900)
What's clear to me is that you don't want to understand Title VII protections for the workplace and are only picking out the words you like best.
If someone has a reasonable belief that a workplace is sexist (and there's a broad definition of what "reasonable" means), then that person can file a report (and there's a broad definition of what "report" means), and the company may not retaliate (and there's a broad definition of what "retaliate" means).
That doesn't mean that the report must be true in order to make a report, or that dirty jokes necessarily indicate a hostile workplace. Nor does it mean that if a report isn't true then the company may retaliate.
Yes, "participating can nullify the inference that the jokes were unwelcome". That is correct and you, I, and the courts are all in agreement. But you are ignoring the second part, which is that stopping participation isn't enough to indicate that the jokes are unwelcome. Someone must first complain in order to indicate that there is a change in status.
So it most certainly does say that if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person once participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.
Using 'basic logical reasoning', if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person has never participated participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.
The reason you may have difficulties is you are looking at the results of an incident where the courts have decided that a "proliferation" of pornography is an example of sexual harassment which is not allowed under Title VII. However, PyCon does not want to be a place where sexual harassment is allowed.
The Title VII reporting mechanism which end up in court are the same as the Title VII reporting mechanisms used to point out possible cases of sexual harassment in a company, so that a company might correct the situation and avoid going to court.
That's why there does not need to be a "proliferation" of sexual discrimination before people can complain about their civil rights being violated.
If someone has a reasonable belief that a workplace is sexist (and there's a broad definition of what "reasonable" means), then that person can file a report (and there's a broad definition of what "report" means), and the company may not retaliate (and there's a broad definition of what "retaliate" means).
That doesn't mean that the report must be true in order to make a report, or that dirty jokes necessarily indicate a hostile workplace. Nor does it mean that if a report isn't true then the company may retaliate.
Yes, "participating can nullify the inference that the jokes were unwelcome". That is correct and you, I, and the courts are all in agreement. But you are ignoring the second part, which is that stopping participation isn't enough to indicate that the jokes are unwelcome. Someone must first complain in order to indicate that there is a change in status.
So it most certainly does say that if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person once participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.
Using 'basic logical reasoning', if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person has never participated participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.
The reason you may have difficulties is you are looking at the results of an incident where the courts have decided that a "proliferation" of pornography is an example of sexual harassment which is not allowed under Title VII. However, PyCon does not want to be a place where sexual harassment is allowed.
The Title VII reporting mechanism which end up in court are the same as the Title VII reporting mechanisms used to point out possible cases of sexual harassment in a company, so that a company might correct the situation and avoid going to court.
That's why there does not need to be a "proliferation" of sexual discrimination before people can complain about their civil rights being violated.