Bill O'Reilly: sexual harassment claims

[PhilosophicalCaveman]

If one assumes no investigation.

Where I have worked an investigations the logical extension of a claim.

That investigation need not find evidence sufficient to convict, just sufficient to terminate employment. They are different measures. Avoiding abuse is the entire point of the system.

In O'Reilly's case at least one of the reports was investigated by Paul Weiss law firm.

I also think that sexual harassment claims or reported sexual harassment is suppose to be detailed which makes it sufficient for employment dismissal. Where I work a report has to be made to HR (or I assume the manager in some places). In O'Reilly's case there was more grounds for dismissal.

I'm sure the reports can be difficult to prove 'guilty or not guilty' but from my understanding it is the claims that are looked into and whether there is solid evidence or not it is dealt with straight through as 'a sexual harassment claim' it doesn't have to be devoid of investigation or logical details. Esp. when there is a series of sexual harassment reports. And a person can be dismissed whether or not there is hard evidence or even any 'evidence' based on what is reported.

 

[Checkmite]

Of course, but notice how PhilosophicalCaveman worded his post. He said the claim is grounds for dismissal.

It looks to me like he's saying sexual harassment is grounds for dismissal.

Use a little common sense. If the claim itself were grounds, why would HR bother investigating?

 

[Belz...]

And as usual you don't bother to find out anything about what you are talking about and demanding everyone else do the work for you.

Wow, that's a new kind of strawman for you. Now you're not misrepresenting an argument, but the whole of someone's behaviour.

Where have I demanded anything of the sort?

 

[Belz...]

It looks to me like he's saying sexual harassment is grounds for dismissal.

Use a little common sense. If the claim itself were grounds, why would HR bother investigating?

Hence the question mark.

 

[quadraginta]

Which brings me right back to my earlier question: what principle? O'Reilly is ACCUSED of sexual misconduct. Should people accused of a crime be assumed to be guilty?

This doesn't mean that I don't find the accusation credible. But to expect employers to fire their staff because they're accused of something is a step in the wrong direction.

Good thing that isn't what happened this time, eh?

Employers routinely fire their employees for far less egregious behavior and offenses, even ones which have not been proven in a court of law. Even when there is little more than suspicion.

How many teachers have found themselves on the way out the door on the basis of much less actual evidence than O'Reilly has accumulated.

In most states in the U.S. employers don't even need a reason to fire someone. There is a short list of reasons that they aren't allowed to use. Conveniently for them, though, they don't need to use any of those reasons anyway.

 

[quadraginta]

Why the sarcasm?

There are MANY threads on this forum where mere accusations lead to the assumption of guilt. I don't think it's trivial to point it out and aspire to a higher standard.

Not keeping known, serial sex abusers on the payroll just because they make you more money than it costs to keep the crowd of victims quiet would also be aspiring to a higher standard.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Jury?
Quick question, how is workplace sexual harassment claims handled in your workplace? Because here it is taken up with HR (even if there's an outside investigation happening), and it is grounds for dismissal.

It's principle to dismiss on grounds of sexual harassment to protect employees. Seems simple enough to me. Much better than monetary gains/loses or pay off to silence the victims.

For clarity...

Is an accusation of sexual harassment grounds for dismissal? Or is a judgment of sexual harassment based on an investigation grounds for dismissal?

 

[Tony Stark]

So apparently the federal government is investigating Fox News - both the Justice Department and USPIS (so maybe some kind of mail fraud).

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/media/fox-news-federal-investigation/

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So apparently the federal government is investigating Fox News - both the Justice Department and USPIS (so maybe some kind of mail fraud).

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/media/fox-news-federal-investigation/

Not disclosing stuff to their shareholders.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

For clarity...

Is an accusation of sexual harassment grounds for dismissal? Or is a judgment of sexual harassment based on an investigation grounds for dismissal?

I think they mean a "claim". A very detailed and carefully documented accusation.

 

[John Jones]

I only go by what is in the post in front of me. There are more than a few people in the USA politics forums who claim they are not pro-Trump (not you) all the while spewing a constant stream of anti-Clinton trash.[...]".

Hahahaha! False dichotomy much?

 

[John Jones]

It looks to me like he's saying sexual harassment is grounds for dismissal.

Use a little common sense. If the claim itself were grounds, why would HR bother investigating?

Show Trial? /devil's advocate

ETA: The next time I see an appeal to "common sense", I'm going to make a reflexive appeal to logic. It won't be pretty.

 

[qayak]

For clarity...

Is an accusation of sexual harassment grounds for dismissal? Or is a judgment of sexual harassment based on an investigation grounds for dismissal?

Here both an accusation, and a judgement after an investigation, are grounds for dismissal but both can be appealed to the labour relations board or to the courts for wrongful dismissal.

 

[Cain]

I'm officially done with Fox. They've sold out to the Cathedral. I'll only go back if they have a show where they waterboard liberals.

 

[stargazer0519]

They assume they can get away with it, because they've always gotten away with it and there is no risk at all. It's not like Bill started this last week, it seems to be a lifelong pursuit.

I agree that they think they can get away with it because they always have.

We act like having women have professional, full-time careers in traditionally male-dominated fields has been going on for a long time.

Not really.

My mother grew up in Northern Virginia in an era where there were almost no women doctors, lawyers, judges, or politicians.

She socialized me to want to go to school and earn big degrees and hold important jobs.

Not because she'd ever done any of those things, but because she saw the future coming. My mom's a smart lady. We owned a personal desktop computer in 1989. We could barely afford it. (Wish we'd kept it! It would be worth a fortune now!)

The guys who are in the workforce today probably had fathers who socialized them into thinking that women are less-than-equal.

It's sad but true.

 

[stargazer0519]

Don't be flippant with me. I asked you a serious question. Do you think that settling out of court indicates guilt?

I don't think settling out of court necessarily indicates guilt, but how much you pay is something of a barometer regarding:

1) how much your reputation is worth to you
and
2) how much evidence was stacked against you

 

[stargazer0519]

When you get multiple woman claiming the same thing the odds of a fake claim drop.

Yes, and it's for this reason that I believe colleges ought to keep a file of women who report rape claims against the same guy.

One woman might lie.

Maybe two women might lie and/or not remember the event correctly because of drugs or alcohol.

I think once you have three separate women claiming three separate attacks, and the women don't know each other and aren't colluding, you need to have some disciplinary action.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, and it's for this reason that I believe colleges ought to keep a file of women who report rape claims against the same guy.

One woman might lie.

Maybe two women might lie and/or not remember the event correctly because of drugs or alcohol.

I think once you have three separate women claiming three separate attacks, and the women don't know each other and aren't colluding, you need to have some disciplinary action.

Not to mention the whole Roger Ailes thing and the fact it was rather well known that sexual harassment at Fox was the norm.

Oh yeah, and then there is the shower scene recording from O'Reilly's book that matches the O'Reilly recorded harassment of a certain producer.

 

[ponderingturtle]

For clarity...

Is an accusation of sexual harassment grounds for dismissal? Or is a judgment of sexual harassment based on an investigation grounds for dismissal?

Right to work indicates both are perfectly valid reasons to fire someone.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not to mention the whole Roger Ailes thing and the fact it was rather well known that sexual harassment at Fox was the norm.

Oh yeah, and then there is the shower scene recording from O'Reilly's book that matches the O'Reilly recorded harassment of a certain producer.

Typical liberal using someones own words against them to show that they sexually harass and assault people.