[St. Loser Fan]

so the "bomb" that took a week to "break" is the same stuff we saw when faulk, sapp, taylor, mcnabb, etc. were bounced from the nfl network for unacceptable behavior?

I know a lot of people are pissed off because of the week of hype and it’s just run of the mill sexual harassment and toxic work environment. But that’s what happens when we’re all bored as shit and there are no other sports going on.

I think there are other bombs. Why would minority owners be trying to get out for over a year? Who tries to leave the most profitable and secure sports league in the world?

[/zn/]

Before the story broke there were some rumors, which turned out to be wrong in a lot of ways. Nothing wrong with posting rumors--but the real WaPo story sorted that out and killed a lot of those rumors.

But looking back, some of the rumors were just weird, and I put that on the people who tweeted them.

Like this guy (it's in this thread). Nominally, the opening bit isn't so bad:

Harrison Weinhold@RadioHarrison
This will be a story about how the front office for the past 10 years has hidden and protected men in the building against sexual assault and harassment allegations and legal action. Look at recent firings and retirings if you need specific names, but they'll be out soon

Okay. Pretty much substantiated stuff.

But then there's this (same guy):

Front office and team personnel fucking media members in exchange for scoops and leaks. Protecting leadership, coaches, players from getting in trouble with their wives, etc and then using that information for blackmail, leaks and to keep people obedient (Gruden, Allen, McLovin).

It's not just that he named Gruden.

Look at what he did. He has the female reporters who complained of harassment having sex with team officials to get info.

He turned the entire issue upside down. He has female reporters as aggressively using sex to get info--when the ACTUAL story was that female reporters were being harassed while trying to do their jobs.

I suspect this guy just made that up based on his own "hunches."

This guy is an EXAMPLE of the mindset that's being complained about.

....

[moklerman]

Both are unwelcome, unprofessional, and out of bounds. (And "cat-calling" is always harassment in any context.) Even flirting. Professionals, men and women, want to be treated as professionals first and foremost, and not primarily as objects of sexual interest. It's not a sign that you are respecting someone as a colleague and a fellow professional. And even if some guy slips and flirts a little at work, unless they're a complete novice and social misfit they can tell instantly if it is unwelcome.

And yes my understanding is that unwelcome sexual advances, even just flirting--if it is a persistent and uncontrolled part of the work environment--is grounds for a lawsuit. Probably a few isolated incidents would not qualify as that. But as I understand it, hostile workplace sexual harassment includes repeated unwanted flirting, regularly making inappropriate comments about appearance, and repeatedly making sexual comments. Just speaking from personal experience, if any male in a work place is known for regularly doing those things, they are considered unprofessional and out of bounds. A culture that continually allows that is a problem.

Flirting isn't always unwelcome and women do it all the time too. Cat calling can be harmless as well. You can't just say both are always bad and both are always unwelcome.

Granted, I'm assuming what was going on was more serious than that but in this day and age, that might be too much to take for granted.

A personal anecdote to illustrate. I was in the store browsing around and wound up standing next to a woman who had a small dog with her. It was being carried around in her backpack. I made some small talk because I like dogs. I said "What a lucky dog, gets to ride around with you all day instead of staying at home alone". She agreed but kept looking at whatever she was shopping for. She seemed willing to talk about her dog so I asked her if the dog was friendly, which I think I could obviously tell it was, as I patted it on the head. The woman noticed and went from zero to a hundred. Started screaming at me. Said that her dog was in her backpack and her backpack was on her back and that touching the dog was the same as attempting to rape her.

So, it is possible in today's world for a woman to have a completely different view of something than how it's actually being labeled. Sexual harassment is one of those nebulous things that isn't always as clear cut as the accusations make it seem.

[/zn/]

Flirting isn't always unwelcome

Which is why the phrase "unwelcome flirting" was used. Your points were addressed in advance.

Either way, as a rule it is unprofessional to treat the workplace like a bar.

But it is fun to hear from someone who is actually posting across time from the early 20th century.

[snackdaddy]

Is it sexual harassment if you like it? Asking for a friend.

[moklerman]

Which is why the phrase "unwelcome flirting" was used. Your points were addressed in advance.

Either way, as a rule it is unprofessional to treat the workplace like a bar.

But it is fun to hear from someone who is actually posting across time from the early 20th century.

Well, you're kind of all over the place so forgive me for not focusing on just the one side of the fence you're on.

Both are unwelcome, unprofessional, and out of bounds.

You did not qualify this statement in that paragraph.

And yes my understanding is that unwelcome sexual advances, even just flirting--if it is a persistent and uncontrolled part of the work environment--is grounds for a lawsuit.

Which is why I'm considering the context of what's being claimed. I haven't gone outside of this thread to research the claims being made but already conceded that they are probably more serious than flirting.

[St. Loser Fan]

Well, you're kind of all over the place so forgive me for not focusing on just the one side of the fence you're on.
You did not qualify this statement in that paragraph.

Which is why I'm considering the context of what's being claimed. I haven't gone outside of this thread to research the claims being made but already conceded that they are probably more serious than flirting.

Executives offering to buy boob jobs. Ordering women to dress sluttily and flirt with suite owners. Married executives going hard after younger employees. Guys hanging out under a clear stairwell to look up skirts. The usual comments about looks.

Here’s the already known cheerleader stuff.
https://deadspin.com/report-washington- ... 1825724557

[AvengerRam]

You have to look at each factor. The conduct must be:

UNWELCOME: In other words, if the employee is a willing participant or actually initiates the sexual conduct, it would not be deemed harassment.
OF A SEXUAL NATURE: Sometimes, harassment complaints include allegations of things like use of profanity. Unless that type of language is used in a sexual context or is directed only towards women, it may not qualify as part of the equation.
SEVERE or PERVASIVE: A single physical act may be sufficiently severe to constitute actionable harassment standing alone. With verbal harassment, an employee must typically show a level of frequency that renders the conduct pervasive.

So, a question like "does flirting constitute harassment" can't be answered in a vacuum.

[St. Loser Fan]

You have to look at each factor. The conduct must be:

UNWELCOME: In other words, if the employee is a willing participant or actually initiates the sexual conduct, it would not be deemed harassment.
OF A SEXUAL NATURE: Sometimes, harassment complaints include allegations of things like use of profanity. Unless that type of language is used in a sexual context or is directed only towards women, it may not qualify as part of the equation.
SEVERE or PERVASIVE: A single physical act may be sufficiently severe to constitute actionable harassment standing alone. With verbal harassment, an employee must typically show a level of frequency that renders the conduct pervasive.

So, a question like "does flirting constitute harassment" can't be answered in a vacuum.

From the article:

Training camp in Richmond in August was a hotbed of improper activity, several women said. Some encouraged younger female staffers to avoid the Tobacco Company, a bar and restaurant in a stately brick building frequented by team officials.

“I was propositioned basically every day at training camp,” said one female employee who worked for the team in the mid-2010s for several years. The overtures came in the form of a whispered invitation from one coach at the Tobacco Company to his hotel room, she said, as well as emails and text messages from other male staffers, also disclosing their room numbers and offering invitations for late-night visits.

At the 2019 combine, Rhiannon Walker, new to the Redskins beat for the Athletic, arrived at Prime 47 to learn that Santos, the club’s scouting director, had been asking her reporting colleagues whether they thought she might be interested in him, she said in a phone interview this week. They tried to discourage him — outside of the ethical concerns, Walker said, her colleagues knew she was in a committed relationship and wouldn’t ever date a married man — but Santos was undeterred, she said she was told upon arriving.

Santos approached, she said, and the conversation started innocently. He showed her photos of his wife and young daughters on his phone, Walker recalled, reading from notes she later provided to her company’s lawyers describing the incident. Then Santos told Walker she had “worn the f---” out of her jeans the day before, she said, and asked whether she would date him if they were single.

“I told him that I do have a girlfriend and he does have a wife, so we don’t need to play hypotheticals here,” Walker said. “I was pretty blunt.”

Santos kept attempting to flirt for several minutes and told Walker he would “wear me down with his charm,” she recalled. Then he pinched her on the hip, in full view of other team employees and reporters, she said. Walker felt humiliated, she recalled, and concerned some people who saw what had happened would think she had welcomed the attention.

“It felt like pretty much the worst thing in the world,” Walker said. “He didn’t care. He thought it was funny.”

Soon after her incident with Santos, Walker said, she learned of another reporter who alleged she had endured similar harassment: Nora Princiotti, who covered the team for the Washington Times in 2017.

Princiotti, in a phone interview, said on two or three occasions, Santos pulled his SUV alongside her as she was walking out of Redskins Park and offered commentary on her body and wardrobe.

“He told me I had a great ass for a little white girl,” Princiotti said. “The general sentiment was that I should wear less clothing.”

Like Walker, Princiotti said she was struck by how brazenly Santos acted, as well as other team employees who commented on her looks. Princiotti said one male member of the communications staff once told her she had a nickname around Redskins Park: “Princihottie.”

“It was gross and also just a terrible pun,” she said. “There was an overwhelming sense that no one would ever do anything about this stuff.”

Santos was fired along with his top scouting assistant, Richard Mann II, who sent flirtatious, sexual texts to two former female employees that they provided to The Post.

In an exchange with one former female colleague, Mann joked about getting an “inappropriate hug.” In two exchanges with another female colleague, Mann informed her he and his colleagues were discussing whether her breasts had been surgically enhanced — “real or fake is the debate,” he texted — and offered to bring her lunch for a favor.

“If I bring that I want to squeeze your butt,” Mann texted.

“Unfortunately that was (is?) the culture,” one of these women texted a reporter after forwarding the messages. “So we felt like we had to roll with it.”

I could post more, but it would be the whole article.

[AvengerRam]

From the article:



I could post more, but it would be the whole article.

I have not read the article, but what you've quoted certainly sounds like it would qualify.

There are a myriad of other legal issues that will have to be addressed, but I don't doubt that what is alleged meets the standard for a claim of sexual harassment.