[AvengerRam]

I'm not going to bother subscribing to the Washington Post to read this article. If somebody wants to summarize, that would be great.

What I can provide is a basic rundown of how sexual harassment law works under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that provides a civil remedy for such conduct.

Sexual harassment is loosely defined as unwelcome conduct, which can be physical or verbal, of a sexual nature that is severe or pervasive and has the effect of adversely impacting the employee's terms and conditions of employment.

We generally divide sexual harassment into two types of claims. If the harassment culminates in a tangible employment action (i.e. an employee is fired for refusing to submit to a sexual advance), the employer is, in essence, strictly liable. This form is sometimes called "quid quo pro" harassment.

The second type involves allegations of ongoing or extreme conduct of a sexual nature that a reasonable person would find to be intimidating, hostile or offensive. The harassment need not come from a person with supervisory authority over the plaintiff. This type is called "hostile work environment" harassment.

In the case of a HWE, the employer is not automatically liable. Rather, if the employer can show that (1) it maintains a policy that provides a mechanism for reporting acts of harassment, and (2) when it became aware of the harassment, it took prompt remedial measures, it can avoid liability. This is called the Faragher defense, named for the Plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that established the defense.

A related claim is for retaliation. This would be a situation in which an employee complains about harassment and, as a result, is subjected to retaliatory actions such as demotion, unwanted transfer, termination, etc.

What will be interesting to see as this story develops is (1) whether there are any "quid pro quo" type allegations, (2) whether the team has a policy, was made aware, and simply ignored the complaints, and (3) whether there were retaliatory acts against women who complained internally.

As I have not read the article, I also can't speak to whether any claims might be outside the statute of limitations. Under Title VII, if a charge is not filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the most recent unlawful act, the right to proceed may be extinguished.

[St. Loser Fan]

I'm not going to bother subscribing to the Washington Post to read this article. If somebody wants to summarize, that would be great.

-Nothing directly to Snyder. No Jerry Richardson like stuff.
-But it is a horrible toxic workplace that Snyder and Allen had to be aware about.
-Bunch of un named ex employees as all are tied up by NDAs. There are though text screenshots and lots details.
-HR was horribly undermanned with just one person working. And that HR person also handled other office duties. There was no place to report issues to.
-Basically the same story as the Dallas Mavericks and Mark Cuban still owns the team.
-None of the crazy claims on Twitter were right. Not even going to list them.

I'll let Elvis make the decision about bringing the full article from behind the paywall.

[AvengerRam]

I'd be curious to know more about the NDAs.

Were these NDAs signed at the time of hire (unlikely to provide the team with any protection from disclosure of subsequent acts of harassment), or were they clauses within separation/settlement agreements signed after the allegations came to light and consideration was paid (absolutely can be enforceable). Big difference.

[St. Loser Fan]

I'd be curious to know more about the NDAs.

Were these NDAs signed at the time of hire (unlikely to provide the team with any protection from disclosure of subsequent acts of harassment), or were they clauses within separation/settlement agreements signed after the allegations came to light and consideration was paid (absolutely can be enforceable). Big difference.

I don’t know. The article only mentions they tried to get the accusers released from the NDAs and the Redskins wouldn’t let them out.

[/zn/]

from https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -harassed/

Describing women who worked for the franchise, the Post reports, “they cried about the realization their dream job of working in the NFL came with what they characterized as relentless sexual harassment and verbal abuse that was ignored — and in some cases, condoned — by top team executives.”

Five takeaways from Washington Post’s Redskins story on alleged sexual harassment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2 ... takeaways/

As owner Daniel Snyder prepares to rename Washington’s NFL team amid extreme pressure and the franchise’s minority owners are actively seeking to sell their shares, several women have detailed repeated instances of sexual harassment that have lingered around the organization for some time.

In interviews with The Post, 15 former female employees described numerous incidents in which executives and scouts made unwelcome overtures or comments of a sexual nature and in some cases were encouraged to wear revealing clothing and flirt with clients to close sales calls.

“I am done with the NFL,” one of the women said, adding that the team “has killed any dream of a career in pro sports.”

1. The team environment tolerated frequent sexual harassment and verbal abuse of female employees.

Over the past several years many of the team’s current and former employees have been critical of the culture they experienced under Snyder and former team president Bruce Allen. In The Post story, the 15 former female employees detailed their experiences in a workplace where executives berated them and commented inappropriately about their appearances.

The women said they often felt helpless and believed complaints about the executives’ behavior were ignored. One woman, Emily Applegate, said she assumed Allen, who was not accused of inappropriate behavior, knew what was happening because his office was just 30 feet away from her and saw her “sobbing at my desk several times every week.”

Allen, who was fired at the end of last year, did not reply to interview requests.

2. Washington’s NFL team didn’t have the proper structure to handle harassment complaints.

The story notes that the team’s human resources staff consisted of one full-time staffer, who also performs administrative duties at the team headquarters. That means just one person is responsible for more than 220 full-time employees.

Women, interviewed by The Post said they often were told informally by veteran female staffers which male employees avoid and to stay away from places such as the open stairwell in the middle of the team’s facility, where men could look up their skirts.

In a statement, the team said it hired a new human resources manager in 2019, and this employee works with the team’s legal department on any issues involving employee conduct.

3. Snyder belittled executives, helping to create an uncomfortable workplace for everyone.

Snyder was not accused of harassment but was described as belittling to his senior employees. Women who worked for Dennis Greene, the former president of business operations, said Greene made them uncomfortable by encouraging them to wear low-cut blouses and tight skirts when meeting sales clients but also were conflicted in their feelings about him given the way they saw Snyder treat him.

For instance, a former employee said Snyder constantly teased Greene about being a cheerleader in college and once made him do cartwheels at the end of an executive staff meeting.

Both Snyder and Greene declined to comment for the story.

4. The team has hired an outside attorney to study the franchise’s culture.

In a statement on Thursday, Washington’s NFL team said it has hired D.C. attorney Beth Wilkinson and her law firm Wilkinson Walsh “to conduct a thorough independent review of this entire matter and help the team set new employee standards for the future.”

Wilkinson’s review is the second the franchise has undertaken in recent days. On July 3, the team announced it is doing a “thorough review” of its longtime name “Redskins.” Earlier this week, the team said that review has started and will result in its retiring the name ‘Redskins.’

5. Alex Santos, Richard Mann II and Larry Michael all left the team after complaints were raised.

Several women interviewed described incidents of inappropriate touching and comments from Santos, the former director of pro scouting. Mann, the former assistant director of pro scouting, was accused to sending flirtatious and sexual texts to two former female employees. Many women said Michael, the team’s longtime play-by-play announcer, made objectifying and off-color comments about female employees.

Santos and Mann were fired last Saturday this past week, and Michael abruptly announced his retirement Wednesday afternoon.

Santos, Mann and Michael each declined to comment.

[St. Loser Fan]

[Elvis]

[moklerman]

Not to seem insensitive but is there a clear definition of what constitutes sexual harassment in the work place now? The ass-pinching is clearly out of bounds but I think the verbal stuff gets a lot less clear.

If these execs were using their power to coerce these ladies to do things for fear of losing their job, again, clearly out of bounds. Flirting and cat-calling though? If that was all that was being done it wouldn't warrant a lawsuit.

[aeneas1]

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?

[/zn/]

Flirting and cat-calling though? If that was all that was being done it wouldn't warrant a lawsuit.

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.