I'm not saying that managers should be allowed to give special treatment to the employee involved in the affair but I don't think this constitutes sexual harassment and that is where the abuse will come. Sexual harassment destroys careers but this kind of treatment should not. It should be punished but to the extent that sexual harassment is punished.
The Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George, did write in the decision, "An isolated instance of favoritism would not ordinarily constitute sexual harassment". This keeps some abuse of the decision from occuring because some women will claim sexual harassment for an isolated instance. But that still leaves this classified as sexual harassment and open to abuse.
This is going to take some time to see if the lower courts can keep this decision from being abused or will use this as many women have used sexual harassment and domestic violence laws to justify the "abuse excuse" to get their way.
All in all, I'm torn over this decision. It makes sense not to allow managers to develop repeated patterns of preferred treatment to those the manager is sexually involved with but to label it as sexual harassment, which means to punish it as sexual harassment, may be going to far and may be opening up a legal situation prone to abuse, similar to the current sexual harassment and domestic violence laws are prone to abuse.
My next question is whether or not there will be a federal appeal. Definately a situation to keep an eye on.
KLINTON
PING!
Welcome to FR
Harrassment and "hate crimes" are anything that the "liberals" choose to say it is depending on circumstances and their "feelings".
The liberal judiciary seems hellbent on destroying our country by dividing it and creating chaos within.
Seems like reasonable public policy to me. I just wish the legislature created this law and not the court.
Any manager who has more than just a business relationship with any subordinates is not qualified to be a manager.
"All in all, I'm torn over this decision."
I'm not torn. This is bull----.
this will soon be applied to small businesses where one spouse is the owner and the other works among the employees.
Count on it.
The "judge" is just trying to give a shot in the arm to his shyster pals in the frivolous lawsuit industry. It's about the money. It's ALWAYS about the money.
Feminism taught us that women are both strong and weak. Strong enough to compete against men but weak enough to need to be protected from them.
It's all very circular.
Often people who claim to have been treated unfairly, were simply not as qualified, effective or productive. Government has been inrtuding into private enterprise for thirty years and slowly eroding the basis of being private capitolists. When we no longer are capitolists, what are we? This is another step--surely to be overturned if the firm has the strength to appeal. It stretches the legislation beyond the rationale of the orginal Civil Rights Act.
The problem with all this stuff is that the courts are so busy worrying about unwelcome sexual advances in the workplace that they forget that there is such a thing as a welcome sexual advance.
Probably a lot more of them than we realize.
There is no shortage of women who see nothing wrong with dating and marrying the men they work for. Do they really want the courts to create an environment where men are afraid to date anyone in the company?
This is one area of human affairs where having the courts involved has been an unqualifed disaster.