Who's Weiner is it?

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

There is no way that would satisfy the standard for sexual harassment. There might have been claims brought on less "egregious" photos, it is unlikely that they succeeded. A single inadvertent exposure would never get the attention of the EEOC or of any plaintiffs' lawyer who halfway knew his stuff. To establish a sexually hostile atmosphere, one must show that sexual conduct or innuendo is severe and pervasive


Besides the sexually hostile atmosphere, a plaintiff can make a sexual harassment claim by showing an actual or implied connection between keeping a job and sexual favors. There is not even the slightest hint of that in this instance.

What you have described is an incident that an employer should address, but not nearly enough to maintain a claim.

Regards,

D-Ray

I disagree. The EEOC and DOL are becoming far more aggressive in their support of, and pursuit of, claims. The atmosphere has changed significantly in the last year or so.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

I disagree. The EEOC and DOL are becoming far more aggressive in their support of, and pursuit of, claims. The atmosphere has changed significantly in the last year or so.

Good for them. Every now and then, it does a businessman good to get kicked in the crotch. Keeps them humble.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by JonL

Which is exactly why I'm keeping an open mind on this. Weiner has essentially admitted that the picture is of him. He has also adamantly maintained that he did not send the picture. If his staffers maintain and update his Twitter and Facebook accounts, then certainly a staffer would have the capability to send that picture. It is very possible that a disgruntled staffer or (more likely IMO) a staffer planted by Weiner's opponents sent the picture and then alerted a sympathetic media outlet.

I don't really care that it is his pecker. It's not pornographic, all you really see is his underwear. The recipient of the photo hasn't filed a complaint, (Although I'm sure there are Republicans waving money in her face, tempting her to do so.). Actually, as far as I'm concerned this is a private matter between him, her and his family. It's none of our business. I felt the same way about that turd pusher Craig. Although, I find it amusing anytime someone from the self-righteous, pseudo-Bible thumping party of rabid hypocrisy gets caught bobbing for sausage.

Dave

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

I disagree. The EEOC and DOL are becoming far more aggressive in their support of, and pursuit of, claims. The atmosphere has changed significantly in the last year or so.

Having a non-pornographic photo in a place where it might be discovered by a staffer will not support a claim of sexual harassment in any venue. Period.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

I trust y'all realize just how assinine this whole affair is, there are similar picture in adverts in the paper every day.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I trust y'all realize just how assinine this whole affair is, there are similar picture in adverts in the paper every day.

My point exactly. It makes no sense, unless of course the GOP is suffering from penis envy...............Maybe THAT'S what's going on here?

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Having a non-pornographic photo in a place where it might be discovered by a staffer will not support a claim of sexual harassment in any venue. Period.

Regards,

D-Ray

Hmmm....

In a rather predictable turn of events, we now have the Congressman engaging in multiple Internet chats over time during work time from his office. You still wanna stick with the " no support of a claim" position? Or, should wait and see what else falls out of this lying twerp's closet?

[flacaltenn]

Dave:

I don't really care that it is his pecker. It's not pornographic, all you really see is his underwear.

Why does that 70's poster of Farah Fawcett come to mind?? Or Sports Illustrated Swim Edition? That wasn't officially pornographic either. BTW Dude -- you can tell it's CIRCUMCIZED!

PS Dave:

Actually, as far as I'm concerned this is a private matter between him, her and his family. It's none of our business.

Actually not if his house.gov page is pushing a bill to force colleges to declare how they are keeping their campuses free of sexual harrassment. THat's about as hypocritical as you can get. It BECOMES a discussable issue at that point.

Doesn't matter now.

He's officially TOAST as of about 4:40PM EST.

Ya happy NOW you right wing hyenas..

[Zeke]

I bet he wins reelection in a landslide.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Hmmm....

In a rather predictable turn of events, we now have the Congressman engaging in multiple Internet chats over time during work time from his office. You still wanna stick with the " no support of a claim" position? Or, should wait and see what else falls out of this lying twerp's closet?

That does not change your premise from being wrong. It adds elements to the analysis, beyond your original premise. I'm sure that whatever the chat rooms were, they are much much worse in your imagination.

Got a vindictive streak have we?

Regards,

D-Ray