If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RGJ)   Reno man sues ex-employer for exposing him to porn   (rgj.com) divider line 129
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

15820 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jun 2005 at 11:32 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-06-13 01:24:00 PM
jst3p


It seems to me that we, as a nation, have made a priority of making the workplace free of sexual harassment. Now this was done in order to accomodate women in the workplace and was needed because men are pigs.

This might be an unintended use of the law, but if you are going to put up porn, erotica, whatever you want to call it in your workplace you are risking a lawsuit.

I mean sure it sounds petty, but if it has nothing to do with work how is it appropriate?

"If it has nothing to do with work how is it appropriate?"

With that line of thought then pictures of your wife, kids, your car or special interests, none of it should be at work. Your work environment should be sterilized of anything none work related. But this has proven to diminish productivity. When a person feels comfortable at work they produce better. So that brings up the valid issue of him being uncomfortable. So one person is uncomfortable and to make him uncomfortable we need to change the environment and make everyone else less comfortable. I believe this to be essentially wrong. There was a majority concensus that these pictures are acceptable. Sorry, the guy lost. The way I see it, he has two options. Accept it or change jobs and choose a job that provides an environment that makes you comfortable not you change the environment to suit you and to heck with everyone else. The same goes for the reverse situation. If it is an environment that is "wholesome" and the majority find skantily clad women posing offensive or uncomfortable and guy wants to post pictures because that's what makes him comfortable, he needs to find a place that will accomodate that and not expect the majority to change for him.
 
2005-06-13 01:26:25 PM
Still waiting for someone to comment on-
Lets replace the hot chick calendars with hot guy calendars and see what they're reaction is.

How would you like to work in a cubicle surrounded by penises all day long?

Could you imagine the outcry if this was the back room of a hair salon (not trying to stereotype, but common, you know what I'm talking about) instead of a garage and the person was complaining about gay porn being posted in the lunch room?
 
2005-06-13 01:26:39 PM
I meant that if he felt he needed to sue, there are many laws he could have used about inapprorpiate enviroments, hostility, etc, without invoking sexual harassment as the cause.


And what laws exist about "inappropriate environments" or "hostility" that aren't sexual harassment laws and would be appropriate here?

If it were not for sexual harassment law, it would be perfectly legal to hang porn all over your worksite. As I understand it, it is already perfectly legal to hang porn at work, so long as no one complains. If they complain and you don't remove them, or treat them in a hostile manner you are guilty of sexual harassment.

You never really answered my question, you just restated the "fact" that you stated earlier with no example.
 
2005-06-13 01:28:46 PM
Farker sues ex-employer for NOT exposing him to porn.
 
2005-06-13 01:31:48 PM
thinkfuzzy

The law disagrees with you in that sexual imagery is treated differently from a picture of my wife and kids as it can be used to create a sexually hostile environment where a person would be so uncomfortable she would quit.

And sexual harassment laws exists to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority.

"If you don't like porn on the walls, work somewhere else" is just about as draconian as you can get.
 
2005-06-13 01:32:39 PM
jst3p

Suppose there are any laws that would cover hanging pictures of murder victims, or gas chambers, or swastikas, all over the office?

The nudity element here is a red herring. That's my point.
 
2005-06-13 01:42:49 PM
Suppose there are any laws that would cover hanging pictures of murder victims, or gas chambers, or swastikas, all over the office?

I don't think there is a law that prevent's me from putting any of those things on my wall at work. Please show me a law that prevents me from hanging a swastika, for example, on my wall right now.
 
2005-06-13 01:49:13 PM
jst3p,

I agree in hindsight that it does seem draconian. But if the majority wants a "family" oriented environment and then berates me or is hostile towards me because I want a swimsuit calendar in my cubicle, isn't that just as draconian?

What if an individual has had a broken past and suffered child or family abuse and finds pictures of peoples loved ones or family and uncomfortable and "hostile" environment. Having worked with troubled teens in a group home environment I know these people exist.


And then to go off topic... The believe the reason sexual material creates a "hostile" environment is directly related to our repression of such things. Europe doesn't have the same problems, they don't have the same numbers of sex crimes. Repression deforms. If you put a rock onto a budding plan, you don't kill the plant. It deforms and grows around the rock. Then you remove the rock but the plant is still deformed. That is what we do to our sexuality. Instead of embracing it, making our children comfortable with it and teaching that it is a special thing and to be selective of who you share it with, but to enjoy that you have it. We teach everyone that it is "dirty" and "immoral" and we are sinners for having these feelings.
 
F42
2005-06-13 01:52:47 PM
jst3p:
Assuming the article is accurate (big assumption, I know) sounds like this guy was treated with hostility after he asked that the nekkid laides be removed from his workspace, would you agree?

he complained about calendars in the workplace that showed women in various stages of undress and about a pornographic screen saver placed on a computer he used. He said both were eventually removed after repeated complaints, but he said that thereafter he was treated differently from other employees.


The prude ruined it for everyone else, and then he complained that they weren't happy about it. Sheesh.
 
2005-06-13 01:55:05 PM
binnster: I exposed a man to porn in Reno, just to watch him_______

Sue?

/As in a boy named...
//Love that album
 
2005-06-13 01:56:14 PM
jst3p
But non-work related + nudity = illegal.

Nowhere in the article does it say any of the women were nude.
 
2005-06-13 01:57:51 PM
thinkfuzzy

I don't think the goal is a "family" environment. I think the goal is a workplace where all people are considered equals. While I think the guy in this case is twisting the law to his advantage I fully support the actual intent of the law, which is to assure women that they have a right to a workplace that is as free as possible from objectification and sexual intimidation.

You have a right to hang your swimsuit calander until someone complains. If most men weren't such asshats we wouldn't need the law, so we reap what we sow here. It punishes the guy would would quietly like to have his swimsuit calander but is a pretty good guy, but a line has to be drawn somewhere.
 
2005-06-13 01:59:25 PM
stixx

How would you like to work in a cubicle surrounded by penises all day long?

I work in an office full of assholes. Penises would be an improvement.
 
2005-06-13 02:03:43 PM
Nowhere in the article does it say any of the women were nude.

The last straw was when a pornographic screen saver ended up on a computer I was assigned to use every day, he said. I complained and the attitude was, if you dont like it, you can find another job. I got fed up at that point.


I could be wrong, but I assume pornographic to include nudity. But for you I will ammend my statement:

But non-work related + sexually suggestive = illegal.

Happy?
 
2005-06-13 02:05:54 PM
jst3p,

We agree. It's not an issue of "family" or any other "type" of environment other than one that everyone is equal. And not deliberately offending anyone. That line was crossed by both parties.

Unfortuantely everyone is arguing for or against. I believe that both parties are wrong. They should have at least compromised. Be more descrete with the pin ups and not in his face, but you can still have them. Take down the screensaver and not force it on him. An acceptable compromise could have been reached. Unfortunately, it seems both parties wanted it their way or no way which set the hostile environment and all the bitterness.
 
2005-06-13 02:13:34 PM
I exposed a man to Reno
just to watch him die:
 
2005-06-13 02:15:28 PM
thinkfuzzy

Agreed. While he may legally have a good case (I don't know if he does or does not) he could have used a little tact.

Then again he could have had the intent to sue from the beginning. Considering the employer stands the most to lose, it would probably a smart move to err on the side of caution.
 
2005-06-13 02:16:46 PM
Sounds to me like he was a friendless prude who got huffy about someone's Maxim calendar , and they stuck a dirty screensaver on his computer as a gag.

What a loser.
 
2005-06-13 02:21:47 PM
I have had 5 jobs in my live so far and it did not take long to find out who you can joke with and who you cannot. I know I cannot have stuff up when the boss is around but I know I can bang the intern when no one is around
 
2005-06-13 02:31:28 PM
BuuZero:
It saddens me as to how computer illertiate some people are.

I agree with the point being made, but that's gotta be the one spot you don't wanna make a typo on right there...
 
2005-06-13 02:35:17 PM
poofta
 
2005-06-13 02:51:02 PM
Yay!! My city made Fark!! So did my school!


A little bit of research would clear this up and/or fan the flames

UNR Sexual Harrassment Policy:
http://www.unr.edu/vpaf/hr/affaction/harassment.html

"or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individuals academic or professional performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning employment or educational environment."

I've attended a UNR sexual harrassment workshop (for employment-- not complaints), and if we take the article at face value, this is definitely against University policy. Additionally, if we take it at face value, those of you who tell him to "man up, Nancy"-- he already did and has been mocked for it. Then again, it's dangerous to take things like this at face value.

/Current UNR student
//Avoids porn at work, some things are best in the privacy of the home (or car, or bathroom. . . backyard. . .)
///Needs Comedy Central back to see more Reno 911
 
2005-06-13 02:58:56 PM
binnster: I exposed a man to porn in Reno, just to watch him_______

"pretend the gay sex didn't turn him on."

-OR-

"scream, 'WHAT?! That can't be my daughter! She said it was a religious retreat!!!'"

Wow, I'm evil today.
 
2005-06-13 03:14:15 PM
So you have something to look at while you're talking to them.
 
2005-06-13 04:19:59 PM
It saddens me as to how computer illertiate some people are.

Priceless post award.
 
2005-06-13 04:26:24 PM
I don't think there is a law that prevent's me from putting any of those things on my wall at work. Please show me a law that prevents me from hanging a swastika, for example, on my wall right now.

You can. But, if the swastika/calendar is used to intimidate a person that you have supervisory power over you could be in trouble. It's all about the relationship b/w boss and employee. Not so much about the material.

Note: If this guy went to the highest supervisor available and was later fired he'd have a nice whistle blower/ Qui tam suit. He screwed up when he quit.
 
2005-06-13 06:19:07 PM
This guy has obviously consumed more than a few Sperm Shots at Carl's while the wife isn't looking.

He can't be a prude. Prudes wouldn't live in Reno to begin with.

/Lived there for a while.
//Loved the cheap booze, swingers clubs, loose slots, and pretty neon signs.
///Sucks that you have to go to Carson City for clean hookers and across the state line for decent weed, though.
 
2005-06-14 05:33:08 AM
and to think, at my job they block garden gnomes as adult content...never mind boobies...

/GARDEN GNOMES are adult content!?
//frakin army
///**mubbles something about everyone is gonna pay**
 
2005-06-14 07:50:43 AM
A room with porn or cheesecake all over the place is more of a clubhouse than a workplace. So this guy complains and the boss retaliates. Take the words sexual harassment out of it and you have a case of a supervisor being hostile towards one of his employee's sensitivities.
Yes we all think about sexuality. We are drawn to it. That doesn't mean we need to look at it when we are at our desks.

Perhaps we should be glad that a guy who has the keys to our daughters' dorm rooms wants to keep his workplace asexual.

Why didn't he change the screensaver? Maybe he never learned how. It wasn't necessarily an important part of his job being a locksmith and all.
 
Displayed 29 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report