I wish my empoyer would expose me to porn.
I'd consider it a benefit not a freaking reason to sue.
how farking delicate do you have to be to cry about seeing a possible exposed boobie on a calandar?
Holy shiat our parts department gives those out.

now if it was like bea aurthur porn, or nell carter porn, then you may have a case...

It saddens me as to how computer illertiate some people are. He worked on the computer day in and day out and didn't even know how to change the screen saver. Would be different if they kept changing it back after him changing it, but no mention of that.

Ah gotta love that american mentality: if it's not my fault i can't fix it, i can just complain

That was my first thought: Change your own friggin screen saver, you puss.

AcornMan, what airport did you fly into? :)

I forgot to mention it's the Vienna International Airport in case anyone wants to do some duty-free shopping on their next trip to Europe.

i'm glad the university can't be sued. the last thing people need is their hard earned tax/school money going to the university lawyers to defend against this asshat.

/former UNR student

We don't allow the users to change the screen saver, or just about anything else here.
Maybe he didn't have local admin rights and his boss did?
Someone without permissions is not illiterate, he might be but you assuming he is shows you might not know as much as you think...

It was in a mechanic's shop. I doubt they have an IT guy around to make sure the admin files aren't tampered with.

It was in a mechanic's shop. I doubt they have an IT guy around to make sure the admin files aren't tampered with.

I was a consultant for an auto shop. The owner had admin rights, no one else but me did. Just sayin....

If they have a network they have some form of IT guy.

Are you sure it wasn't this guy?

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?

The defending lawyers should force a plea-bargain where the offended individual recieves one (1) punch in his teh face

that being said, i can see it becoming a problem if it went on for the many years expressed in the article, especially if his co-workers and superiors started getting all in his fries about it

jst3oThis 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.

This isn't "unintended use" of the law. This kind of thing is exactly what the law is for. Sexual harrassment laws are about making sure that an employee (male or female) can go to work and perform their duties without being immersed in a hyper-sexual environment that makes it hard (no pun) for them to do so.

I know people are laughing because you purpossely seek out boobies during your work day, or wish you could, but this guy obviously has a problem, and a right to work without harrassment.

binnster: I exposed a man to porn in Reno, just to watch him_______


Swoon, do hebetude?

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


Only because you're inherently assuming anything non work-related in an office is automatically inappropriate.


/begin sarcasm
THAT would be a fun office to work in.
/end sarcasm

Polyhazard

Well said. By unintended I only meant that when the laws were written I bet it never occured to anyone that a guy would complain about seeing some boobies. Obviuosly you are correct.

I think it's funny how many people in this thread want to assert that wanting to work in a porn free atmosphere makes this guy gay or just a wuss.

As if viewing porn somehow makes a person a man.

Only because you're inherently assuming anything non work-related in an office is automatically inappropriate.


But non-work related + nudity = illegal.

That's the difference.

Sexual harrassment laws are about making sure that an employee (male or female) can go to work and perform their duties without being immersed in a hyper-sexual environment that makes it hard (no pun) for them to do so.

whaaaaaaaaaaaaa?????

Sexual harassment laws exist to keep people from being marginalized or discriminated against because of their sex.

They're not there so you don't get distracted by sex or sexual imagery.

Im not a prude; as a man Im drawn to that stuff too, but I avoid it in my private life, and I dont need it forced on me at work, said Charles Stricker Jr., whose case is scheduled for trial in U.S. District Court in Reno on Monday. Its inappropriate in the workplace, its unethical, and its illegal by state and federal law.

Main Entry: prude
Pronunciation: 'prd
Function: noun

: a person who is excessively or priggishly attentive to propriety or decorum;

Everyone else seems to be thinking the guy isn't straight, but I wonder if this is a religous thing he has about "lust". Didn't mention it in the article, but it could be a matter of his faith. Or he just wants to sue someone. Whichever.

I can't believe I'm actually going to defend this guy, but here goes...

First off, The whole "porn" thing aside, he's probably more upset about the way he was treated differently after his bosses had to cleanup the "porn".

If you've ever been on the receiving end of a vindictive boss who can't fire you, it can be a living hell with the bullshiat games they play to make your job miserable.

I know, some of you say to just "find another job", but why should he have to leave a job he would otherwise enjoy just because the boss ia an a-hole. I admire his willigness to fight for the right to not be the target of petty retaliation from his bosses.

Of course, I'm basing this argument on the assumption that the guy is really telling the truth. He may very well be trying to just cash in.

They're not there so you don't get distracted by sex or sexual imagery.

I am no law talking guy, but didn't the SCOTUS determine that sexual imagery can create a "hostile" environment?

binnster: I exposed a man to porn in Reno, just to watch him_______

Drool.

binnster
I exposed a man to porn in Reno, just to watch him_______

More fun with blanks:

When I hear that ______ blowin',
I hang my head and cry.

/mad props on the Johnny Cash reference. Laughed when I saw it.

didn't the SCOTUS determine that sexual imagery can create a "hostile" environment

It may contribute to a hostile environment, and create a hostile environment. But Sexual harrassment laws were not designed specifically so you couldn't put up pictures of women.

It's the hostility that makes it an illegal act, not creating a "hyper-sexual" environment.

DeanMoriarty
Sexual harassment laws exist to keep people from being marginalized or discriminated against because of their sex.

Here are the guidelines from the EEOC
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:

* The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
* The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
* The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
* Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
* The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome

So yeah, as I said, this is exaclt what the law is intended for

As if viewing porn somehow makes a person a man.

Not if you start out as a woman.

arg. preview is good. y'all can figure it out

It's the hostility that makes it an illegal act, not creating a "hyper-sexual" environment.

OK.

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?

maybe he's just gay and still in denial.
but just loves to use the workplace shower extensively.

jst3p:

We don't allow the users to change the screen saver, or just about anything else here.

Maybe he didn't have local admin rights and his boss did?

Someone without permissions is not illiterate, he might be but you assuming he is shows you might not know as much as you think...



Since when do you need to have local admin rights to be able to change the screen saver??? Geez, that's an easy hack to manage if you are sitting at the computer. One place I worked put the MS logo screen saver with a password protected screen saver set to time out in only 1 minute as the standard for everyone and put it into the GPO. Next day my screen saver was back to 10 minutes, no password protection, and running the Matrix. They noticed, but were afraid to say anything :-)

//Yes, I'm that pathetic of a geek
//Watch out for the ones with no sun tan...

* Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.


Anyone else read that entirely wrong?

Here's my general point:

guys like this do more harm than good to the idea of safe workplaces. The point of sedual harassment legislation is to prevent you from being discrimintaed aginst because of your sex, or to prevent you from being made to feel subservient. It eliminates the glass ceiling, in theory.

That's not the case here, and this guy's making the idea of sexual harassment look like a joke. The nexst time a woman comes forward with a real case and is mocked, remeber all the cases like this when thin-skinned prigs couldn't solve their own problems.

Since when do you need to have local admin rights to be able to change the screen saver??? Geez, that's an easy hack to manage if you are sitting at the computer. One place I worked put the MS logo screen saver with a password protected screen saver set to time out in only 1 minute as the standard for everyone and put it into the GPO. Next day my screen saver was back to 10 minutes, no password protection, and running the Matrix. They noticed, but were afraid to say anything :-)

Your admin sucked, plain and simple.

Group Policy is a better way to restrict such things and while it may be hackable by some I don't think you are among them.

Then again hacking group policy is grounds for dismissal here.

Lighten up, Francis.

ounds like this guy was treated with hostility after he asked that the nekkid laides be removed from his workspace, would you agree?

He's suing for sexual harassment and retaliation.

sounds like the retaliation element covers his after-hissy-fit treatment.

Polyhazard

when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.


Read that again, figure out the intent, and get back to me.

He's suing for sexual harassment and retaliation.

sounds like the retaliation element covers his after-hissy-fit treatment.

I was under the impression that the retaliation is still covered by sexual harassment. You can't sue for just retalitation can you?

DeanMoriarty

Sexual harrassment is just one subset of sex discrimination. Your "eliminates the glass ceiling" comment makes me think you understand otherwise.

Why do you think the guidelines specify that the victim can be of either sex?

Tyee

Light in the loafers I bet.

I wouldn't want to see porn at work either. Going to suggest that I'm queer too?

Programmer Cat


I wouldn't want to see porn at work either. Going to suggest that I'm queer too?

While I agree with PC here, please don't call him queer. I already know enough about he and his wifes very hetero sex life. :^)

He has the right to not be exposed to this at work. He may be a prude but its still has right. And no, that doesn't mean he's gay.

DeanMoriarty


The "retaliation" case would be impossible without the sexual harassment case, thus they are linked.

Sexual harrassment is just one subset of sex discrimination. Your "eliminates the glass ceiling" comment makes me think you understand otherwise.

Why do you think the guidelines specify that the victim can be of either sex?

No, i think you're reading "glass ceiling" as just a way of opressing women.

I'm talking about any invisible barrier used to keep a person below you. That it most often applies to women is irrelevant.


Seriously, read that bit again. Not that you'll change your mind or anything, but most right-thinking people understand where sexual harrassment laws are intended to provide remedies - and it ain't in a locksmith shop with a bunch of guys looking at porn.

There are millions of other laws that already cover that, and this mocks the idea of resolving actual harassment issues.

Not that you'll change your mind or anything, but most right-thinking people understand where sexual harrassment laws are intended to provide remedies - and it ain't in a locksmith shop with a bunch of guys looking at porn.

So then you think this guy should just suck it up and work in a hostile environment because of his profession?

The "retaliation" case would be impossible without the sexual harassment case, thus they are linked.

how ya figure?

What if they'd treated him like crap because he said their shoes were ugly? He'd still have the retaliation element.

the sexual harassment element is there because of the nudie pics. That's the part i find ridiculpous. The rest of it, all the power to him.

Retaliation is covered by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. He's basically a whistleblower. Most places of business have policies that dictate what kinds of images one can have in an office. This is a University and I can almost guarantee you they did as well. If you have to dress a certain way in a business setting and it does not include bathing suits and nudity, why should you be allowed to hang it on the walls? In the same way that Fark tells us that we should label links and such NSFW, b/c most places of employment have policies that govern such things and obviously this one should have one, and if they don't, I am sure they will have one in the future.

So then you think this guy should just suck it up and work in a hostile environment because of his profession?

No, I think that

a) This ISN'T sexual harassment, and he should have gone about fixing it in a different way;

b) his approach to "fixing" it probably contributed to the hostility;

and

c) there are plenty of workplace laws that can deal with issues like this without invoking sexual harassment if he needed to go to an outside source.

If you have to dress a certain way in a business setting and it does not include bathing suits and nudity, why should you be allowed to hang it on the walls?

I have a picture of a lacrosse player in my office, but I don't wear a helmet to work.

By all means, though, let's keep moving closer to Kafka's version of an ideal workplace.

a) This ISN'T sexual harassment, and he should have gone about fixing it in a different way;


I am curious, what different way?

there are plenty of workplace laws that can deal with issues like this without invoking sexual harassment if he needed to go to an outside source.

There are workplace laws that deal with sexual imagery that have nothing to do with sexual harassment? Could you cite a source?

Not trying to be smarmy, I thought they all fell under sexual harassment.

perisoft

mastermuncher

wait...wait.....smell that.......it smells like a someone
is sniffing out a "lottery" doesnt it...


farking "victims".....If you dont like whats on TV, turn
the channel, dont try to force EVERYONE else to change
cause you dont want to see cleavage....farkING AMISH
BASTARD"....Bet this pricks given name is Hezakiah.....

Wow.

Yeah, I couldn't say it any better myself... I really don't quite understand how, in the course of 4 lines you can be angry at people who blame tv, people who feel uncomfortable for not looking at cleavage, and the amish. Wait, what did the Amish have to do with ANYTHING again?

Also, on the "just because you don't want to see cleavage" comment, my friend has an artistic picture on her wall of a man whose pants are low... you can see hair but nothing else really, everything is covered. Her friends have INSISTED that she take it down because it makes them uncomfortable, meanwhile if you want into their rooms, there are nude models everywhere.

I have a feeling you're one of thos a$$hats that gets angry when you get shown something YOU don't like, but are perfectly ok forcing images like that on other people.

/actually rather fond of porn
//also thinks the dude is just gay

jst3p

He had a problem with three people. People who like hanging pictures of naked women on the walls.

figuring that you can't just ask them to take them down, a well-placed anonymous tip to the school or NLRB would have helped.

that's assuming a regular discussion about it wouldn't have helped. "Repeated complaints" are going ot tab you as a malcontent no matter what the environment.

2 - 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.


anyway, gotta go to a meeting.