soapy©

people are targeted are the ones who dont stand up.
i doubt if this guy would have tried it on again if she was able to bring him down and put him in his place.

a bully will only pick on someone who can defend themself once! (unless team handed)

i agree it should have been regarded as a criminal act, but if the company dont react then this maybe the only way to make them listed.

soapy©

lets kill all the men who help the women get pregnant

Kelli28

The law that prohibits sexual harassment is the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.
The federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984, is administered by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

I guess the same could be said about men.

You think 5% is taking the piss? I don't think 5% is harsh enough but lets hope it's enough to make them rethink how senior management behave.

Pollyana

Back in the UK at one time I was the supervisor in an office with two staff, one of whom was a policewoman on light duties. When she was transferred to us we were given the reason that she was suffering post-traumatic stress due tio sexual harassment by the guys she worked with in her previous station. Allegedly they would leave girlie mags in her intray, make suggestive comments about her clothing, talk about what they'd to use handcuffs for etc. She was then pursuing a sexual harassment case, suing the Force as a whole.

She used to turn up for work with her blouse undone to an almost indecent level, skirt hitched up, not much good as a worker cos she spent most of the time talking to her mates on the phone, but I had orders not to stress her by reprimanding her. She would complain if the older guys brushed against her in the corridor, and we had a huge system of filing drawers necessitating similar "Twister"type moves to those in Aus Post (I've worked on those, nightmarish things!)The woman in the other position left and was replaced by a temp, pleasant, hard-working, good-looking young gay bloke. From that moment we got less than no work from Madam. She would lean over his desk with her blouse gaping, sit on her desk with her skirt hitched up, talk suggestively about "converting him" when on the phone, knowing we could hear every word.
The culmination of it was when I turned round one day to see her walk across the office, sit on his lap, wind her arm round his neck and start whispering in his ear.
She was moved the next day, but they did nothing about her behaviour, even though I pointed out it was quite obviously unwarranted - the guy was 100% gay and the look of horror on his face had to be seen to be believed.

She won her case against the Force and took early medical retirement because of PTSD with pension etc (she was about 30 at the time!). When you see a case go through with double standards like that it tends to leave a sour taste. I know there are many honest and legitimate cases brought, but cases like hers really make me stop and wonder what the "other side " of the story is - sad but true.

sonlymewalter

..........

Cheetah7

That story has just made me feel physically sick - she deserved nothing, nothing at all, not even an apology and I am actually doubting the credibility of her story as a whole.

What about the poor guy she was harrassing or do his feelings not count?

Bloody bitch, if she is going to be rude in the workplace and be 'one of the lads' then that is fine, but for Gods sake dont throw the helpless female act into it to try and get a bit of cash.

How on earth did you bite your tongue Polly? I would have been sorely tempted to grass her up and stand against her in court if such a thing was possible.

Pollyana

I did give her a telling-off over harrasing the temp guy, and made sure the boss knew about it, as he was the one telling me "don't give her a hard time, she's got PTSD" . It did go on her file, along with a few comments about her total lack of commitment to work, but at the time (10 years ago) harrasment cases in the police were big news and she was on a winner from the start. I had actually left the Force by the time the original case came to court, it took so long. I was already out here, and heard the result from friends still there. The guy didn't want to make a big thing of it at the time, he was only about 20, heading for a career in a different field and it probably wouldn't have looked too good for him in that field if he'd got involved. I could see his point too, the way the world views such cases may not be fair, but that's the way it is unfortunately.

She caused a lot of upset for the whole unit as we all had a great working relationship before that, men and women together, but she stirred up a lot of suspicion about people's motives and stuff, not a good atmosphere to work in at all.

ABCDiamond

He was MALE. It is generally a one sided law.

sonlymewalter

No it's not. The law is in place to protect both men and women, it's just that it tends to be males in positions of responsibility who abuse this power.

Generally speaking.

Deancm_MKII

How many men are taking their employers to court for $37 million?

DJ's have an average annual profit of c$100m (not sure if that is net or gross). The $37m is 5% of their annual profits over the amount of years he was at DJ's. $37m equates to 37% of annual profits. Yes it's taking the piss massively.

ABCDiamond

They have been laughed out of court for a lot less

But for a woman to claim $37m, some seem to feel it is OK.

The problem is this absurd $37m figure. And it is overshadowing the real position, as can be seen by all our comments.

If the figure was realistic, I doubt many of us, if any, would take the positions against this woman that are being taken.

sonlymewalter

the figure is intended to make the company shit themselves, take stock and do something. It also serves as a lesson to other companies cos you can as sure as hell beleive no other company will let themselves get in that position after this. So its actually a great ploy cos business is all about money...It's not a real amount....and as you say its a joke....

Let's not let the real problem be overshadowed by stupid lawyers and their silly price tags...

Deancm_MKII

Instead all the $37m price tag has done is sway public opinion and make her look like a gold-digger.

sonlymewalter

it's courted publicity which is exactly the right thing to make change

MartinLuther

$37m will cause a lot of pain but mostly to shareholders and employees.