** This site is best viewed using Internet Explorer 7.0+ or Firefox 3.0+ Download Firefox for FREE **
Subscribe by RSSSubscribe by RSS Subscribe by EmailSubscribe by Email

Quoted expert agrees with George: Calif. harassment case is out of mainstream

See my comment to this post by Michael.

HR.BLR.com has a story on the case that quotes William C. Quackenbush, “an employment law expert”:

The courts that have considered it have previously rejected this concept in California, and most federal courts likewise have rejected paramour favoritism as being a basis for a claim.

“CA Court Expands Definition of Harassment”

Told you so . . . (not to detract from Michael’s warning that workplace romances carry many risks, legal and otherwise.)

Sphere: Related Content


Add to StumbleUponAdd to MySpaceAdd to Delicious Add to FacebookFurl this pageReddit this pageDIGG this pageAdd to MySpaceAdd to GoogleAdd to Mixx!

Related Posts

  • Discrimination Because of “Sex” Isn’t Necessarily Sex Discrimination

  • When Bullying Becomes A Case of Sexual Harassment

  • Is Workplace Bullying Cause for Concern?

  • Transgender Issues in the Workplace: Tip of the Iceberg?

  • Is anyone taking “The Office” seriously? Should we?


  • Posted by George Lenard
    on July 21, 2005

    If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing.

    Comments

    As you probably know if you read this blog at all carefully, I’m NOT an attorney. HOWEVER, the basic tip I have received from every attorney I ever chatted with about HR was: “minimize your risks.” While this court decision might be an outlier and may not become a commonly accepted opinion, it doesn’t mean you should go out and have an affair at work (let alone with three women at the same time!).

    At the very least, it might get you in a lot of trouble with your spouse, girlfriend, or one of the other people you are having an affair with.

    P.S. Don’t worry, George. I won’t tell your wife about your romantic relationship with the secretary at your office.

    Such conservative risk-minimization is furthered by using this blawg to publicize the latest theories accepted by the most liberal courts.

    Yet I have no desire to stir the litigation pot by giving creative ideas to the employees and their lawyers who I am sure lurk amongst our readers.

    Hence the balance here: as employer, or manager: heed Michael’s advice, to stay on the safe side; as an employee in such an environment: forget it — you got no case — just shut up and do your job!

    As to my secretary, there are two, they do a super job, and they sometimes read this blawg. So let me make this perfectly clear: Michael was JUST KIDDING! I like them both, but not that way!

    Leave a comment

    (required)

    (required)