foosballnick wrote:holfresh wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:holfresh wrote:foosballnick wrote:holfresh wrote:foosballnick wrote:holfresh wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:holfresh wrote:I'll re-read it when I have time..The jist of it was MSG was a frat environment, not good for women..It was hard for me to see someone making sexual advances on some one they called a bitch everyday..But the headline sell papers tho..
Just posted my take of the bullet points. And "frat environment" is the whole point: they don't let women join frats! My take on the sexual advances was Isiah using sugar instead of vinegar, a way of joking around and breaking the ice. I've seen this type of thing in real life where a guy really hates a chick but when he sees her pretends he's in love with her. It's part mind game, part ridicule. Just my take though.
Sexual advances is still strong but Dolan was wrong to fire her..She saw an opening and ran with it..The media and some fans don't mind the fanning of flames that Isiah sexual harassed someone..I work in an industry where this was commonplace in the 90s..Strippers were brought into the workplace of people I knew..Women coworkers used to go to strip clubs with us..Women today will go ape sheet with stuff like that..We got banned from strip clubs in early 2000s..I'm familiar with the environment and know how easily people can slip up and can be easily hanged..
Part of successfully working/navigating in any job environment these days is to understand the social and political "rules & risks" of the corporation or societal climate. I read the legal complaint in it's entirety and I agree with the summary DrAlphaeus put forward....I also have the following interpretation......
Browne was hired from as a graduate from a respected school and must have been well thought by her superiors at MSG as she was promoted and in a prominent position. She also received a very good performance evaluation even during all of the turmoil.
Browne and Isiah butted heads mainly due to Marbury. Marbury was Isiah's "starphuck" and was most likely a mess to deal with by MSG brass. He was also most likely a nightmare in his treatment of Browne. Isiah was probably not polished in the correct ways of treating woman in a work environment - and reacted with hostility towards Browne when she encroached on his rules to protect his "star"bury.
When Browne went to Mills - it probably pissed Thomas off further - so he continued to act in a hostile way as only he knew how.
Mills - in his ineffective "yes man" way most likely tried to intervene with Thomas and instruct him to not be hostile as it would cause a rift/risk - so he likely coached Thomas to be charming to Browne instead of hostile.
Thomas - again not understanding the social rules and climate in dealing with woman in the workplace - probably tried to win her over with "charm" thought that meant to try and flatter her and win her over by hitting on her.
Mills - again being completely ineffective and devoid of any purpose failed to properly act as mediator in the situation between Browne and Thomas, nor provide proper counsel to Dolan in what to do in a situation where a Female is making claims of a hostile/ harrassment type chared or in the risks of hiring Marbury's associates & cousins etc at that time.
Dolan - being a completely inept moron firing Browne for non-performance (who his organization promoted and gave good performance reviews to) after claims of Hostility / Sexual Harassment.
You also have to keep in mind that this landscape was still evolving 10 years ago but they still overstepped the boundaries...But in your readings did you think this was a case of sexual harassment meant in the spirit of the law?
I think that Sexual Harassment falls under the umbrella of Hostile Work Environment. So in that sense, yes, I do believe that Sexual Harassment was appropriate in this case. While it's difficult to gage the motives of Thomas, but he did act inappropriately toward a female subordinate and MSG also did not act appropriately to investigate and remedy the situation. MSG (Dolan) also exacerbated the situation and exposed the organization and management by firing the complaining employee during the complaint process.
That all being said - Dolan would have been much better advised/served to offer Brown a golden parachute package/settlement instead of allowing this issue to go to court. His & Thomas ego (and stupidity) got in the way. My further opinion on the bigger issue at hand is that Thomas is likely not all that savy when it comes to running a basketball organization either in management or as a coach. He definitely has basketball smarts and can evaluate talent and has made some prudent and very good draft choices, but he burned bridges in Toronto, did less than expected in Indiana, bankrupted the CBA, was mostly a complete mess in NY and was fired for being a failure at FIU.
The fact that Dolan decided to bring Thomas back for an ownership stake in the Liberty shows us all how A. Stupid and/or B. Oblivious that Dolan actually is. Regardless of how well/bad Thomas actually treats woman, he and MSG lost a high profile suit which the public and woman's groups will consider Sexual Harassment. There has been no public apology by Thomas or Dolan....rather they have taken the opposite stance of defiance. The media mostly hates Dolan and will keep the story going to work woman's groups up into a frenzy. Ownership stake in a WNBA franchise requires league approval. What are the chances of that approval when faced with a woman's groups protesting a woman's sports league?
Well for me it's two different things..Sexual harassment is sexual harassment.. Hostile work environment is calling someone "bitch"..The courts ruled in favor of the latter..
There are a couple of issues here:
- the discrimination, intimidation, and hostility she received from Thomas and Murphy, and the lack of action taken on the part of Mills
- the sexual advances and innuendo from Thomas after his about-face attitude change towards her. Whether serious or mockingly, if he actually said all the things alleged, even if only a couple of those things were said in joke, they would still violate the law
- the sexual harassment of other employees that was reported to Browne: the intern and Marbury, Gonsalves' shenanigans, etc. I think the law allows for a sexual harassment victim to not necessarily be the primary subject of the harassment. In the case of the intern, she may have considered it consensual and Browne may have been digging for dirt, but if there is an unequal relationship of power there, true consent can be questioned after the fact. If a female executive is acting on behalf of behavior reported to her by other women and those matters aren't handled properly, she is able to bring a suit with those claims.
- and like you said, it's all built around wrongful termination, even if that isn't the "sexiest" way to present it. So I hear your point that it's primarily a wrongful termination suit, but based on MSG's failure to properly address her claims of a hostile workplace for women.
Remember, the word "sexual" isn't just referring to the horizontal mambo, it deals with matters relating to sex/gender as well.
I don't agree with your assessment that bitch equals sex...I think calling someone bitch creates a hostile work environment..This is her statement in the Post:
“In an attempt to re-write history, the Garden has issued a Statement about Anucha Browne Sanders’ lawsuit against MSG, Dolan and Thomas that is, at best, misleading and, at worst, a fabrication,’’ Browne’s statement read. “In fact, a jury, after hearing all of the evidence, including Thomas’s self-serving denials, found that Thomas ‘intentionally discriminated against [Browne Sanders] by aiding and abetting a hostile environment based on sex.’
So she won on someone else's sexual advances to a third party which falls under the sexual harassment umbrella..She is saying that Isiah aided and abetted in that environment..I think media and some here wants most to believe Isiah was the party found guilty making those sexual advances...Isiah was guilty of intimidation by calling her a bitch and aided and foster that sexual environment with examples of other peoples advances, strip club admission for opposing teams, etc..
What you think is kind of irrelevant in this situation. There are different types of Sexual Harassment. One is related to a Hostile Work Environment and the another is Quid Pro Quo. This situation falls under the first segment. Your issue it seems is that you are drawing only on your anecdotal experience where you feel that women are suspect in these types of claims. You have to remove your own personal experience.
From a legal standpoint this clearly falls under the category of Sexual Harassment / Hostile Environment. The fact that Marbury alone used constant and consistent derogatory female remarks against Browne and Thomas, Mills & MSG did nothing about it (exept fire her) would be grounds for Sexual Harassment. The fact that Thomas as one of the Key leaders for the Knicks participated and perpetuated this environment made him more complicit. "Bitch" and "Ho" which were the terms used in this case are sexually harassing terms when used in an office workplace and 99% of other work environments.
Sorry - but Thomas should not be put in a prominent position of power in a Woman's Organization with this black mark on his resume. The fact that he is not even sorry for what happened only makes matters worse and makes him seem like more of a scumbag. Woman's groups are going to have a field day with this guy and Dolan.
And no, just because Kyrie Irvin is tweeting Thomas does not mean he has adequate skills to run a Basketball Operation. It means he was once a great PG who these kids still respect for what he did on the floor - that's about it.
I gonna need an official definition where Hostile Environment equal to sexual harassment which is not same as sexual harassment equals/ falls under the umbrella of hostile work environment...
Here is where I got mine..
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm
Facts About Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when 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.
It is helpful for the victim to inform the harasser directly that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. The victim should use any employer complaint mechanism or grievance system available.
When investigating allegations of sexual harassment, EEOC looks at the whole record: the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination on the allegations is made from the facts on a case-by-case basis.
Prevention is the best tool to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace. Employers are encouraged to take steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring. They should clearly communicate to employees that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. They can do so by providing sexual harassment training to their employees and by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains.
It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on sex or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.
Seems like you are very good at taking things out of the context of which they were delivered to illustrate a point...I never said that texting Kyre made him a good person to run a basketball operations...I think the context used had more to do with what his contemporary NBA players and others think of him...
5/7/2015 6:44 PM