**********
****** ******* ******** ****** ****** *** 22 **** *** ******* ******* *** Davis ********** **. ** * *********. This *** ** ***** ****. *** company ********* *** ***** *** **** employed *** *** ******** ** * manager. ** *** * ****** ********, but ****** ***** ******* ***** **** she *** *** * **** ** the ******.
** **** * ****** **-****** ********* a ************ ******* *** ********’* **** the ** ********** ****** ** *** disturbing *** *** *****'* ******* ***** follow ****** ****** *** **** ** on *** ****, ***** *** ****.
“***** *********** ****, [*** ** **********] moved *** ******** ****** **** ** its ****** ********, *** **** **** an **** ***** ** ******* *** camera *** ***** **** ** ***** on ******’* *********, ********** ******* ** to ***** ** *** **** *** chest,”********* ** ***** *********.
** ****’* **** ***** ****, **** someone **** *** ** ********** **** Kelley * *** **** ***** ** footage ** *** ** **. ** also **** *** *** **** **** showing *** **********, **** ***, *** been *********** *** ******.
*** **** *** *** **** *** watched **. * *** ***** **** the *****, “*** ****** ***** ** closer ** ******’* **** *** *****. Several ***** ********** *** ***, *** camera ********** ******* ** ******* ******’* movements ****** *** **** ***** *** on ******* ********* ***** ** ** that ******’* ***** ** *** **** object ******* ** *** ******.”
*** **** *** *** ******** **** she ***** ** *** ******* *****’* daughter *** ***** ** **** *** rest ** *** *** ***, *** as *** *** *******, *** ******* owner ****** *** **** *** ****** to **** *** **** ** **** uses *** ******* ** **** ** women ** *** ***** *** **** “men **** ****** **** ** ********* women.”
*** **** ******, ** ****, *** action ** **** ******* ***, ***** not ** ***** *********. *** **** the ****** *** ***** ********.
EEOC ***********
****** ***** * ********* **** *** EEOC. *** ****** ****** ** *************, which ********* **** ***** *** “********** cause ** ******* **** ********* ************* against **. ****** ** *** ***** of ***/****** ** ********** *** ** sexual ********** *** ************** *********** ***.”
*** ****** ***** ************ ******* **** the *******, ***** ******. ** ** August ****, ** ***** * ******* saying ******’* ******* ******* * ******** hostile **** *********** **** “*******, ************* video ************ ... ******** *** ******* on *** ****, **** *** *****.” The**** *** ***** **** ****** *** ******* ***** ****.
“****** ** ****** ***** *********** ** places **** ******** ******* *** *****’* think **** **** **** ******,” ***** documents ***.
The **********
** **** ** ************* ************** ********** *** ******* ** *** Kelley $**,*** *** ******* **** ******** job ********** *** ***.
** *** **** ******* ** ******* its ********* **** ****** ****** ********** training **** *** ** ** ******** in ****** ** *** **** *** prove ******** **** ** ** ********** with *** **********.
*** *******, **** ******* ** *****, told ** ** *** ******* ** say ***** *** ****.
********
**** ** ******* **** ** ************* use ** ******* ** *** *********. In ******* ** ******* * **** where ****** *** ***** *** ********* **** same **** ** ********. ** ****** ***** *** ****** *** prevalent **** **.
******'* **** *********** *** ********** ** end ***** ****** ************ ****** ******** to ********** ******* **** ** ********** use *** *** ****** *** **** is ***. ******** ****** ** ***** on ******* *****, *** **** ** local, ***** *** ******* **** ** well. **** ******* **** **** ** seems **** *** ******* *** ** the ****** *** ** **** ** women - ***** *** **** **** acceptable **********, *** ******* *********** ****** harassment.
************ ********** ****** **** ** ***** that ****** ********** **** *** ** tolerated.
Comments (36)
Create New Topic
Alex K
I read the case linked in the post. can you show me where in that case someone admits to looking at breasts as the headline suggests ?
Create New Topic
Rukmini Wilson
Carlton, how do you think the case would have turned out if hi-res digital PTZ had been employed instead of mechanical PTZ?
There would little evidence except maybe fleeting eye-witness tesitimony and hearsay...
Although one could argue that even without evidence the crime still occurred, consider the fact that with dPTZ the recordings are just as 'valuable' as the live view and therefore could be viewed and zoomed years after the employee stopped working there! And so I ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in such a case, when exactly does the harrasment occur?
Create New Topic
J. A. 'Cal' Calcaterra
Br.... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Harassment? Where does one start. With a nose over the cubicle X's the lenth of time. Or, via a 'spy'glass from a ship? The apartment across they way?
More the bias behind the perception? Eh.
"What size bra is that? I'll figure it out sometime". That would be the same bra (if at all?) worn all day in the office. 'Exposed' to peers? On the way home, public transit. Ad nausium. The wrong person paid attention?
If one is caught surprised by an earthquake during a news telecast. And the sequence is played over (Tonight show say) and over by the comedic twits? Harassment?
Nothing noted about the continued employment of IT folk that provided the data. AKA Eric Snowden? :-O Or Who was harassing whom?
ONLY $11,000. What's wrong with that picture? Dirty lens?
"therefore could be viewed and zoomed years after the employee stopped working there! And so I ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in such a case, when exactly does the harrasment occur?"
Digitally forever?
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Manufacturer #2
I don't think the settlement was paultry. They got a financial penalty for lascivious behavior, not taking nude shots in the bathroom and posting them online (but who knows what may come up in the future). It was probably close to 3 or 4 months of pay. The company is compelled to implement harrasment training. They have to give her a favorable reference. I'm sure and hope her legal fees are covered. I think the punishment fit the crime. But of course that's always subjective.
The fact she didn't get a lawyer and call every news station she could and hire a PR firm, I'm inclined to think it wasn't about the money to her. She just wanted validation they were wrong, get them help in correcting the behavior, and give her enough to live on until she found another job.
Create New Topic
Margarita Castillo
And what about the injustice women have to suffer? I'll leave it at that... I'm sure you get my drift. Oh wait... maybe not.
Create New Topic
J. A. 'Cal' Calcaterra
John, How are these responses not in sync, sequenced according to receipt. My comment and yours was an hour ago and the two following (above this input) shows a day a go. What is controlling that?
"Cal, stop it. If you have real evidence contrary to the findings of the EEOC, feel free to share."
So asking questions that might garner same doesn't qualify?
I guess suggesting that the IT dept. Taking it upon themselves to disseminate company data, is OK? Irregardless of later findings of the EEOC.
If you won't or can't answer the questions. So be it.
"Otherwise, your disguising random speculation as some form of intelligent questions is unhelpful and offensive to other members of the community."
Are you now speaking for everyone else? Implying censorship? Kinda heavy handed. EH?
Maybe there should be a 'First Amendment area'. AKA the BLM rounding up range cows so they don't step on defenseless turtles. Then these questions wouldn't seen and/or presumed offensive to others. :-(
I've speculatd here openly. Have no problem as in my ongoing life the same has triggered susequent value. Have no problem doing so again. No more needs to be said.
Thanks for the opportunity. :-)
Create New Topic
J. A. 'Cal' Calcaterra
Thanks John, I understand. Perfectly.
Create New Topic
Tedor Gligorich
The alledgedly evil man has died. His pleasure is now fully lessened. Once before dying Alm told about what he believed happens with his camera equipment and its ptzooming,
The owner/operator lives on and never admitted to it.
Create New Topic