Sexual Harassment

[Capetan Mihali]

Yeah, I don't know about the scandy equivalent to "cunt", but it wouldn't shock me in Canada to be accused of sexual harassment to use that word in the workplace.

It is not in good taste or even polite. But profanity is not harassment anywhere is it?

Sexually harassing profanity is, of course.

so is a Sexually Harassing Capetan Mihali, but then again, I can use adjectives as well.

  Capetans Mihali are either iterations of this online persona, or the book from which the name comes, not of a category of speech that is by definition socially unacceptable at some level...

[Sheilbh]

I think the phrase could be considered sexual harassment.  Though, not if it were used against a man.

[dps]

In the U.S., it absolutely could be considered sexual harrassment.  Basically, harrassment on the job is anything that creates a hostile work environment.  Of course, lots of things can create a hostile work environment, and there's nothing illegal about behavoir that creates a hostile work environment in general.  But if a worker feels that the hostility is directed towards them because of their gender, race, etc., then it is illegal. 

Given that in the U.S., calling a woman a "fucking cunt" would usually be considered on of the harshest insult you could throw at her, yeah, it would be considered sexual harrassment if she complained.

[Martinus]

I think the phrase could be considered sexual harassment.  Though, not if it were used against a man.

I think it depends on the definition of sexual harassment. I think it was gender/sex-based ("sexist") harassment (an equivalent of calling a gay person a "faggot" or calling a black person a "nigger"), but I thought that sexual harassment means an unwelcome sexual advance or some sorts.

[Martinus]

Here's a dictionary definition of sexual harassment:

"Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors"

To me "sexual" means alluding to, involving or implying a sex act, and not just related to the gender of the person being harassed. For the record, I am not saying the guy should not be fired - to me it was clearly a case of gender-based abuse and it should be possible to fire someone for that just as it possible to fire someone for racist or homophobic harassment - but it does not fit the description of sexual harassment imo.

To summarise: sexual = related to sex understood in the context of sexuality; sexist = related to sex understood as biological gender.

[Martinus]

I just hope there is gender equality in Norway, and if a woman calls a guy a "dick", she is fired as well.

Edit: I wonder if "asshole" would be fire-able offense if used against either gender or just men?

[Slargos]

Reading this, I just realized I have been sexually harassed many times on the job. 

Perhaps I should file a complaint. Maybe there's some money in it for me.

[grumbler]

Here's a dictionary definition of sexual harassment:

"Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors"

To me "sexual" means alluding to, involving or implying a sex act, and not just related to the gender of the person being harassed. For the record, I am not saying the guy should not be fired - to me it was clearly a case of gender-based abuse and it should be possible to fire someone for that just as it possible to fire someone for racist or homophobic harassment - but it does not fit the description of sexual harassment imo.

To summarise: sexual = related to sex understood in the context of sexuality; sexist = related to sex understood as biological gender.

As the lawyers on the board will tell you, dictionary definitions are of limited utility in understanding legal issues.

The use of the term "cunt" is, of course, crude and beyond the pale as far as professionalism is concerned, and if the guy is in an at-will employment situation, could easily serve as grounds for dismissal.  A single use of the term is insufficient to establish sexual harassment on "hostile work environment" grounds in the US, and the victim has t have taken steps to get the guy to stop before she complains about sexual harassment (which may have happened here, of course).

So, I agree that the guy may well have crossed the line into legally verboten territory, but that isn't clear from what I have seen so far.  We need to know how the relevant law, not the dictionary, defines sexual harassment if we want to say anything about whether or not he has broken it.

[Martinus]

People from numerous jurisdictions have weighed in on how this is or is not sexual harassment - as such I believe we are not discussing the legal meaning of the term in Norway, but the "common sense" meaning - since otherwise the discussion would be moot.

As you can also see I said in my first post that this depends on the definition of sexual harassment. My second post is an extension of the first.

Seriously, it's kinda annoying to see you constantly "not get it". There is no point discussing Norwegian law unless you are a Norwegian lawyer. Since neither of us is, the only thing we can discuss is whether we think the behaviour like that should be considered sexual harassment. I presented arguments why I think it shouldn't - if you want to argue with me, present counter-arguments, not a lame "we don't know what Norwegian law says" non-answer.

[Viking]

From what I gather from Norwegian Law is that there must be a subordinate-superior relationship. Athletes are not employees of the sports committee which has hired the coach.

Which is probably why they went with the "conduct unbecoming" bit.

Furthermore, it seems my dodgy internet sources were wrong about what he said. He did not say "[she is]a fucking cunt" but rather "suck my dick". This was at a dinner in berlin. He was presumably drunk and has been known to frequently use colloquialisms.

This is a whole fuckup. This is what happens when newspapers make suggestive headlines without details. Then I go on the internet and try to find out the details.

[Martinus]

Suck my dick sounds more like sexual harassment, yeah.

[Rasputin]

Here's a dictionary definition of sexual harassment:

"Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors"

To me "sexual" means alluding to, involving or implying a sex act, and not just related to the gender of the person being harassed. For the record, I am not saying the guy should not be fired - to me it was clearly a case of gender-based abuse and it should be possible to fire someone for that just as it possible to fire someone for racist or homophobic harassment - but it does not fit the description of sexual harassment imo.

To summarise: sexual = related to sex understood in the context of sexuality; sexist = related to sex understood as biological gender.

As the lawyers on the board will tell you, dictionary definitions are of limited utility in understanding legal issues.

The use of the term "cunt" is, of course, crude and beyond the pale as far as professionalism is concerned, and if the guy is in an at-will employment situation, could easily serve as grounds for dismissal.  A single use of the term is insufficient to establish sexual harassment on "hostile work environment" grounds in the US, and the victim has t have taken steps to get the guy to stop before she complains about sexual harassment (which may have happened here, of course).

So, I agree that the guy may well have crossed the line into legally verboten territory, but that isn't clear from what I have seen so far.  We need to know how the relevant law, not the dictionary, defines sexual harassment if we want to say anything about whether or not he has broken it.

This is the correct analysis. In most Federal Circuits within the U.S. everyone gets essentially one free grab of the ass. Until and unless she says no or that she finds it offensive and the offender continues he has not actually created a sexually hostile work environment. The quid pro quo analysis differs a bit but that one's easy for anyone to spot.

[Rasputin]

Suck my dick sounds more like sexual harassment, yeah.

Not necessarily.


"Suck my dick if you want the promotion" is harassment.

"Suck my dick" may merely be foreplay if the advance is welcomed or non offensive to your co-woker.

It can still get you fired, but may not technically be sexual harassment.

[Grallon]

I've called some of my straight male co-workers: cocktease, stud, handsome.  Was this sexual harassment?    The one I called cocktease was rather pleased with himself too - he kept laughing and making innuendos...  And I wanted to fuck him all the more for it.

Why is it straight guys derive such apparent pleasure in making us salivate!?




G.

[grumbler]

People from numerous jurisdictions have weighed in on how this is or is not sexual harassment - as such I believe we are not discussing the legal meaning of the term in Norway, but the "common sense" meaning - since otherwise the discussion would be moot.

As you can also see I said in my first post that this depends on the definition of sexual harassment. My second post is an extension of the first.

And, as I pointed out, your dictionary definition adds nothing to the discussion, and I don't believe we are discussing the "common sense" definition, but rather whether or not this would be an offense in a specific jurisdiction.

Seriously, it's kinda annoying to see you constantly "not get it". 

People who consistently "do not get it" always say this. 

There is no point discussing Norwegian law unless you are a Norwegian lawyer.

For you, thisd may be true.  Others, however, are interested in discussing whether or not this dismissal for "sexual harassment" was sound from a legal standpoint.  In order to have that discussion, we would need to discuss Norwegian law.

Since neither of us is, the only thing we can discuss is whether we think the behaviour like that should be considered sexual harassment.   

That may, indeed, be the only thing you can discuss, but if so, you need to point out that the context of your dictionary definition is that you cannot discuss anything else.

I presented arguments why I think it shouldn't - if you want to argue with me, present counter-arguments, not a lame "we don't know what Norwegian law says" non-answer.

Your argument was the lame assertion that the 'dictionary definition' should define what sexual harassment is for legal purposes (though you are careful not to say which dictionary defines this phrase, and wisely so, since dictionaries don't define phrases).  The argument that dictionary definitions shouldn't define legal terms is a compelling argument against your lame assertion.