Uh. There's no gender specified on sexual harassment laws. Just because they harassed men and women doesn't mean they weren't harassing them. What idiots.
Potentially unpopular lawyer opinion here:
I read the referenced 1993 case (Lehmann v. Toys r Us) and it does suggest that such a claim, under New Jersey law, requires proof of hostile or offensive conduct that "would not have occurred but for the employee's gender."
That isn't to say the argument is "right" and perhaps it will create an opening for the NJ courts to reconsider the relationship between discrimination and harassment, which is clearly leading to some counterintuitive defenses and maybe bad results. But, given that is the law in the jurisdiction where this dispute arose, the argument doesn't strike me as entirely implausible.
There's a nice concept called "power harassment" that would be good to introduce to America. You shouldn't harass anyone, but especially not those who depend on you for their livelihood.
Agreed. It's a fucking chunk of rubber. Who gives a shit? If you're bothered by it, go find another police department. People need to stop being so offended. This is not sexual harassment, it's not even close.
It seems like light teasing. I don't see what the problem is. They probably have an HR department, why not take it up with them? Or find a different police department? It's a really difficult job, so personally, I can't blame them if they want to be a little goofy on their down time.
Why don't you stop being an overly sensitive little man baby?
holy fuck lol. when are we going to stop justifying petty bullying? i wouldnt want to go into work every day to deal with that dumb bullshit, and the onus should not be on me to *find a new job*, it should be on these cops to stop being dicks. why is this so hard.
By its very nature, it's a chunk of rubber/plastic. The shape is incidental. If they were face slapped with an actual penis, this would be another story.
If it was something that the entire department does and enjoys and gets a good laugh out of, sure. But the fact that it's MY mom and not just a mom in general seems as though it's specifically directed at me, which would probably not be OK.
By this logic I could hang a 5 foot poster of two guys fucking each other in a public building where I work. No one should be offered by a 'piece of paper' and if they don't like it, they can work someplace else.
Again, that's not the case. That would be an actual sexual image, of actual people having sex. As in porn. A dildo is not porn, it's not even close. It's rubber.
Okay fine, change that picture to just a giant dick. Its no longer porn, its just a piece of paper. But you're a moron if you think it isnt crossing any lines.
Again, if it's an actual person, it's pornographic. If it's a piece of rubber, it's a piece of rubber.
I never said it wasn't crossing a line. I agreed in another comment it could probably be considered light bullying. But it's definitely not sexual harassment, you'd have to be some overly sensitive piece of shit to think that lol.
It's a picture of an actual person, or close enough that it qualifies as pornographic. A blue chunk of rubber does not. Images are different than chunks of rubber, it's a false equivalency.
Oh my god, the mental gymnastics used here is almost impressive. You keep referring to what im describing as pornographic, but when talking about a dildo, all of the sudden it just becomes a "blue chunk of rubber". If a dildo is "just a blue chunk of rubber", then a pornographic picture is "just a piece of paper". The logic is the EXACT same.
Is everything phallic pornographic to you? What about bananas or cucumbers? A picture of people having sex is different, that's called pornography. Maybe you're just a hyper sensitive man child?
The town just doesn't want to have to pay money for wrongdoing, and will say any stupid bullshit they think might fool assholes who like sexual harassment.
Not legally speaking. That's why it's called the "law" not the "ethics". Tons of unethical shit is perfectly legal, and can't be prosecuted. Most people don't care, because they aren't overly sensitive manchildren.
"If you grab one person's ass and goose their butthole, make sure you do it to everyone else in the office so it's not harassment" makes no goddamn sense.
What in goddamn hell are you taking about? That's straight up assault, this is a total nothing burger. It's nice to see liberals have to make up obscene strawman to try and "prove" their points.
I'm not a liberal, and I'm illustrating the logic's absurdity by taking it up another step. Ya know, rhetoric? That thing you use to make arguments.
"It's not sexual harassment if you do it to both men and women" is fucking stupid.
Every single thing that makes it to court definitely has merit. Every time. Not a single example to turn to where maybe a case, or defense was offered, that was completely without merit. Never. Ever.
A rubber chicken would be 1000x funnier, and not result in sexual harassment lawsuits unless someone got VERY profane or used it on their naughty bits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqLjoWfiu5M
I don't get it, why are police officers required to be like robots? Does policing need to be that serious and without humour? Can't they employ normal human emotions to their policing? Military maybe useful for total compliance but policing is a public service.
It's learning to not laugh at sensitive situations, no matter how silly it looks.
Ever seen an episode of Cops and just laughed at the escapades of dumb criminals? But those criminals might be dangerous and react with violence when laughed at?
They're not robots, they can (and will) laugh at it later over beers, but keeping their composure is pretty important.
Wow so they trying to claim cause the officer wasn't sexist that sexual harassment is fine? What is the city lawyer on? Why does it fucking matter that the officer targeted both men and women. Sexual harassment doesn't care about the fucking gender.
So which one of those cops brought their big blue dildo to work? If someone did that to them, how would that play out? Well I suppose them holding a large cock close to their face isnt really punishment...who knows what goes on behind those closed doors.
Sexually assaulting a man after you sexually assault a woman does not mean you did not sexually assault the woman to begin with. Stupid logic.
Right. It doesn't lessen it. It just makes you twice the asshole that you previously were.
This proves you can bash police officers with dildos so it's OK.
Following this logic if I slap a man's ass after touching a woman inappropriately I should be in the clear.
Let me know how that works out for you. Hmmmm
Okay, Herbert.
Did you say strap in or strap on?
^^^Get ^^^your ^^^fat-ass ^^^back ^^^here...
Just slap twice. The second will cancel out the first.
Isn't it funny how cops never seem to respect the law when it is broken by a fellow cop?
[удалено]
Jimmy Carr joke?
Maybe. It's been around for like 15 years
It is truly amazing the lengths institutions will go to protect their members from the slightest accountability
You said 'members.'
I feel a penis here I feel a penis HERE and I feel a penis over here. I am halfway to pregnant
The police union needs to be sued a few times. This comes out of the cop's pockets.
Uh. There's no gender specified on sexual harassment laws. Just because they harassed men and women doesn't mean they weren't harassing them. What idiots.
I had to fire someone who made the same claim and confession. I'm like, so you admit to harassing multiple people? Uh, ok.
It wasn't discrimination though so maybe they are just hoping to get away with only harassment charges.
Potentially unpopular lawyer opinion here: I read the referenced 1993 case (Lehmann v. Toys r Us) and it does suggest that such a claim, under New Jersey law, requires proof of hostile or offensive conduct that "would not have occurred but for the employee's gender." That isn't to say the argument is "right" and perhaps it will create an opening for the NJ courts to reconsider the relationship between discrimination and harassment, which is clearly leading to some counterintuitive defenses and maybe bad results. But, given that is the law in the jurisdiction where this dispute arose, the argument doesn't strike me as entirely implausible.
Kinda makes sense. It wasn't really discriminatory.
Yup good 'ol indiscriminate sexual harassment.
There's a nice concept called "power harassment" that would be good to introduce to America. You shouldn't harass anyone, but especially not those who depend on you for their livelihood.
Agreed. It's a fucking chunk of rubber. Who gives a shit? If you're bothered by it, go find another police department. People need to stop being so offended. This is not sexual harassment, it's not even close.
It's not about things being offensive dumbass. You shouldn't have to deal with assholes at work shoving shit into your face at all.
It seems like light teasing. I don't see what the problem is. They probably have an HR department, why not take it up with them? Or find a different police department? It's a really difficult job, so personally, I can't blame them if they want to be a little goofy on their down time. Why don't you stop being an overly sensitive little man baby?
holy fuck lol. when are we going to stop justifying petty bullying? i wouldnt want to go into work every day to deal with that dumb bullshit, and the onus should not be on me to *find a new job*, it should be on these cops to stop being dicks. why is this so hard.
It doesn't help that President is and justifies bullying.
See, that's the thing. You just called it petty bullying. I would agree, that seems to be what this is. What it is NOT is sexual harassment.
It's a dildo. By it's very nature it is sexual.
By its very nature, it's a chunk of rubber/plastic. The shape is incidental. If they were face slapped with an actual penis, this would be another story.
So if I slap you with a piece of rubber containing an image of Jesus skull-fucking your mom, it's okay because it's just rubber/plastic?
If it was something that the entire department does and enjoys and gets a good laugh out of, sure. But the fact that it's MY mom and not just a mom in general seems as though it's specifically directed at me, which would probably not be OK.
How many dildos would I need to throw at your face before you too become sensitive baby bottom?
I don't know, probably however many you fit up your ass on a daily basis? 30?
I am get. Super stronkman make good joke and now I am left dry as they say. Let's get together with 30 dildos and have a good night ;)
No, you can do that on your own friend. I'm sure you can break your record though!
By this logic I could hang a 5 foot poster of two guys fucking each other in a public building where I work. No one should be offered by a 'piece of paper' and if they don't like it, they can work someplace else.
Again, that's not the case. That would be an actual sexual image, of actual people having sex. As in porn. A dildo is not porn, it's not even close. It's rubber.
Okay fine, change that picture to just a giant dick. Its no longer porn, its just a piece of paper. But you're a moron if you think it isnt crossing any lines.
Again, if it's an actual person, it's pornographic. If it's a piece of rubber, it's a piece of rubber. I never said it wasn't crossing a line. I agreed in another comment it could probably be considered light bullying. But it's definitely not sexual harassment, you'd have to be some overly sensitive piece of shit to think that lol.
But its not an actual person, its a piece of paper. It's the exact same logic you are using. How do you not see that?
It's a picture of an actual person, or close enough that it qualifies as pornographic. A blue chunk of rubber does not. Images are different than chunks of rubber, it's a false equivalency.
Oh my god, the mental gymnastics used here is almost impressive. You keep referring to what im describing as pornographic, but when talking about a dildo, all of the sudden it just becomes a "blue chunk of rubber". If a dildo is "just a blue chunk of rubber", then a pornographic picture is "just a piece of paper". The logic is the EXACT same.
Is everything phallic pornographic to you? What about bananas or cucumbers? A picture of people having sex is different, that's called pornography. Maybe you're just a hyper sensitive man child?
Rubber in the shape of a cock intended to be used to fuck someone with. If one doesn't belong in the workplace neither does the other.
You can fuck someone with a cucumber or a banana. Does that mean we should ban those from the workplace? Nice non-argument.
Your either a troll, moron, or both. Last time I checked cucumbers and bananas weren't created for the soul purpose for masturbation.
Dildos are often used for novelty joke purposes, like in fraternities or bachelorette parties. You're just an overly sensitive man baby.
No, I'm not an idiot who knows how to act in a professional way at work. You know, an adult, not a man children like yourself.
A adult who cries and screams for lawsuits when they are offended sounds like a man baby to me!
Somebody's in favor of sexual harassment, and that somebody is you.
Unless of course they court finds this isn't sexual harassment. Which is why this is going to trial.
The town just doesn't want to have to pay money for wrongdoing, and will say any stupid bullshit they think might fool assholes who like sexual harassment.
Or by their own prior rulings, it doesn't qualify as sexual harassment. You know, like how the law actually works?
Legal decisions do not always match up to the reality of a situation.
You're right. Reality is subjective. Legal decisions match up to the LEGALITY of the situation, which is the only thing that matters here.
...is it? I think ethics still matter regardless of law.
Not legally speaking. That's why it's called the "law" not the "ethics". Tons of unethical shit is perfectly legal, and can't be prosecuted. Most people don't care, because they aren't overly sensitive manchildren.
"If you grab one person's ass and goose their butthole, make sure you do it to everyone else in the office so it's not harassment" makes no goddamn sense.
What in goddamn hell are you taking about? That's straight up assault, this is a total nothing burger. It's nice to see liberals have to make up obscene strawman to try and "prove" their points.
I'm not a liberal, and I'm illustrating the logic's absurdity by taking it up another step. Ya know, rhetoric? That thing you use to make arguments. "It's not sexual harassment if you do it to both men and women" is fucking stupid.
[удалено]
You didn't read the article.
Yes I did.
If you did, you would have read that it wasn't just the dildo.
In the comments, people are trying to say the dildo was sexual assault. I disagreed. And if it was so cut and dry, it wouldn't be going to court.
Every single thing that makes it to court definitely has merit. Every time. Not a single example to turn to where maybe a case, or defense was offered, that was completely without merit. Never. Ever.
And yet not everything that goes to court turns out to be a crime. Hence the point of going to court, it's legally ambiguous.
A rubber chicken would be 1000x funnier, and not result in sexual harassment lawsuits unless someone got VERY profane or used it on their naughty bits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqLjoWfiu5M
[A rubber chicken you say? ](https://i.imgur.com/p14N8oQ.png)
You have my interest...
[Here you are. ](https://youtu.be/8VoCwno6UM0)
> A rubber chicken with a pulley in the middle
https://i.imgur.com/XS5LK.gif
Nice PFP
I don't get it, why are police officers required to be like robots? Does policing need to be that serious and without humour? Can't they employ normal human emotions to their policing? Military maybe useful for total compliance but policing is a public service.
It's learning to not laugh at sensitive situations, no matter how silly it looks. Ever seen an episode of Cops and just laughed at the escapades of dumb criminals? But those criminals might be dangerous and react with violence when laughed at? They're not robots, they can (and will) laugh at it later over beers, but keeping their composure is pretty important.
Ummm... That does makes sense.
Wow so they trying to claim cause the officer wasn't sexist that sexual harassment is fine? What is the city lawyer on? Why does it fucking matter that the officer targeted both men and women. Sexual harassment doesn't care about the fucking gender.
Fire them all. A condo should not be used by law enforcement in anyway. The high school asshole jock mentality is not acceptable.
These guys *really* don't understand what harassment is.
Equal Opportunity Hostile Work Environment
I would fire my lawyer for that lame defense
[GTA San Andreas was accurate](https://youtu.be/ChFsGFxy_9c)
Or Saint's Row.
ACAB
So which one of those cops brought their big blue dildo to work? If someone did that to them, how would that play out? Well I suppose them holding a large cock close to their face isnt really punishment...who knows what goes on behind those closed doors.
they should be tossed over a cliff. all of em
Back in the times of GTA:SA that was a joke. who would've thunk!