The Richard Keys defence results in €17.5 payout

kiki_the_third

beejee wrote: »

My point wasn't about the existence of options, it's about the severe reduction in options.

Her action resulted in a severe reduction of options to ameliorate the situation.

To do such a thing, over a relatively benign "incident", and in such a very short space of time is not great!

The question is "why". Why such extreme? Was your man a real dirt bag, was she completely over-reacting?

It doesn't make much sense without some extreme being involved. Not knowing these extremes you base your opinion on the available information, and it seems to lean to the extremity being on her side. That's how the courts saw it too overall, albeit linked to the company.

You keep making subjective judgements while claiming you're just sticking to the facts. Just because you see what happened as benign doesn't mean it was. Just because you see her response as extreme doesn't mean it was.

The court didn't say the girl's response was extreme, it said the company's was (which I agree with)

beejee

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

If he hadn't asked her out a few days previously, his request for a kiss could be construed as 'banter'. This shouldn't need explaining, but if someone tells you that they're not interested, and you persist regardless, that's harassment. It's not 'grabbing her arse' or 'whipping your lad out while passing her in the corridor' levels of harassment, but it is harassment.

That's the problem with speculation, we don't know the circumstances.

He could have asked her out and she said no in a playful manner with a smile. Would you blame him then as much?

Maybe she said no in the most stern, po-faced manner possible. Would you blame her then?

And so on.

But going by the averages of your life experience, you can create a middle ground that accounts for liklihood.

Trumping your imagination, you have the reported information.

kiki_the_third

beejee wrote: »

That's the problem with speculation, we don't know the circumstances.

He could have asked her out and she said no in a playful manner with a smile. Would you blame him then as much?

Maybe she said no in the most stern, po-faced manner possible. Would you blame her then?

And so on.

But going by the averages of your life experience, you can create a middle ground that accounts for liklihood.

Trumping your imagination, you have the reported information.

But you're speculating that it was benign? You don't know that. It could have been very leery the way he did it. How come you're allowed to speculate but we're not?

beejee

kiki_the_third wrote: »

You keep making subjective judgements while claiming you're just sticking to the facts. Just because you see what happened as benign doesn't mean it was. Just because you see her response as extreme doesn't mean it was.

The court didn't say the girl's response was extreme, it said the company's was (which I agree with)

You're making my own point, practically. Going by the reported information, and a "law of averages", my opinion is that she's on the wrong side of this.

If there was something particularly lecherous about your man, don't you think the testimony of the defence would have squeezed every drop out of it?

The timescale and relatively benign nature is very much against her. And if it wasn't benign, as a paid-for defence would have maximised, then it very well wouldn't have ended as it did.

I'm repeating myself now. And I'm off to bed. Goodnight!

kiki_the_third

beejee wrote: »

Y
The timescale and relatively benign nature is very much against her. And if it wasn't benign, as a paid-for defence would have maximised, then it very well wouldn't have ended as it did.

The timescale very much goes against him. Hitting on someone twice in four days when they've said they're not interested (with a smiling face or a stern one) is pretty creepy.

The fault here lies with the hotel. And they *did* mount a defence or it would have been settled out of court. The judge called it exactly right. It was an instance of sexual harrassment on the minor end of the scale; the girl was 100% right to report it, the hotel mishandled the complaint.

Most men already get this, but there is a small percentage who seem to look at shows like Mad Men and think "those were the days".

You seem like an intelligent and articulate person. I'm surprised you can't grasp that the woman did not do anything wrong.

beejee

kiki_the_third wrote: »

The timescale very much goes against him. Hitting on someone twice in four days when they've said they're not interested (with a smiling face or a stern one) is pretty creepy.

The fault here lies with the hotel. And they *did* mount a defence or it would have been settled out of court. The judge called it exactly right. It was an instance of sexual harrassment on the minor end of the scale; the girl was 100% right to report it, the hotel mishandled the complaint.

Most men already get this, but there is a small percentage who seem to look at shows like Mad Men and think "those were the days".

You seem like an intelligent and articulate person. I'm surprised you can't grasp that the woman did not do anything wrong.

Look, I'm trying to get into my pyjamas here. It's litigious, it's not a case of absolute right or wrong. So let me say that I think her decision, and subsequent decisions by others, were less than optimal

His decisions were less than optimal too. But hers were more...less than!

Yer Da sells Avon

beejee wrote: »

That's the problem with speculation, we don't know the circumstances.

He could have asked her out and she said no in a playful manner with a smile. Would you blame him then as much?

Maybe she said no in the most stern, po-faced manner possible. Would you blame her then?

And so on.

But going by the averages of your life experience, you can create a middle ground that accounts for liklihood.

Trumping your imagination, you have the reported information.

Whatever way she may or may not have said 'no', she said 'no'. Maybe she said it in a nice way, not wanting to hurt his feelings. Maybe she laughed in his face or pretended to throw up at the thought of it. Who knows?

I don't know about you, but if I asked someone out at work and they turned me down, I'd have more cop-on than to go asking them to kiss me a few days later.

kiki_the_third

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Whatever way she may or may not have said 'no', she said 'no'. Maybe she said it in a nice way, not wanting to hurt his feelings. Maybe she laughed in his face or pretended to throw up at the thought of it. Who knows?

I don't know about you, but if I asked someone out at work and they turned me down, I'd have more cop-on than to go asking them to kiss me a few days later.

Exactly, the fact that this conversation is even focused on how *she* handled it is ridiculous. The guy in question was an adult. He should have had a *lot* more cop on.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

kiki_the_third wrote: »

Why is it okay to get drunk at the weekend but it's not okay to go to work drunk?

Because it will impair your ability to work, obviously - not how about you answer the question with an actual answer and not another bloody question for a change?

Silly question really. Different standards apply in work than in our personal lives. We dress differently, we behave differently - most companies have a comprehensive set of policies and procedures you agree to when you sign a contract.

You're making my point for me: you're describing unprofessional behaviour, not sexual harassment.

kiki_the_third

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Because it will impair your ability to work, obviously - not how about you answer the question with an actual answer and not another bloody question for a change?




You're making my point for me: you're describing unprofessionalism, not sexual harassment.

Fuggit, we can agree to disagree. I'm glad the judge sees it my way.

MOH

Wow. €17.50? Great thread, that's well worth discussion. You clearly put a lot of time into this one

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

kiki_the_third wrote: »

Fuggit, we can agree to disagree. I'm glad the judge sees it my way.

.....

Finding that the decision to dismiss had been both procedurally and substantively unfair, the adjudication officer ordered the catering company to pay compensation of €17,500 to its former employee.

kiki_the_third

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

.....

From the article, if you were to read it all:

“I have considered these instances and conclude that they were on the very low scale of possible harassment or sexual harassment,” he stated.


Exactly as I said, low on the scale of sexual harassment.

Quantum Erasure

MOH wrote: »

Wow. €17.50? Great thread, that's well worth discussion. You clearly put a lot of time into this one

i thought it was millions when i read it, and i was thinking SkySports what?

Spencerfreeman

We were told on one recent job, by a solicitor, That it's not what you say that is the offense, it's what the other party perceives you to have said.
Someone thinks up this horseshyte.
This guy should sue her for making a vexatious claim.

blinding

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

We were told on one recent job, by a solicitor, That it's not what you say that is the offense, it's what the other party perceives you to have said.
Someone thinks up this horseshyte.
This guy should sue her for making a vexatious claim.

Perhaps soon they will be able to crucify a man for what they think he is thinking :eek::eek:

fyfe79

As usual with these things, I can see the points of both people involved – people differ after all.

Maybe the guy should’ve known to back off after the girl turned him down the first time.
Maybe the girl should’ve been more forceful when turning him down, especially for the kiss.
Maybe the guy maybe thought he was just downplaying asking her out to show there were no hard feelings.
Maybe the girl thought by asking her manager to sort it out that the thing would blow over without much fuss.

The company is paying out because they blew the whole thing out of the water by firing the guy without due cause.

I do think this is what should have happened in such a work scenario as this, among normal adults….

Man: Wanna go to the cinema?
Woman: No thanks.
Man: Give me a kiss on the cheek!
Woman: No. I won’t kiss you on the cheek and I won’t go out with you. Can you please stop as it’s making me uncomfortable?

If the above happens I think the situation ends. I do think, based on what’s been presented in the case, is that maybe the woman went to her manager rather than having a frank conversation with the guy about the situation. I don’t think it’s too much to expect grown adults to be able to muster the conversation as above.

The flipside is that maybe when a complaint does go to management, they should not be so gung-ho to “discipline” one of the parties with such ferver, regardless of severity. The woman should feel able to talk to her manager about this without thinking… “well, I don’t want to risk getting this guy fired, I just want him to know to back off because it’s making me uncomfortable”.

Brock Turnpike

MOH wrote: »

Wow. €17.50? Great thread, that's well worth discussion. You clearly put a lot of time into this one

What's with the smart arse comment?