Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Sexual harrassment at DJ's

Jump to new
basilio

basilio

Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
15,663
Reactions
7,514
Very strong story on a $37 m lawsuit against DJ management and the past CEO Mark McInnes. If what is claimed in the article is accurate then it looks very dim for all concerned.

Very impressed with the fact that if the woman wins the money will go to a fund to help victims of sexual harassment. Very good, very clever. Will go down well with the public and and jury.

I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't solved very quickly.
David Jones sex harassment case: publicist sues for $37m
BELLINDA KONTOMINAS
August 2, 2010 - 1:32PM

A junior publicist, whose sexual harassment allegations forced the resignation of former David Jones chief executive Mark McInnes, is suing him and the retail giant for about $37 million.

In a landmark claim lodged today in the Federal Court, Kristy Fraser-Kirk, 25, is seeking 5 per cent of the profits made by David Jones and 5 per cent of Mr McInnes's salary while he worked for the company.

If successful she will donate the money to a charity that helps victims of sexual harassment and bullying, the statement of claim said.
Click to expand...

http://www.theage.com.au/business/d...se-publicist-sues-for-37m-20100802-112iw.html
 
There is now a good interview with the woman at the centre of this scandal.

Would not be surprised at all if she ended up being a leading figure in any organisation that was attempting to stop sexual harassment in the workplace. And bringing a big hunk of cash into the place wouldn't hurt.

It's clear she would not get an easy run in the PR industry again so that career is gone.

Go girl !!

http://www.theage.com.au/business/d...se-publicist-sues-for-37m-20100802-112iw.html
 
I think it's crazy to expect $37 million for this! For heaven's sake, he didn't kidnap and rape her: apparently he tried to kiss her and put his hand up her top.

She has succeeded in having him lose his job and his reputation (though he does appear to be a serial flirt and probably had something coming). I'd have thought a quiet payment to her of $100K or so would be proportionate to her 'suffering'.

Certainly it's a redeeming feature of her hysteria that if she gets the money she will donate it to the charity.

I just think women have become a bit precious over this whole sexual harassment thing.
 
I've just done a bit of googling to find out average damages for e.g. paraplegia and quadriplegia as the result of an accident.

For instance the council of a country town in New South Wales was sued by a cyclist who came off his bike and became a paraplegic - he hit a pothole while conducting a speed trial on his faulty bike. The council was deemed to be 80% responsible for the accident and ordered to pay $2.24 million dollars.

And another example - a junior basketball referee in North Queensland recently sued her local basketball association for not warning her of the dangers of running backwards - she tripped breaking both wrists and was awarded $80,000.
Click to expand...

Various other references. The highest payout I could find was $4.6 million for quadriplegia following motor cycle accident.

This rather puts the DJ's complainant's suggestion she is deserving of $37 million into perspective. I absolutely hope she doesn't get anything like that. It would set a ridiculous precedent where a bloke could be in trouble for making a flirtatious remark. So silly.
 
I think it's crazy to expect $37 million for this! For heaven's sake, he didn't kidnap and rape her: apparently he tried to kiss her and put his hand up her top.

She has succeeded in having him lose his job and his reputation (though he does appear to be a serial flirt and probably had something coming). I'd have thought a quiet payment to her of $100K or so would be proportionate to her 'suffering'.

Certainly it's a redeeming feature of her hysteria that if she gets the money she will donate it to the charity.

I just think women have become a bit precious over this whole sexual harassment thing.
Click to expand...

It could look a bit precious Julia but it might be worth checking out the links in more detail and perhaps rethinking.

It appears that the CEO was repeatedly propositioning her. Not once not twice but many times. She approached the Board which told her to simply say "No" a bit louder. McInnes already had serious form and a number of complaints.

And all this seemed to be public knowledge. And there appeared to be no effective brake on a culture of aggressive predatory bahaviour which started from the top of the company. That is not a good look.

My view on the situation is that the girl with the support of her family has decided to have a real crack to exposing the whole culture of "accepted" sexual harassment in the workplace. By stating that any settlement will go to a fund that will support future sexual harassment cases she is making clear this is not about her but all other people similarly effected.

I suppose I feel strongly about this because on a personal level I have recently seen 2 friends attacked ( one raped at a party, one drugged in a night club). After dealing with the horror of the situation and making initial statements to the police it became clear that attempting to press charges was going to take far more pain and be far more uncertain than they could take. So like many, many other people in similar situations they have let the situation go. And the perpetuators are free to continue with no comeback.

So when a person has the courage to say "this is wrong and it has to stop " and then has the nous to make it happen I give them full support.

This action is not about some "go away money" intended to shut people up and let things get back to normal.

Check out the following link for a bigger picture on what has happened at DJ's.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/harassment-will-keep-hounding-houndstooth-20100802-113eb.html
 
Sleazy old exec's get their fingers burnt touching the goodies:D They shouldn’t have broken the golden rule. Full credit to her. I think the 36 million is just to scare a good settlement out of them.
 
In case you don't have the opportunity to see the article consider what appears to have happened to the woman.

Her lawyers claimed a culture of sexual harassment existed within the company and that it knew of at least three other incidents before Mr McInnes's June 18 resignation, in which he had made unwanted sexual advances towards female employees.

Ms Fraser-Kirk claims when she had complained to the company's public relations general manager, Anne-Maree Kelly, about Mr McInnes, she was told: ''Next time that happens, you just need to be very clear and say, 'No Mark' and he'll back off.''

....Ms Fraser-Kirk claims she was first harassed by Mr McInnes at a lunch hosted by David Jones in May to celebrate its renewal of a contract with horse trainer Gai Waterhouse.

Mr McInnes allegedly urged her to try a dessert, describing it as like ''a f--- in the mouth'' before placing his hand under her clothing and touching her bra strap.

Ms Fraser-Kirk alleges he also repeatedly asked her back to his Bondi home ''with the clear implication that such a visit would be for the purpose of sexual intercourse'', the statement of claim said.

He did so while picking her up in a hug that lifted her feet off the ground, she alleges.

During the second occasion at a function for La Prairie cosmetics at a luxury Rose Bay home, Mr McInnes allegedly twice tried to kiss her on the mouth before placing his hand on her stomach and on the bottom of her bra.

On both occasions, Ms Fraser-Kirk claims she made it clear his advances were unwanted.

The following day she alleges he phoned her to meet him for dinner or a drink before saying, ''I could have had guaranteed sex with that brunette last night [at the party] but I wanted you''.

Mr McInnes had also been involved in sexual misconduct towards other female employees of which the company had turned a blind eye, Ms Fraser-Kirk alleges.

One incident occurred at last year's Caulfield Cup when he allegedly pulled a woman into a ''lingering hug'' and kissed her on her neck. In April, he allegedly asked the same woman at a racing event to touch his trouser pocket, telling her ''it's quite hard down there'' before inviting her back to his home.

Another woman who disclosed Mr McInnes's alleged harassment to other female staff was told that was standard conduct by him.

The statement of claim also alleges that Ms Kelly had been required to deal with another woman's mother over allegations Mr McInnes sexually harassed her.

Such claims are in complete contrast with statements by David Jones chairman Robert Savage in a press conference on the day of Mr McInnes's resignation, that this was the only complaint of which the company was aware against Mr McInnes.

Before he was appointed as chief executive, Mr McInnes had allegedly been reported to his superior for ''his bullying aggression via screaming abusive and foul language'', Ms Fraser-Kirk alleges.

This ''bullying approach'' was later adopted by other managers and had led to a reluctance by staff to raise concerns.
Click to expand...

One of the interesting aspects of this case is how the media is being allowed to be so explicit in it's descriptions of what has happened. And this is with one of the biggest advertisers in the paper. Just wonder how long this can continue.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/3...ind-eye-claims-exemployee-20100802-113b0.html
 
nunthewiser said:
:D I had other thoughts on the matter but i better keep them to myself or she might sue me also :D
Click to expand...

Yeah a bit of a chop could be on the cards :p. Hmm yeah 37 mil seems MASSIVE compared to what was alleged. Moral of the story: Don't mess with a girl in any business today. HR will destroy you!
 
Very bad publicity for DJs. They are in a very bad position now, and go-away money and quick resolution of the matter is needed, otherwise DJs will lose a lot of clientele.

Looks very bad for the DJs board too. How does a serial offender like him get and retain a senior job? Why did they allow such a toxic culture to develop, despite repeated warnings?

I won't be shopping at DJs from now on, unless they make a genuine attempt to turn the culture around.
 
Logique said:
I won't be shopping at DJs from now on, unless they make a genuine attempt to turn the culture around.
Click to expand...

Nor will I be shopping there.

bBut hang on I never did shop there and that is the reason. If I had though I doubt if I would see reason to stop. The culprit has gone so why punish the rest of the staff and the shareholders for his actions. Pity some of the women didnt just give him a good slap in the face, Or a kick in the #### and maybe it would have been settled earlier.
 
BrightGreenGlow said:
Yeah a bit of a chop could be on the cards :p. Hmm yeah 37 mil seems MASSIVE compared to what was alleged. Moral of the story: Don't mess with a girl in any business today. HR will destroy you!
Click to expand...

It's a bit sad really. In my hay-day at company functions I was often approached in suggestive ways and touched up by pleasant females, not all of them subordinates, some higher in the hierarchy.

I tolerated it with patient shrug.;) But in those days we knew that boys would be boys and girls would be girls.

You have only to look at what is happening in the navy. It shows the stupidity of throwing young men and women together on a ship and not expecting hanky-panky.

I had a visit to Flinders Naval Depot recently. (I trained there in my youth). There are notices everywhere encouraging female sailors to report any sexual harassment.
 
Well, my Mrs shops at DJ's all the time and this certainly won't stop her going.
Clearly, he's a twat, but I've seen and heard much worse go on over the years, and not soley from men.
$37million is a farce for what's purported to have happened. This legal culture of taking compaines and individuals for ridiculous amounts is the only thing that's toxic. I'm reminded of a thread in here about unbelievable lawsuits from the US.

Give her 100 grand and tell her to scram. She'll be lucky imo.
 
It's a bit sad really. In my hay-day at company functions I was often approached in suggestive ways and touched up by pleasant females, not all of them subordinates, some higher in the hierarchy.

I tolerated it with patient shrug. But in those days we knew that boys would be boys and girls would be girls
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you are suggesting with your last comment Calliope.

I suggest there are a number of bigger pictures in this case that warrant the splash this girl is making.

1) The CEO made repeated passes, touches and comments to her. She kept saying no in the nice ways (deflection, banter) and he kept coming back.

2) This was done in front of senior staff who seemed to accept it !! How wrong is that FFS !!

3) Being the CEO his actions were far more dangerous than simply a fellow staff member . He hires and fires and who is going to take the side of the young employee against the CEO ?

4) The behaviour pattern was clear. There seem to be a number of other people with similar complaints. They just weren't prepared to fully challenge the company so he got away with it and continued.

Unfortunately no-one in the commercial world takes you seriously if there arn't big bucks attached to the issue. That is why the $37 m claim is making everyone stand up and take notice. Are there precedents for this. Sure. And perhaps along somewhat similar lines.

Back in the early 70's Ford release a Ford Pinto car which exploded in flames when hit from the rear. This was because they relocated the petrol tank to the rear of the car to save money and make a bigger boot.

They knew this would kill many extra people in crashes. They calculated that in their estimations. When they were finally taken to court the jury decided that there was a case for punitive damages given the cold blooded way Ford had decided to allow the deaths to occur and their refusal to take simple actions that would have prevented these deaths

Check out the story to refresh your memory on the business mentality.

http://www.engineering.com/Library/...ype/ArticleView/articleId/166/Ford-Pinto.aspx

Cost-Benefit Analysis

One of the tools that Ford used to argue for the delay was a "cost-benefit analysis" of altering the fuel tanks. According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!

Summary Table
BENEFITS
Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle.
Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million.
COSTS
Sales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks.
Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck.
Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million.
Click to expand...
 
Saw a few sexual harrasment situations at one place I worked.

Senior management cases were always the trickiest, and with the CEO, there is no room to move, but the board was spineless if they had knowledge of this and did not act.

Even though I regard the reported events to be on the mild side, seems clear it does fall into the harrasment category.

imo, the board, or at least other senior management, must have inkling, and probably he had warning his personal conduct was causing trouble, therefore neccesitating his immediate resignation when the poopy hit the fan.

We had an Area manager parachuted in once, a total pants man.

Later found out he had been moved on to us, and the new job involved employing his wife as secretary..to keep an eye on him.

Dont know how good it worked though, as he managed to transfer several females into his ambit, and I thought it was no coincidence that if I had been recruiting on sheer sex appeal alone, would have picked the same ones.

He also used to give me the evil eye when I chatted to them, like an emperor with his harem. I sincerely wanted to punch him in the face.

My last comment actually revives a funny memory, emanating from a sleazy turd mildly harrasing a girl, until one day her strongly-built boyfriend arrived at the afterwork pub and advised our pencil-necked mate that if there was any further trouble, he would "snap his spine"

Having said that, I am not at all fond of ambit claims, I think it does a disservice to both males and females who are unfortunate enough to become embroiled in these situations in the workplace, some of which are inevitable, given human nature and sexuality.

Not to mention denigrating those who suffer other workplace injury

Damm lawyers, sure they will get a % success fee
 
Lets see ... the average Aussie earns $50k per year, so after 8 hrs/day, 5 days a week for 40 years that makes a total of $2 Million.

And she wants $37Million for some tasteless and sleazy propositions from her boss at a function?

Give me a break.

Greed like this actually hurts the sexual harassment cause because it portrays these women as money-hungry and vindictive. As for it going to charity.... yeah right.

These outlandish sums are a huge motivator for any woman who has been propositioned by a superior at the office party or who has a score to settle. What sort of precedent would this set?

The CEO is gone, the company is red-faced. Give her $37,000 and case-closed.
 
These outlandish sums are a huge motivator for any woman who has been propositioned by a superior at the office party or who has a score to settle. What sort of precedent would this set?
Click to expand...

Your right of course. We can just the $37 m dollar gold diggers lining up for a piece of the action.:(:(:(

This woman is exposing a systemic sexual harassment problem throughout DJ's which started from CEO and was seen and ignored or covered up by the Board and other senior staff members.

This get's very close to corporate criminal behaviour. In fact that will be one of the arguments the case.

It wasn't just one incident. It was repeated and repeated and despite complaints repeated again. Just read the transcripts.

The action as I see it is intended to create such a stink that not only will DJ's ensure this won't happen again for a long long time but other companies will quickly check to see if they have any pants chasers on their staff waiting to cause a similar explosion. And it will be important to make sure that the promise to support a sexual harassment organisation with any net settlement is kept up. (Perhaps they should name it in honour of DJ and acknowledge they were they sponsors. Maybe DJ's will come to the party willingly before they get a right bollocking in the media and the courts...)

It's interesting how you suggest she should be thrown $37,000 and told to **** off. That would cover a light lunch at a DJ's function and a couple of big night outs for the former CEO. They would be delighted to get away with a slap from a wet tram ticket.
 
Top