Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Sexual harrassment at DJ's

Jump to new
I'm still waiting for one of you FK supporters to tell me how you intend to advance the cause of the women and children who lack the resources of Ms FK, but who every day experience violent sexual assault and incest.
Click to expand...

How are we going to advance these causes? I have no idea Julia. I'm not even doing anything to advance Ms Fraser-Kirks case beyond opening the discussion is this forum.

Are they more important than Ms FK ? Totally and absolutely. Far broader, far more damage.

Trouble is it is not the topic we are discussing although it is related. For example to take your case even further we could ask what we are doing about the horrible treatment of Afgan women by the Taliban. Or the stoning of women in Iran and so on. All ugly. All deserving of our support.

This case at least opens the conversation about the abuse of women in the community and the role of power in that abuse. With a bit of luck there will be an obvious connection made between this particular area of sexual harassment and the broader picture of abused women and children in relationships. And hopefully there will be a fresh emphasis on support for women and children in these situations and consequences for the men who may be responsible.

Certainly worth a go.
 
Excellent reply Basilio - I agree that having an opinion on workplace harrassment does not preclude having an opinion on lots of other issues - perhaps even stronger opinions. If Julia would like to start a thread on the plight of women suffering from domestic abuse I'm sure she'd find plentiful support for them also. Unfortunately we cannot all give our time to those causes that mean most to us - some of us are busy working , raising families etc, or simply lack the ability. I suspect many of us already donate funds to organisations that exist to try to help these victims. I'd also be very surprised if most of those "FK supporters" didn't also have strong feelings about the abuse or victimisation of women in society in general - whatever the circumstances -and would freely acknowledge that of course the plight of many women and children is incomparable to that of Fraser-Kirk. I think it's unfair to imply we only care about a "precious little petal" just because we choose to champion her cause on an internet forum. I've previously stated that I don't really care at all about Fraser-Kirk herself, it's the issue of sexual harrassment that I'm pleased to see getting attention.

Personally I feel most strongly about abuse involving children, others will have their own causes that mean more to them. I do however think that any discussion on what is acceptable behaviour and what is not can only help to educate people on the standards expected in our society and promote the message that sexual misconduct will not be tolerated. If predatory behaviour at work is continued to be deliberately overlooked, condoned or scoffed at - what does that do to shape the attitude towards women that young male employees develop? If my son were to start work at an organisation where sexual harrassment was overlooked provided you're doing your job well I'd be very concerned that this type of attitude could influence his behaviour towards women in general.

Will Fraser-Kirk's stunt do anything to help women in far more desperate situations - probably not. But any discussion that reinforces the message that the abuse of women is simply unacceptable under any circumstances is a discussion worth having imo. Hopefully, after the amount of attention focussed on this claim, there will be no option but to make the beneficiary of any punitive damages completely transparent - so perhaps a lot of "more deserving" women may benefit as a result.
 
DocK and Basilio - I endorse everything you say.

I think it is wrong to imply that those who have supported Ms Fraser-Kirk's cause on this forum do not care about other abuse issues. This thread is about the DJ's sexual harassment case specifically, and about harassment in the workplace in general. This is why I have confined my comments to this issue and suspect others feel the same.

Whatever anyone may think of Ms Fraser-Kirk, she still has the right to enjoy a safe workplace, and the right to expect her employer to provide it for her. It is not a minor issue. A couple of years ago (I don't remember the exact timeline, or details) a young woman committed suicide because she had been systematically sexually harassed by three men at work.
 
Ruby said:
DocK and Basilio - I endorse everything you say.

I think it is wrong to imply that those who have supported Ms Fraser-Kirk's cause on this forum do not care about other abuse issues. This thread is about the DJ's sexual harassment case specifically, and about harassment in the workplace in general. This is why I have confined my comments to this issue and suspect others feel the same.

Whatever anyone may think of Ms Fraser-Kirk, she still has the right to enjoy a safe workplace, and the right to expect her employer to provide it for her. It is not a minor issue. A couple of years ago (I don't remember the exact timeline, or details) a young woman committed suicide because she had been systematically sexually harassed by three men at work.
Click to expand...

Well said Ruby.

I think the case you refer to may have been a wider issue of bullying?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2813468.htm

Sexual harassment and bullying are not OK, nor are they minor issues.
 
Timmy said:
Well said Ruby.

I think the case you refer to may have been a wider issue of bullying?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2813468.htm

Sexual harassment and bullying are not OK, nor are they minor issues.
Click to expand...

Yes, Timmy, you are correct. Thank you for recalling it for me. It was a bullying issue, so I may have been wrong to mention it here. However, it still comes under the banner of providing a safe workplace.

Ruby
 
Perhaps I've been attempting to make my point badly, or perhaps those of you who are objecting to it are choosing not to see it.

I'll try once again.

I feel that attaching a value of $37M to Ms Fraser Kirk's experience, despite DJ's Board having taken action when they became aware of what had occurred, and despite Mr McInnes losing his job and about half the financial benefits due to him, is to devalue the ongoing severe abuse of women and children who lack Ms Fraser Kirk's resources.

If you disagree with that, I'd be genuinely appreciative of an explanation as to why, because I just can't see it.

I understand the point made that this thread is specifically about the DJ's issue, and I completely agree that sexual predation/bullying (because it's just a form of bullying) in the workplace is often an issue for women. But my concern is to do with perspective which I believe is totally lacking here.

And no, I won't be starting a thread on violence against women because fairly obviously there would be minimal interest in it. It's probably an issue that doesn't intrude into the lives of people running their businesses, looking after their own families etc as pointed out above. That's just reality, and I understand that. We're all entitled to choose our causes.
 
I'm totally in agreement with you Julia.

$37 Million is extortion under the guise of a noble cause. It's also counterproductive to the sexual harrassment issue because it brings the motives of the complainent into question.

A little common sense would go a long way.
 
Julia said:
Perhaps I've been attempting to make my point badly, or perhaps those of you who are objecting to it are choosing not to see it.

I'll try once again.

I feel that attaching a value of $37M to Ms Fraser Kirk's experience, despite DJ's Board having taken action when they became aware of what had occurred, and despite Mr McInnes losing his job and about half the financial benefits due to him, is to devalue the ongoing severe abuse of women and children who lack Ms Fraser Kirk's resources.

If you disagree with that, I'd be genuinely appreciative of an explanation as to why, because I just can't see it.

I understand the point made that this thread is specifically about the DJ's issue, and I completely agree that sexual predation/bullying (because it's just a form of bullying) in the workplace is often an issue for women. But my concern is to do with perspective which I believe is totally lacking here.

And no, I won't be starting a thread on violence against women because fairly obviously there would be minimal interest in it. It's probably an issue that doesn't intrude into the lives of people running their businesses, looking after their own families etc as pointed out above. That's just reality, and I understand that. We're all entitled to choose our causes.
Click to expand...

Not much more clearer writing than that I have not seen?
 

Attachments

  • Clap.gif
    Clap.gif
    18.6 KB · Views: 162
Julia said:
Perhaps I've been attempting to make my point badly, or perhaps those of you who are objecting to it are choosing not to see it.

I'll try once again.

I feel that attaching a value of $37M to Ms Fraser Kirk's experience, despite DJ's Board having taken action when they became aware of what had occurred, and despite Mr McInnes losing his job and about half the financial benefits due to him, is to devalue the ongoing severe abuse of women and children who lack Ms Fraser Kirk's resources.

If you disagree with that, I'd be genuinely appreciative of an explanation as to why, because I just can't see it.

I understand the point made that this thread is specifically about the DJ's issue, and I completely agree that sexual predation/bullying (because it's just a form of bullying) in the workplace is often an issue for women. But my concern is to do with perspective which I believe is totally lacking here.

And no, I won't be starting a thread on violence against women because fairly obviously there would be minimal interest in it. It's probably an issue that doesn't intrude into the lives of people running their businesses, looking after their own families etc as pointed out above. That's just reality, and I understand that. We're all entitled to choose our causes.
Click to expand...

I can see where you're coming from, but I just don't agree with it.
Firstly I don't think the amount being sought in punitive damages, which is the bulk of the 37M, should be attached to Fraser-Kirk's experience but to the lack of action taken by DJ's board to prevent repeated misconduct. I attach the value to the message. She'll only be awarded what she is deemed to have lost through lost employment etc as compensation - the rest is punitive and she'll donate it to an associated charity. If she intended to keep the punitive portion I'd feel quite differently - I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and accepting her stated intention of donating this portion as being genuine - given the media coverage she'll have no option but to do so - and to be seen doing it.

To me it's like comparing apples with oranges.
Workplace harrassment = civil proceedings = money (and yes,how much depends largely upon who you're suing in some cases).
Domestic violence/rape/child abuse = criminal charges = jail time.
How much is a jail sentence worth? (although I do think most sentences are woefully inadequate - but that's another thread again.) Would a 5 year jail term have the same impact on an abuser as a fine of 5% of their profits to DJ's? How do you compare one with the other?
Did Fraser-Kirk suffer as much as a lot of other victims of sexual abuse - absolutely not!
Are all victims of violence able to seek recompense, either penal or civil? - sadly, no. Some victims have nobody to stand up for them and cannot stand up for themselves - but does that mean Fraser-Kirk isn't entitled to try to make those responsible for her own situation pay?

Is it all about the money? Maybe by standing up for herself and saying "this is just not right and I'm going to try to make them suffer a really, really big fine", which is more or less what punitive damages are, she might actually empower some women to take a look at their own situations and feel motivated to do something about them. Some women will think she's a golddigger and he's been punished enough. Some will think that if a big company like DJ's can be made to pay out a large amount in damages (and nobody seriously thinks it will be anything like 37M do they?) then the mistreatment of women is actually quite serious and worth taking a stand against, and the law might just be on their side.

I know I'm going to be repetitive here, but I see the money as secondary to the message being sent. Just my opinion, and I realise that others will never see things the way I do. I'm OK with that.
 
She is suing Mr McInnes for $2 million punitive damages and the David Jones board for $35 million punitive damages. If she wins, it would be the first time punitive damages would be awarded for sexual harassment and misconduct in the workplace. Most cases are usually settled for around $150,000 as a maximum.

Ms Fraser-Kirk "said" she would donate any punitive damages to a charity. I would like to know which charity in particular she has in mind?

She claims she suffered offence, humiliation, distress and anxiety and damage to her personal and professional reputation. Which would have gone unnoticed if she had not engaged a publicity manager??

The claim directs that the punitive damages be paid to a charity assisting persons in the areas of sexual harassment and bullying. Of course, this is a worthy approach, which will assist other victims of harassment, and it shows Ms Fraser-Kirk is not at all greedy.

However, is this payment to a charity a mechanism for justifying the quantum of the punitive damages?

Interestingly, in the statement of claim, Ms Fraser-Kirk is seeking the costs of managing the publicity flowing from her high-profile claim.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...h-less-travelled/story-e6frg97x-1225901836140

I dunno ..... something is not right here ? If she thought she has suffered humiliation and damage to her professional reputation what chance does she have of being employed ANYWHERE with ANYONE now?? Huh ?

Can't see Myer phoning her for a job as a publicist .. can you? OOoooohhhhhhhh the penny has just dropped ... she was employed as a publicist ...... look what she has gone and done !! LOL.
 
All right. Let's have another go.

Firstly absolutely no-one believes that the sexual harassment of Ms Fraser-Kirk is "worth" $37 m. No commentators, no solicitors, I assume no-one on this forum. It is an out there figure.

This ambit claim was arrived at as 5%of DJ's profits while Mr Mcinnes was CEO and 5% of Mr Mcinnes salary during that time. In a sense it is trying to say. "Mr Mcinnes was abusing his position as CEO. The boards either knew and glossed over it or should have known but closed their eyes. As punitive damages for this dereliction of duty we think a 5% fine of your profits and salary is a fair figure." Of course in the end it won't fly but that is the argument being made.

It has been made clear from the start that this case is not solely about Ms Fraser-Kirk but on behalf of all people who have been harassed or assaulted in the work place. So from the beginning the complainants have stated they will be donating all proceeds from the punitive damages claim to a centre that will represent people who have been harassed. (Perhaps we should take them at face value for the moment particularly since there is a snowballs chance in hell that anything like this figure will ever be awarded... even if the claim is successful)

But as I see it the strongest outcome of the case is happening right now outside the courts as businesses re evaluate the potential cost of allowing sexual harassment to occur in their workplace.

Up until now most businesses had a policy on sexual harassment. Everyone has to have a "policy" of course but if you have been around most companies these are are often very hollow. The reality is that harassment happens and most of the time there are few consequences of note because everyone knows we don't really take this seriously - even if we are supposed to. Know what I mean. (I could use lots of "inverted commas" here but perhaps our common experience in workplaces should be sufficient to understand what I am saying.

That is unlikely to happen now. Every company has to re ajust their thinking to realize that if there is a loose cannon in their staff who is hitting on the female staff they could be in serious trouble. Trouble that could cost them a lot of money. In the real world money is the overriding factor and realistically will be the biggest motivation to getting things right.

As far as devaluing the pain and suffering of other victims of abuse. Again the main damages sought in this case are punitive damages not personal ones. So there can't be a fair comapriosn made between the headline figure of $37m and the miserly amount that other people might receive.

But what this case should do is refocus attention on all abuse. Perhaps there is another excellent test case out their that could be used to clobber the care offered by a government institution or a Church for example and improve the resources offered to these people.. ( Consider the situation of the Catholic Church in America which is facing billions of dollars of liabilities for it's role in covering up clergy abuse.)

The fixation on the size of the nominal claim as an example of monstrous excess overlooks a few points.

1) It is only because the claim is so nominally large that there is such a shake up in community and business thinking.

2) Again it's is only the fear of such a large punitive damages payout that will drive some companies to take the issue seriously. For example I mentioned earlier the case of the Ford motor company producing a disastrous car that exploded in flames on rear impact. They knew about this from the beginning and had factored in their estimation of the cost of people lives who would be burnt to death unnecessarily. They went ahead and produced the car anyway because their figures didn't include the punitive damages they ended up paying. They would think twice about doing this again.

This is a unique case for many reasons.

1) It involves multiple offenses from the CEO of a large company which has traditionally presented itself a female friendly. This is not just a fumble from the foreman. In that sense it is about as bad as you could get.

2) There is someone brave enough/ silly enough to make a public complaint with all the loss of face and impact on future employment that entails

3) The case has been taken beyond the narrow confines of a single sexual harassment issue. In that context it would be flea bite to DJ and of little consequence to any other company. But as a case which explores the liability of the company under Safe Workplace acts, Trade Practices acts and so on it has far more potential to change the way workplaces allow staff to be treated.

__________________________________________________________

That was an excellent article from The Australian noted by Trainspotter. Certainly explains why companies will become far more vigilant about stopping any sexual harassment as a result of this case.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1225901836140
 
It would be really fascinating to find out what the story is regarding the other female employees allegedly involved.

That goes to the very heart of the case. If there had been any other complaints, then he is a dead-duck

I found that the consensus of the women as a group who could most accurately divine what was beyond the pale in terms of workplace sexuality.

This cut both ways, identifying both male sleazebags and also quite ready to make their thoughts known if they thought that the female person concerned was making more of things than warranted.

There was recently a case somewhat similar.

The fellow was a NSW MP, Tony Stewart, I believe

The complainant was his staffer, she was subsequently severely discredited, but the the damage had already been done

females can sexually harrass males too, but theres no sympathy:eek:
 
basilio said:
The boards either knew and glossed over it or should have known but closed their eyes.
Click to expand...
This would seem to be central to the whole case. There has been no denial of the Board's clear statement that they were previously unaware of the series of overtures by Mr McInnes and the complaints by Ms Fraser Kirk to her supervisor, and that they did take action as soon as they were made aware.

So I think you're drawing an unwarranted conclusion in the above statement, and unreasonably maligning the DJ's Board, unless you can provide evidence for your claim.

Ruby, Basilio's message may well be 'clear'. That doesn't necessarily make it accurate.

Basilio, despite my disagreeing with you, I nonetheless appreciate that we can have this exchange without either of us engaging in personal insults or unfairly attacking each other's character. I respect that your view is honestly held.
 
Have not read the whole thread so apologies if I cover old ground.

If you accept sexual harassment is a bad thing then forget about the amounts its irrelevant you support Ms Fraser-Kirk action.

Company's carry out training and form policies and procedures based on law to mitigate their risk of prosecution.

This isn't to say they change culture or take action its just good old insurance.

Company's take action and actively change cultures when there are court cases that are successful and clear precedents set and not before.

Nothing changes a CO or General Mangers attitude faster than the real possibility of their butt being dragged into court seen it personally many many times.

If Ms Fraser-Kirk is successful what ever the pay out it will irrevocably drive company's culture concerning sexual harassment instantly Australia wide and the spin off is into Australian culture which in my view a excellent result.

Go Fraser-Kirk and the best of luck what a courageous person you are.
 
It appears that Dj's has hired Sydney's top private eye to investigate the background and movements of Ms Fraser-Kirk.

Well if that is the accepted way of dealing with a case where personal integrity plays such a large in determining the outcome can we expect that there will also be an indepth investigation of Mark McInnes movements and personal history?

SYDNEY'S top private eye Frank Monte is being paid "a substantial amount" to investigate the background and movements of the woman suing David Jones for $37 million, he admitted last night.

As the retailer's disgraced former CEO Mark McInnes returned to Sydney from the US vowing to "vigorously defend" allegations of unwelcome sexual advances brought by publicist Kristy Fraser-Kirk, Mr Monte revealed he had been asked to investigate the complainant.

"I can confirm we are working on the case," Mr Monte said. "I can neither confirm nor deny that David Jones is the client."

Mr Monte did confirm the target of his investigations was Ms Fraser-Kirk and that he would do "background checks" on her as well as "surveillance".

He declined to say how much he had been paid, but said: "It is substantial".
Click to expand...
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...tail-of-djs-girl/story-e6freuy9-1225905588951
 
basilio said:
It appears that Dj's has hired Sydney's top private eye to investigate the background and movements of Ms Fraser-Kirk.

Well if that is the accepted way of dealing with a case where personal integrity plays such a large in determining the outcome can we expect that there will also be an indepth investigation of Mark McInnes movements and personal history?
Click to expand...

Why not? I think the character & potential motives of the complainent in any case should be questioned.
 
Re: Sexual harrassment at DJ's
Quote:
Originally Posted by basilio View Post
It appears that Dj's has hired Sydney's top private eye to investigate the background and movements of Ms Fraser-Kirk.

Well if that is the accepted way of dealing with a case where personal integrity plays such a large in determining the outcome can we expect that there will also be an indepth investigation of Mark McInnes movements and personal history?
Why not? I think the character & potential motives of the complainent in any case should be questioned.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And in this case there is also every reason to also look at the character, motives and history of the person who allegedly harrassed the complainant..

Trouble is how do we ever actually know what is true in any case? It's hard enough people remembering incidents properly weeks or months later. What happens when someone whose paid to find the most unattractive parts of persons life is let loose on that persons history ?

In rape cases it is traditional for lawyers to take every opportunity to blacken the womens name. This might have let up recently but I feel this case and the ramifications for DJ's will encourage a very busy hunt to find, construe or construct anything that could reduce Ms Fraser-Kirks credibility. :2twocents
 
Top