This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Sexual harrassment at DJ's

Jump to new
Basilio, I've read the details and maintain my view expressed earlier.

Clearly, McInnes had an ongoing and rather pathetic need to make sexual conquests, and it also appears that middle management at least failed to act on complaints about him. However, he'd only have continued his behaviour if he fairly frequently met with a positive response to his overtures, so let's not let those women off the hook entirely. ( probably there will be howls of outrage from the sisterhood here!)

So, I'm guessing when he was told politely 'no', his ego and/or his need for another notch on his belt overrode common sense, and he persisted.
I reckon with blokes like this politeness has no place. If she'd simply kneed him in the appropriate place at the first inappropriate touching, I doubt he'd have had another go.

You'll probably say that she should not have been put in a position where any overture occurred in the first place, and probably that's right. But this sort of stuff has been going on literally for ever and women had to deal with it long before we ever heard the term 'sexual harassment'.

Good Lord, if you think what transpired in this instance was sexual harassment, I'm damned if I know what you'd call some of the approaches I've received in many workplaces. But if such approaches were unwelcome, they certainly didn't try a second time.

I'm very sorry to hear about your friends, and you make a good point when you say if there is no penalty, it's effectively offering tacit approval of the behaviour.

However, action was eventually taken: McInnes was fired, had his payout significantly reduced, has had his reputation (which is everything in business) trashed, and Ms Fraser-Kirk has achieved the publicity she wants.

To compare women being drugged and/or raped with this case is imo to do a great disservice to the victims of the drugging and the rape.

I've been raped and the rapist tried to choke me when I fought back.
That is a life changing experience and induces a sense of powerlessness a woman will never forget.

Ms Fraser-Kirk is imo being extremely precious about some extremely stupid behaviour by someone who should have known better but whom she should have been able to repel by her own very straightforward means.

Exactly.

Basilio, I don't know how you can possibly offer the Ford case as remotely comparable. Ms Fraser-Kirk wasn't physically harmed, let alone killed.
The comparison is ridiculous.

Could you perhaps explain why you think the $37 million is appropriate, bearing in mind what I offered earlier as average payouts for paraplegia and quadriplegia? As far as I can tell, Ms Fraser-Kirk is well and truly alive, and healthy, and she has the rest of her working life ahead of her, no doubt enhanced by all the publicity she is generating. Though, on second thoughts, maybe that's quite wrong: most potential employers will now avoid her at all costs, and understandably.

That's a really good point about the precedent which would be set. There are enough hysterical young women already without giving them the added incentive of massive payouts.


I realise my above views will be seen by some as traitorous to my gender, but to me it's an extension of the nanny state phenomenon which is becoming more and more prevalent. We expect to be protected against everything, to the point where any sense of personal responsibility is simply not going to be valued.
 
Julia, its good to hear a woman telling it like it is and not playing the woman/victim card. Thats what I call true empowerment.

If she wins $37Million, I suspect a lot of companies would have to be thinking hard about hiring female staff .
 
A friend of mine hired a young woman who was absolutely hopeless at the job she was hired to do ... basic secretarial work (she had falsified her abilitites on her CV) Could not type 90 wpm nor knew how to operate Excel spreadsheets etc. He gave her a written warning about the lack of productivity she was displaying towards the job. Suddenly she got sick and had to have time off. When she came back to work she was sullen towards the other staff so he gave her another written warning abour her behaviour to staff and to clientelle. She suddenly got sick again and had more time off. When she came back she gave him the ultimatum that he "had to stop undressing her with his eyes" or she would file a sexual harrasment suit against him. He dismissed her from the position so she took him for "Wrongful Dismissal" and got a payout of $8,000 for the trouble.

Something is wrong when it comes to this kind of litigation. 37 million is just out there from the context of what actually went on. Remember this has not gone to court, there has been no judgements made, there has been no motions of discovery. IT IS ALL ALLEGED !
 
I think the amount being demanded is ridiculous, however I suspect it has been set so high in order to guarantee media attention (which it certainly has) and not with any expectation of a figure remotely near this being paid out in the end. I daresay there will be a quiet settlement for an undisclosed sum and both parties will have achieved their aim.

I agree that Ms Fraser-Kirk seems to be a bit "precious", and many of us have managed to fend-off the odd unwelcome advance or grope at office functions over the years without any lasting ill effect - but not generally from the CEO. In my own experience it's much easier to tell one's immediate superior or colleague to "take a hike" than to slap the face of apply a knee to the groin of someone in such a powerful position of authority. (especially if you're only 25) I can sympathise if Ms Fraser-Kirk felt too intimidated to be too forceful in her rejections of McInnes and felt she had protected herself by bringing the matter to the attention of her supervisor - clearly her supervisor should have had a quiet word to McInnes instead of brushing her off.

Unfortunately wherever alcohol flows at the workplace or office events, some idiot is going to do or say something inappropriate - (whether it's the boss propositioning the cute admin assistant or vice versa ), perhaps this media storm will prompt a few more organisations to train their staff on the correct responses to complaints to avoid serial offences.
 
On the other side of the coin,

There are probably a few good-looking gals that will be feeling a tad nervous now their "mentor" has departed.

I was always vastly amused that my female colleagues were very quick to highlight the possibility that the (female) job winner had won the job on factors other than capability.

Sure wish I could have ****ed my way to the top

ps Trainspotter..I have given this advice succesfully to a few people.

You dont sack someone, if possible you reduce their hours to part-time, and gradually phase them out. This can overcome some employment law issues.

Also many people make these kind of frivolous threats, the biggest problem is that the employer needs time off to front a hearing or whatever, and give up.
I advice patience and doggedness.

Back to Kristy-Lee or whatever her name is, I say good on her for standing up, she may be precious, but for a MD or CEO to abuse his position in that manner, I find deplorable. I cannot imagine how someone could be so injudicious, unless well affected by intoxicants

If I was her partner, I would be very annoyed with Mr Mcguiness and depending on the exact nature of the accusations, I would probably be wanting to seek him out for a word or two myself.

I do agree that innocent until proven guilty should apply, however, in a civil matter, it is balance of probability, I would be very surprised if he was able to contend his actions did not constitute sexual harrasment as it is defined
 

Even if she fails to get a big payout, the publicity will be worth thousands to her (think of Lara Bingle). She's not getting any younger and she has to use her looks before they fade.
 
Some great responses to this story and certainly worth discussing.

$37 M for a sexual harassment claim in itself is ridiculous. End of story. And judging from legal precedent and general discussion somewhere between 20 and 100k is what we might feel is "fair".

What I'm trying to say however is that this case seems to have a far bigger agenda than simply a relatively isolated harassment or even a continual assault.

It looks as if the CEO of the company itself is the chief culprit and despite repeated complaints little is done. True in this case the Board finally dismisses the CEO. There is argument that he should have been charged with criminal offenses and got off relatively lightly. And there was the question of just how the company would handle future cases. Was this enough of a shock to ensure that any future incidents would be handled properly ?

We don't know the full story so it's not reasonable to make that call. But from the woman's perspective she is now trying to challenge the whole system by trying to extract the maximum possible financial damages. In our system money, and only money, talks.

Julia you suggested that the deadly Ford Pinto comparison was ridiculous because no-one got hurt. The comparison I was making was not with the devastation to the people. It was the way the Ford Motor company originally did it's sums. As I noted they knew hundreds of people would be directly burned and maimed by their actions. So they totted up $200,000 a death $67,000 a burn and $700 for the car and balanced it against the $11 a vehicle it would cost them to prevent these needless deaths.

And guess what ? It was cheaper to let the people burn. So they did.

In court the jury decided that this cold blooded balance between a fiery death and dollars deserved to be punished with punitive damages beyond simple compensation. From that judgment on businesses have to be aware that if your actions are seen as particularly callous or criminal the legal consequences could be far bigger than just compensation.

As the way the world works now sex assaults on women whether rape, date drugging, harassment are very hard to bring to justice. The process is difficult, personally traumatic and in the end the victim is destroyed again. And with that realisation most people who have been assaulted suck it up and move on.

With that realisation of human nature the sociopaths who understand that they can most likely get away with their behavior just continue, It was AWG who gave a particular example of this in his workplace.

I suggest this case is about making the whole community face the consequences of systematic harassment. It is not about a single incident or a single case.

I agree that the $37 m claim is exceedingly large. Interestingly enough it was put in the context of the profits of DJ's over the seven years Mr Mcinnes was CEO and the wages of McInnes in that time. It would be a 5% fine. It's interesting that when CEO's give themselves unimaginable remunerations that have no resemblance to normal people - it's seen as the way the marketplace works. But coping a financial consequence on par with that income is somehow obscene ? The most appropriate settlement( IMO) would be some restitution for the women with the majority of the settlement directed to supporting an organization that gave sexual assault legislation some teeth.

The issue of malicious or stupid complaints is very real. I think a system that was able to look fairly at what had happened would be the best defense against unwarranted claims.
 
Ms Fraser-Kirk has my full support and sympathy.

I don't think she or anyone else expects that she will win $37mill, but sexual harrassment in the work place is something that will not go away, and I think a well-publicised case like this, making a huge damages claim will make the corporate world sit up and take notice, and will claim the undivided attention of the media - also good to further the cause. It is not the amount of money that is at issue - it is the need to force this out into the public arena which is important.

Men like Mark McInnes (whose behaviour was not just 'flirtatious' but predatory) think they can behave in this sleazy way with impunity; and the fact that the DJ's board knew and did nothing implies that they condoned his behaviour, or at least, did not condemn it, which is just as bad.

Paying women who suffer in this way a few hundred thousand $$ in 'hush money' and then telling them to go away is not the answer. It does not punish the perpetrators (what would that sum be to Mark McInnes or DJ's?) and it does nothing to root out this evil culture.

I hope she wins her case or settles for a VERY large sum. It will be a victory for women who have been the targets of this behaviour everywhere.
 
Good point about alcohol pretty much inevitably being involved.

Have you considered that if this claim is successful it will spark hundreds of cute young things thinking 'wow, if she can get that much (or anything at all for that matter) because she encountered some predatory behaviour at social functions then whacko, why shouldn't I accuse my boss (who continually finds fault with my work/expects me to be on time every day/asks me to make his coffee occasionally etc etc.) of sexual harassment?'
See Trainspotter's example above.

Sure, it would then have to be tested in the courts, but in the meantime, there are huge costs involved and the potential ruin of a person's and a company's reputation.

Ruby, where do you get the conviction that the board knew about this and did nothing? My understanding is that Ms Fraser-whatever complained to her immediate supervisor, that supervisor failing to take her complaint further.
Then when the matter finally came to the attention of the Board, Mr McInness was dismissed and the rest is history.

It seems to me to be pretty unfair to label the whole firm as unacceptable because of the peculiar and crummy behaviour of one individual.

Goodness, Ruby, you're usually objective and sensible. The bloke was a serial sexual predator. He made overtures to multiple young women, allegedly.
They apparently were not up to dealing with it themselves. I'd say this makes him very stupid, perhaps in need of some therapy to deal with his sexual needs, but hardly 'evil'. He has been publicly punished by losing his job and, more important, his reputation, and has been significantly financially disadvantaged.
I'd have more concern about the pain and embarrassment he has caused to his ex wife and children, and perhaps his current partner, than many of the other complainants in this tawdry affair.


Dock has mentioned that mostly this sort of rubbish occurs when the alcohol flows freely. The overtures occurred in these social, party situations in a room full of people. He didn't drag them by the hair to the stationery room, pin them down on the photocopier and rape them. He made invitations to them. Undoubtedly many of these invitations were accepted, so he was rather pathetically encouraged to believe no woman would find his attentions unwelcome. If this makes him a criminal, then I reckon more than half the male population can be so described.

I hope she wins her case or settles for a VERY large sum. It will be a victory for women who have been the targets of this behaviour everywhere.
Click to expand...
I believe absolutely the opposite. If she wins this or any other large sum, it will encourage other young women who feel slighted for whatever reason to make accusations against bosses they don't like.
And further, if a huge payout is made in a case like this, imo it devalues the experience of e.g. child rape, gang rape, and incest.

These are the real victims. They are usually too traumatised to even think about making a complaint, or have been so threatened for so long, that they have lost any sense of personal identity.

Most of these people are never heard, but their situations make Ms Fraser-Kirk look very frivolous.
 
With apologies for somewhat diverting from the topic, but on the subject of being precious, when Tony Abbott was today asked why he is refusing to accommodate Ms Gillard's request for a further debate, he replied that he had already fixed his campaign schedule on the basis that in her original refusal to have more than one debate, her 'no' meant 'no'.
Seems like a pretty reasonable response to me.

But in a flash, the Greens, then Labor both jumped all over him, castigating him for an appalling choice of words, because the phrase 'no means no' is frequently used in the context of rape allegations.

Mr Abbott quite reasonably became obviously irritated and said he wasn't going to cop that nonsense, or words to that effect.

This is the sort of precious nonsense, which doesn't even come under the heading of political correctness, that I'm so against.

It's possible only a few will see the relevance of this bit of nonsense to the current discussion.
 
Watched channel 10's 7pm Project tonight and they had a journo on who made some good points. Apparently the average payout for sexual harrassment is 50 - 100K, with the largest in recent history just over 400k. She would like to know what is so special about Ms Fraser-Kirk that she feels she's worth so much more. She made the point that by going after such a huge payout she has effectively fixed the focus of the media and general public to the amount of money involved, rather than the issue itself. Also made the point that although she says she'll donate all proceeds to charity - the court has no power to ensure she does so once an award is made to her. How cynical Food for thought though...., she'd probably have been regarded in a much more positive light and done more for her "cause" if she had sued for much less - if that was actually her real intention
 
Nice summary Ruby. (IMO) you picked the eyes of the argument.

I think it's worth realising that anyone can make a sexual harassment claim right now. All those "cute young things" can quite happily take action now if they believe they have been harassed or assaulted or whatever.

But of course only a few ever do because the strain, the stigma, the pressure, the legal costs and everything else would generally make most people just walk away. That is the point that is being made by Ms Fraser-Kirk. She is not doing this for herself but for the whole issue.

Of course there is a range of behaviours from the stupid, drunken office parties to the calculated use of power to get what you want - particularly if it is in a dress. I think this is about the latter cases.

Again I suggest that Julie and others re-read the reports of Mr McInness's public behavior. I thought it was surreal that he should be repeatedly hitting on female staff at public functions and not being pulled up by other management. Should this have been considered acceptable and normal ? And that doesn't even touch the private pushes he made on people. I think we'll hear much about this as the 1800 numbers get rung.

I would really hope that any success achieve in this case highlights all sexual assault victims.
 

I see the relevance Julia. Your sense of balance despite your experiences is refreshing.

Re the DJ's case: I think it may ultimately be counter-productive. Outrageous ambit claims rarely wins many friends.
 
The following anecdote is attributed variously to George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, or Mark Twain, take yer pick.



* GBS: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
* Actress: My goodness, Well, I'd certainly think about it
* GBS: Would you sleep with me for a pound?
* Actress: Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!
* GBS: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.



A million pounds in their day equates just about to $37 million now.



gg
 
Hi Julia,

I respect your views, but we will have to agree to disagree this time.



This has already been happening for years.


Julia said:
Ruby, where do you get the conviction that the board knew about this and did nothing?
Click to expand...

I can't quote I'm afraid, but did read it somewhere.



I did not say he was evil, I called sexual harrassment in the workplace an 'evil culture'. I would not call a golden handshake of $2m being 'significantly financially disadvantaged.

In my opinion, the point of this case is not about one young woman's unfortunate experience, but to highlight the whole issue of sexual harrassment which is endemic in the workplace. Making laws and paying victims 'hush money' have done nothing to eradicate it. It needs the spotlight firmly focused on it, and some shock tactics to make the corporate world realise that it has to be stopped; and really big money together with massive adverse publicity are the kind of shock tactics the corporate world will understand. Just look at the publicity it has received already. A small monetary compensation of a few $100,000 would be nothing more than a blip on the horizon to a large company or a CEO earning $7m pa, and it would be business as usual afterwards.

In my early years at work I, like most young women at the time, was subjected to unwanted sexual attention. It was commonplace, not illegal, pointless to complain about it, and we were expected to 'enjoy' it!! In the intervening years women have gone a long way toward achieving equality and respect in the workplace - except for this one area.

I would like to acknowledge that men too are subject to sexual harrassment, and my comments can be read to include them where applicable.
 
What a greedy *****!

Any sympathy I had is long gone. I would say that I don't want to see her get the outcome she wants, but I think she most likely already has
 

Ruby, I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I still think she has gone overboard with the amount being sought. Yes, people are certainly talking, but I feel the message re sexual harrassment in the workplace has been lost amongst all the talk of the $$$s being sued for. I agree that big business will only sit up and take notice if it's made to feel some pain, but I think perhaps 2million would have been a happy balance between making her point and being seen as a greedy gold-digger. $2million would still be much, much more than had ever been awarded before for a sexual harrassment suit, would make the point that punitive damages would be awarded against a company if complaints were ignored and predatory behaviour condoned, and if she really intends to donate it would go a long way towards helping others. I still feel that by claiming such a huge amount she has shot herself in the foot as all people are focussed on is the money, and she will be perceived in a much more negative light than if she had been a bit more realistic.
 
Yes I think the $37m is symbolic and for publicity. Ms Fraser-Kirk has already said any settlement would be donated back to other victims of harassment.

Also consider this, the young lady has probably lost her career in PR, ostensibly through no fault of her own. When she asked her superiors at DJs for help, they let her down. I think we're mature enough to admit that in the case of the former CEO, where there's smoke there's probably fire.

Talking real world solutions, an ambitious young staffer is not going to slap the face or knee the groin of the CEO.
 

DocK, I take your point, especially the bit I have highlighted. It is a ridiculous sum, and as Logique says in the post following yours, it is just symbolic. I prefaced my comments in my first post by saying I don't think she really expects to get it. I would have been less sympathetic to her if she had not said she would donate the money to charity.

There was a sexual harassment claim recently (I think the lady was a partner in a law firm, but don't remember the details) for $11m. It was settled out of court for a rumoured $4m - but again, this was never confirmed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...