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
Good article. Some salient points in the last paragraph

 
And now for the latest installment in the DJ sex saga.. ( I understand Womens Weekly or No Idea will be doing a serialization of this gripping tale...)

Apparently the lawyers at DJ's are putting together a juicy settlement offer to Ms Kirsty Fraser-Clark. Around $1m but it all goes private, no more talkies, no more court cases, sign up NOW, - basically the normal scenario of "How much will cost to shut this ***** up and get on with business".

And apparently if the offer is rejected and it goes to court and Kirsty loses - she pays out a fortune in legal fees for both sides.

So does she take the easy way out, take the money ( looking like a gold digger or just being practical ?) or come back with a counter offer that shows a bit of imagination and cojones.

For example I'd like to see as part of a settlement a DJ's sponsored and funded workplace sexual harassment centre and a meaningful public explanation and apology for the company.

Any thoughts ?


http://www.theage.com.au/national/djs-offers-to-settle-out-of-court-20100807-11pgl.html
 
basilio said:
So does she take the easy way out, take the money ( looking like a gold digger or just being practical ?) or come back with a counter offer that shows a bit of imagination and cojones.

Any thoughts ?
Click to expand...

Yes. If she really does have "cojones" it could explain why she wants to get even with McInnes.
 
From today's "Sunday Mail":


Seems to align with her including her DJ's colleagues in her current claim, despite their having resolved the issue and continuing to work for DJ's.
 

Interesting titbits.... Always nice to bring up some juicy gossip when one is trying to destroy an opponent.

I think everyone is on the same page in agreeing that Mark McInnes was repeatedly hitting on Ms Fraser Kirk, that she tried to stop him nicely at first and then received no support from DJ management. And it also seems clear that this wasn't the first such incident. So maybe we should focus on what happened at DJ.s

The fact that she stood up for herself in her previous employment seems to confirm her courage. It would be interesting to learn more about the last quote. I'd be very cautious about accepting its validity.

You know, some people just lie or say whatever they want if it suits their purpose. And if I was trying to destroy Ms Fraser Kirks nerve and credibility to kill a $37 million law suit that is exactly what I would do.
 
"Brave New World"
I remember a time when you became foreman, project leader, department head based on your knowledge of the job at hand; a good project leader could give other project team members precise instructions what needed to be done, and if need be, follow up with precise instructions how to go about it. (If the latter was needed too frequently, a team member might be in line for replacement.)

In recent years, thanks to increased squawking by minority groups, the do-good brigades, and politicians' interest in their re-election by marginal groups, it's not enough to be good at the job. You also have to have a degree in psychologgy, be a nursemaid thinking for those you're responsible for, and read their minds to avoid even the hint of a suspicion of someone's feeling offended by a loose word or gesture.

How easy is it now for an employee to cry foul, make accusations, and have the press and public opinion makers turn judge, jury, executioner! Oh - I forgot: There's Millions to be made! And could it be the alleged offense hasn't been stopped by "Management" because they were rather worried about the financial fallout, so preferred to keep the incident(s) hushed-up? Or, just maybe, the complainant was considered a notorious whinger? I'm not saying that was the case at DJ's, I simply don't know enough details about the case to make such a judgment. Today's report about earlier trouble in the Police Department could lead one to thinking that way...

On a more general level, it has been said in an earlier contribution: Compare the amount of accident compensation for loss of eye or limb to the requested Millions of court-sanctioned penalty for a loose gun hitting on an attractive sheila.

What message will a $1M payout send out to the thousands of office girls, whose main redeeming qualifications to a job as receptionist or PA lie in being "well groomed and of pleasant demeanour"? The mind boggles.
 
Are you suggesting that by posting the newspaper extract, I am 'trying to destroy an opponent' and/or 'lying or saying whatever I want'?

The previous complaint is obviously fact. No one is making it up. Fact also is that she has named colleagues in her current claim (matches the comment from the police colleagues that she tried to involve them in her complaint as well), while they say they have actually resolved their concerns and are continuing to work at DJ's.
 
It's the right time to invest in Slater and Gordon (SGH). Litigation is a growth industry.
 
When we put a series of fair questions to Ms Fraser-Kirk's media representative, Anthony McClellan, on Friday he did not respond to telephone calls, instead releasing the information in a press release to all media, publishing the speculation about her previous work history himself.

Ms Fraser-Kirk came to the public eye when she claimed McInnes had acted inappropriately at David Jones functions in late May and early June.

The case, Australia's largest sexual-harassment claim, has sparked a public-relations war.

Mr McClellan, a self-proclaimed spin doctor, has been hired by Ms Fraser-Kirk's law firm, Harmers, to handle the media strategy for her case.

His first move was to time Ms Fraser-Kirk's Monday press conference to dominate the media on the day before, and the day of, David Jones' spring/summer fashion show, one of the company's most important days of the year.

The Sunday Telegraph can also reveal that last month, Mr McClellan asked this newspaper if it would pay for an interview with Ms Fraser-Kirk.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-has-a-past-case/story-e6frewt0-1225902509986

It would appear that she has form on this matter previously. (This is not condoning Mark McInnes actions in any way)
 
Are you suggesting that by posting the newspaper extract, I am 'trying to destroy an opponent' and/or 'lying or saying whatever I want'?
Click to expand...

Not you at all Julia. I was referring to the original story and the fact that this situation is now series of "mind games". DJ's and their advisors are trying to destroy Ms Fraser Kirks credibility in the public eye. Obviously they want her to just shut up and go away.

It's interesting that the extract from Trainspotter (published from The Telegraph) reports the situation as a "public relations war" . Nice way to lose the actual content of the case isn't it ?

I repeat I am very cautious about accepting what I read in the papers particularly if I believe there is an agenda to "get" people rather than report fairly or accurately.

Part of Ms Fraser -Kirks claim is that there has been a systemic abuse of power at DJ's. That she was not just an isolated incident but part of a pattern. I understand part of her claim is that the Board either knew about this or should have known but did nothing effective to stop the CEO.

In that context she needs to show evidence of previous widespread harassment. The fact that they were resolved in some way doesn't address the issue of ongoing problems. It was interesting but directly after the first blow up there was background reporting which said that Mr Mcinnes behavior was an open secret.

Also found a story from Miranda Devine which added another element to the picture. It was interesting how almost every friend she spoke to had a story about being harassed. Maybe that is what this case is all about rather than than being snowed by spin doctors trying to undermine the complainant ?

Given how costly the stakes are for DJ's it will be interesting to see how much dirt and ongoing pressure is put on Ms Fraser-Kirk to "settle up and shut up - or else.."

I believe she should be supported and in the process the overall issue of workplace sexual harassment better addressed

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opi...ty-old-men-need-to-back-off-20100623-yyw7.htm
 
basilio said:
DJ's and their advisors are trying to destroy Ms Fraser Kirks credibility in the public eye. Obviously they want her to just shut up and go away.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that e.g. the account of her previous allegation of harassment while working for the Police has been 'created' by DJ's?
Isn't it more likely that a journalist, having a look at Ms FK's past has come across this?
You seem very concerned to paint DJ's in the blackest possible light and I wonder why?

I repeat I am very cautious about accepting what I read in the papers particularly if I believe there is an agenda to "get" people rather than report fairly or accurately.
Click to expand...
The irony of this statement is astonishing. You are clearly absolutely believing everything Ms FK is saying, including alleging that the Board had been made aware of her complaints, when the Board have categorically stated they only learned of the situation a couple of days before she lodged her claim.

Given how costly the stakes are for DJ's it will be interesting to see how much dirt and ongoing pressure is put on Ms Fraser-Kirk to "settle up and shut up - or else.."
Click to expand...
The Board sacked McInnes - the CEO who had been so valuable to DJ's in terms of making the company so profitable - and deprived him of some of the financial rewards that had been coming to him. Imo that's a pretty decisive and tough action the Board took. And McInnes himself has undoubtedly been significantly damaged in terms of his reputation. (I'm not at all saying this is in any way undeserved: he sounds like a pest.)

You don't, of course, have to say, but I'm really interested to know why you are so strongly defending Ms FK? I don't know if you're male or female, but you seem to have a very personal agenda here.
 

McInnes was not sacked - he resigned. According to newspaper reports, DJ's sexual harassment code of conduct is written into every employee's contract, which seems to suggest McInnes broke his contract. I don't think too many people who resign before they are pushed, and who have broken their employment contracts, walk away with $2m (a reward). That, in my view is not being in any way financially deprived. The board in taking that action, was not seen to condemn his behaviour in any way.
 
You don't, of course, have to say, but I'm really interested to know why you are so strongly defending Ms FK? I don't know if you're male or female, but you seem to have a very personal agenda here.
Click to expand...

I think I made it clear why I supported and defended MS Fk in an earlier post



The fact that we are now talking about a previous sexual harassment incident experienced by Kirsty should reinforce the widespread nature of harassment and that she was not prepared to stand for it. I thought Miranda Devines story also made it clear that these experiences are far too common and in 99% of the time allowed to pass without action.

DJ's is defending it's brand and it's dollars. The Board is defending it's collective reputation for good governance which would be under severe pressure if it was found to have allowed the CEO to continue with inappropriate behavior when they were told of any previous incidents.

I don't have to put DJ.s in a bad light. It is Ms Fraser-Kirk's allegations that paint DJ's and the board in a very bad light. And the substance of these allegations has been accepted through the CEO's departure as well as independent confirmations.

The process of attacking the integrity of the accuser when your client is in deep trouble is 101 in PR management or law. That's why I see the dragging up of a previous harassment case and it's careful presentation to show Ms Fraser-kirk in a poor light as part of a PR response from DJ's to convince her to settle quickly and quietly.

References

Miranda Devine on widespread harrassment.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/flirty-old-men-need-to-back-off-20100623-yyw7.html

Ian Verrender on Mr McInnes form and DJ's action
http://www.theage.com.au/business/harassment-will-keep-hounding-houndstooth-20100802-113eb.html
 
wayneL said:
Yeah but we all know it's the same thing under these types of circumstances.
Click to expand...

Not the same thing at all. It is important not only to do the right thing, but to be seen to be doing the right thing. If the board had sacked McInnes, it would have been seen by the public as a positive move, standing by their code of conduct. Their action in not sacking him, AND paying him a large fee as they waved him goodbye, is seen to be spineless and does not condemn his actions. It renders their much-vaunted code of conduct meaningless.
 

Apologies in advance for the digression, but the tactic of attacking the character and integrity of the accuser is something I would really like to see disappear from sexual assualt cases. I don't deny that there are undoubtedly some false accusations made, but having your past sexual history scrutinised and character assassinated is also surely what causes many victims of sexual assault to think twice about laying charges. I'd prefer to see past history left out of these types of cases - and to be fair, that would be for both accuser and accused.

Now, back to the case this thread's about - it would seem that there is a pattern of sexually predatory behaviour on the part of the ex-CEO, and also prior history of a complaint of sexual harrassment on the part of Fraser-Kirk (if what we read in various media can be believed). Perhaps he really is a serial offender and she really was harrassed before, or perhaps he's been a model of CEOness and she's a serial whinger - either way I think this case should be decided on its own merits - any prior actions by either party have no bearing on whether DJ's board knew what was going on in their own company or not, and that seems to be the crux of the punitive damages she's seeking isn't it?
 
He would have been told to resign so effectively he was sacked. I'd guess part of the deal would have been that he also had to concede his conduct had been inappropriate.
Sorry, Ruby, but the fact is that he was indeed financially deprived:


Basilio, your quoted reason of friends who have been drugged and/or seriously assaulted would hardly seem to compare with what Ms Fraser Kirk is complaining about.

Good summary, DocK. If indeed the question of punitive damages depends on when the Board took action, I wonder how this will be established? They have clearly said that they had not been advised until just before Mr McInnes was fired/resigned.
And it's only the punitive damages which Ms Fraser Kirk has suggested she will donate to some as yet non-existent charity. She has made no such gestures regarding any general damages awarded.
 
Basilio, your quoted reason of friends who have been drugged and/or seriously assaulted would hardly seem to compare with what Ms Fraser Kirk is complaining about.
Click to expand...

It's interesting you should say that and on the surface that may be the case. But perhaps not.

In the two incidents I have seen there was undoubtedly strong trauma at the time of the incident. But there was excellent support from family and friends and acknowledgment that this was one horrible action. They were also incidents that in a sense were in just one part of the persons life and the rest of their lives went on well and allowed them to cope and heal.

I think having your work life disrupted by a predatory CEO who will not take no for an answer would be a long term very painful stress. It would be something you were facing over an extended period of time. You would have to continually juggle the question of complaining with all the stigma attached to that; giving in or accepting the behaviour and feeling (rightly) as if you are being abused ; or leaving your job and facing the uncertainty of looking for new employment. The last scenario is probably not viable for women with few skills in, for example, the textile industry. I remember there were a number of cases where foremen took advantage of this vulnerability to exploit women workers.

____________________________

The strongest reason most people don't end up pressing charges is realising they will have to go through the whole experience time after time with the lawyers,the police, the courts and the public simply reopening the wounds. And in the end there is every likelihood there will be no justice. Not very appetizing ...
 
....any prior actions by either party have no bearing on whether DJ's board knew what was going on in their own company or not, and that seems to be the crux of the punitive damages she's seeking isn't it?
Click to expand...

What ? I believe one of the critical points Ms Fraser-Kirk is alleging is that the CEO had a number of documented complaints about his behavior and that the DJ board had chosen to either ignore them or not inform themselves of the the complaints. In effect they were not implementing a safe workplace for their employees. That is one of the planks on which Ms Fraser-Kirks lawyers is attacking the company.
 

Basilio, I think you've misunderstood my post. In saying that:
any prior actions by either party have no bearing on whether DJ's board knew what was going on in their own company or not, and that seems to be the crux of the punitive damages she's seeking isn't it?
Click to expand...
I was referring to the actions of either McInnes or Fraser-Kirk during prior employment, or since leaving DJ's. Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. I had just read the following from the link you quoted above http://www.theage.com.au/business/harassment-will-keep-hounding-houndstooth-20100802-113eb.html


and

(my bolds)

The point I was trying to make is that neither his behaviour outside of his role at DJ's, nor her complaint of harrassment at a prior job, answer the question "did the board know what was going on, or not? And if not, should they have?"

Within the company, the board is adamant that it had no idea of the increasingly out-of-control behaviour of its chief executive.
Click to expand...

To me, and it's only my own opinion, this is the most important point in this matter - did the board turn a blind eye for the good of its bottom line, to the detriment of its employees, or were they really oblivious to what was going on and unaware of prior complaints? I doubt this will be easy to prove either way unless she had the wit to document her prior complaint and can find other DJ's employees willing to back her up in court - as usual with most sexual harrassment/assualt cases it will come down to "she said/he said" with the media and public taking one side or another. As on this forum

For the record, I'm really not fussed too much about either McInnes, Fraser-Kirk or DJ's - the best outcome for me would be for attitudes towards sexual harrassment to be challenged, better guidelines put in place to ensure all employers and employees realise what is simply not acceptable, and a clearcut process for complaints. I do think that all this publicity has made big business sit up and take notice, and left all and sundry aware that there can be very serious consequences for any abuse of power in the workplace, not only for the perpetrator but also for those who failed to protect their staff and "turned a blind eye" - whether that has actually happened in this case or not.....
 
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...