- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
Does everyone still remember that the allegations are just that .... "allegations". Not one skerrick of proof. Her word against his. Allegedly. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz. Anybody?
They will not be finding what is not there, to state the bleeding obvious.. What happens when someone whose paid to find the most unattractive parts of persons life is let loose on that persons history ?
Quite correct, TS. However, the fact that Mr McInnes resigned with the acknowledgement that he had behaved inappropriately has clearly been transposed in many people's minds into a confession that he absolutely did everything Ms Fraser Kirk is alleging. Presumably this is what he has returned to contest. I doubt we will ever know, and neither do I really care to be honest.Does everyone still remember that the allegations are just that .... "allegations". Not one skerrick of proof. Her word against his. Allegedly. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz. Anybody?
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.
DJs case has implications for corporate Australia
August 17, 2010
A light has been shone on the role of boards as bystanders.
THE debate about whether Kristy Fraser-Kirk is overreaching by seeking $37 million in punitive damages from David Jones overshadows a more important issue. The lawsuit identifies a little-discussed area that lies at the heart of sexual harassment and bullying: the role of the bystander. In most analyses of harassing situations, bystanders are considered to be blamelessly passive. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Fraser-Kirk's lawsuit targets the DJs board, alleging it engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act by claiming that harassment by then chief executive Mark McInnes was an isolated incident. The writ also says the board failed to correct statements made or reported by the media. McInnes returned to Australia at the weekend, denying many of Fraser-Kirk's allegations against him and saying he would fight them.
According to the writ, David Jones PR manager Anne-Marie Kelly told Fraser-Kirk she was aware of a separate incident involving McInnes and another female employee and said: ''Next time that happens you need to be very clear and say 'no, Mark' and he'll back off.''
The statement of claim's implication: board and management were bystanders.
Bullying and harassment amount to the same thing: an abuse of power. With both, bystanders play a critical role. Collusion is part of the mix. Organisations are full of low-level bullying where people could be the subject of lies and gossip, are given impossible deadlines and targets, are frozen out of conversations, and are constantly loaded down with trivial and unpleasant tasks. Experts say low-level bullying is usually not reported, although many are aware it is going on.
Bullying is a tripartite arrangement, says one of the world's experts on the subject, Stuart Twemlow, a professor of psychiatry at the Menninger Clinic in Texas who worked as a consultant to the FBI after the Columbine school shootings. He says there are three players: the bully, the victim and the bystander, each working around the other. The statement of claim suggests David Jones was full of bystanders.
Twemlow says there are several categories of bystander. First is the pathological bystander, who likes to watch but doesn't want to do it themselves: they don't want to get into trouble. Then there is the victim bystander who is frightened of the bully and who can be trained into doing some of the bully's dirty work. There are abdicating bystanders, who see what's going on but don't intervene, claiming it is none of their business. They include the boss and manager who feel the people can work it out themselves. And finally, there are the denying or avoidant bystanders, who turn a blind eye. Twemlow says the same applies to HR managers who claim there is no bullying as they have not received an official report about it.
''In our work, we noticed that the bully doesn't act as an independent individual. Bullies almost never bully by themselves,'' Twemlow says. ''The community of an organisation has a huge number of abdicating bystanders. It's the type of person who doesn't want to get involved.''
He says the bystander actually gives a ''supportive or facilitating foundation for the bully-victim interaction''. Although the main actors in the drama are the bullies and the victims, he says, bystanders do much of the damage by playing a passive, facilitating role.
In the case of DJs, according to the statement of claim, McInnes prior to his appointment had been reported to management for ''bullying aggression via screaming and abusive foul language''.
''That bullying approach was continued by McInnes and later adopted by certain of his management,'' the writ says.
If that allegation is correct, the collusive bystander theory would explain why someone allegedly cited for bullying would have been promoted in the first place.
It would also explain why a recent survey by cosmetics company Heat Group found that 44 per cent of Australian women claim they have been harassed at work, and 62 per cent say companies do not do enough to support those who make a harassment allegation.
And it would shed some light on the way Fraser-Kirk has been vilified in the media about the money, and for previously making a harassment complaint against a former boss at the New South Wales police force, implying that DJs is just another target for a serial complainer. Bystanders are now attacking the alleged victim, turning her into a scapegoat.
Fraser-Kirk's $37 million claim is unlikely to succeed. Legal commentators say the largest award for punitive damages is only $7500 and the largest court-awarded payment for sexual harassment in Australia less than $500,000. But if nothing else, the lawsuit might focus attention on a largely ignored area. It identifies the bystander and places the collusion of the board and management on the agenda for corporate Australia. That is where its real value lies.
leon@leongettler.com
I think most reasonable people find that repulsive in the extreme in rape cases. I certainly do.
But that's a non sequitur. This is not a rape case. This is a case of a guy trying to get a women to consent to sex, albeit probably inappropriately. Ergo, the woman's character does become important Wayne L[
More women set to sue David Jones for sexual harassment, court hears
Kate Lahey
August 30, 2010 - 10:47AM
More women are expected to make sexual harassment claims against David Jones and its former chief executive Mark McInnes, the Federal Court in Sydney heard today.
The revelation came as Australia's biggest sexual harassment lawsuit got under way, with Kristy Fraser-Kirk filing a $37 million claim against the department store, where she had worked as a publicity co-ordinator.
Her lawyers told the court that another six women from the company might become involved in the case.
This is in addition to five women who were earlier included in Ms Fraser-Kirk's statement of claim against David Jones.
Lawyers also told the court that two other employees who worked under Mr McInnes at another company might become involved, as would three other people who claim they were sexually harassed while working at David Jones, but not by Mr McInnes.
I don't think you need to worry too much about this. It was actually the lead item on "The World Today" on ABC Radio today, and the journalist said there was a large contingent of journalists at the court.It will be interesting to see how much media comment there is on the situation now that the formal legal processes are in play. I suspect very little.
I think most reasonable people find that repulsive in the extreme in rape cases. I certainly do.
But that's a non sequitur. This is not a rape case. This is a case of a guy trying to get a women to consent to sex, albeit probably inappropriately. Ergo, the woman's character does become important.
Did she lead him on or not?
Was she known to be promiscuous with execs or not?
Was she giving not verbal cues or not?
Was she very clear that the advances were unwanted or not?
etc etc
Sexual harassment in the workplace is still unacceptable, but when someone is asking the totally preposterous (and offensive IMO) sum of $37m, these questions must come into play.
The truth will out in the end... hopefully.
Denying the allegations ...
FORMER David Jones boss Mark McInnes fondled his penis in the office and rubbed his crotch against his 19-year-old secretary, according to sensational new allegations.
The sexual harassment allegedly happened early in his career when he worked for Black & Decker.
His ex-manager at Black & Decker has apparently come forward and is expected to give evidence that he counselled Mr McInnes up to 10 times about his inappropriate behaviour, it is claimed.
The allegations from 1989 and 1991 are detailed in an amended statement of claim filed with the Federal Court in Sydney by David Jones publicist Kristy Fraser-Kirk in support of her $37 million sexual misconduct claim against the retail giant and its former CEO who resigned earlier this year.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...oss-mark-mcinnes/story-e6freuzi-1225917678697
Makes one wonder why these situations weren't passed onto new employers.
But then I suspect most employers are only too glad to flick on serious problems.
MARK McInnes, the former chief executive of David Jones, only tried to kiss his publicist because she made sexual comments that led him on, according to the defence his lawyers lodged in the Federal Court yesterday.
Mr McInnes denied other claims against him in the $37 million sexual harassment case brought by Kristy Fraser-Kirk and said he had made no ''unwanted'' sexual advances. He denied that she showed signs the conduct was inappropriate.
To questions of Ms Fraser-Kirk's loss, humiliation, distress and anxiety, David Jones's response was simple: ''[She] is still employed … [and] has actively sought and instigated media attention.''
In a defence lodged on behalf of David Jones, which is also being sued in the case, the company said Ms Fraser-Kirk had been ''witnessed engaging with [Mr McInnes] in a flirtatious manner'' at a lunch where he allegedly forced his hand inside her top and encouraged her to come to his Bondi home for sex.
''[Mr McInnes] was witnessed hugging [Ms Fraser-Kirk] outside (Damian) Eales's home,'' the company's defence papers said. ''[She] was witnessed smiling as she walked away from [him] to a waiting car.''
At 6pm that day, Mr McInnes left a voicemail message on Ms Fraser-Kirk's phone, in which he acknowledged he had made a mistake, apologised, and said that the company would pay her compensation.
The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of over 75 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Roles were assigned at random. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond what even Zimbardo himself expected, leading the guards to display authoritarian measures. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself.
Five of the prisoners were upset enough by the process to quit the experiment early, and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. The experimental process and the results remain controversial. The entire experiment was filmed, with excerpts soon made publicly available, leaving some disturbed by the resulting film. Over 30 years later, Zimbardo found renewed interest in the experiment when the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal occurred.
I believe that the legal profession works under strict code of ethics that would preclude any members acting in such a way either directly or through their agents to intentionally or accidentally cause harm to any complainants in a legal contest in an attempt to ensure a favorable outcome.
Given that state of affairs, any inference that the legal representation of DJ's and Mr Mcinnes could in any way be responsible directly or indirectly for any alleged harrasment of Ms Fraser-Kirk and any other person who wishes to lay charges against the company cannot be countenanced. Therefore it is clear that Ms Fraser-Kirks charges cannot be correct given the totally ethical and honorable manner the legal companies representing DJ's operate.
"Basilio"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?