Fox News: Bad Language Isn't Illegal (downplays sexual harassment)

The lewd language of a Fox News Channel executive -- however tasteless -- does not constitute sexual harassment or discrimination, a lawyer for the network said Tuesday.

The lawyer was responding to a discrimination suit against the network filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and targeting the head of the company’s promotion department.

---

Steven Mintz, a Manhattan lawyer hired by Fox, called the complaint "legally baseless", saying: "We don’t view any of the assertions in the action as either harassment or discrimination. This is a case involving bad language."

---

The suit is based on allegations that during Weiler’s 13 months at the network, Chillemi regularly used obscenities and vulgarities and that the network retaliated against Weiler when she objected.

EEOC trial attorney Judy Keenan says that Weiler was not fired outright, but was “constructively terminated” by the hostility toward her after she complained.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6282311.html?display=Breaking+News

LOL -- if that's their defense -- what a bunch of clowns!

They get worse

Bad language is more offensive than bosoms. Babies need breasts to live, and Republicans love forcing babies to be born, so breasts are really good, so why not celebrate them on television?

....was not fired outright, but was “constructively terminated” by the hostility toward her after she complained.

They might have underplayed it a bit, but in comparison to the horrible treatment depicted, the victory wasn't very visceral.

It's good to see history in the making, however. How long ago were women verboten to vote?

Right. Now, can't she sue for having had to work in a hostile environment?

*goes off to make a sign advocating more boobs on TV*

people should not pretend that it's normal to harass people.



On edit:

IOW - the more society at large, other TV shows, DU, whomever, normalize such language (even if we aren't harassing each other).
- the easier it will be for FOX and the like to harass women/others.


One example from the article:

--Chillemi routinely cursed at and otherwise denigrated women employees and treated them in a demeaning way (including telling women not to be a “p--sy” but to “be a man”, and referring to women as being a “bitch”).

I wondered what the specific "bad language" was. No surprise--it was language specifically denigrating to women.

Gosh.
D'ya think if it was some other kind of "bad language", they'd be falling all over themselves to appologize?

Well, I guess Weiler and any other women who don't like it can just go home, take off their shoes and get pregnant.

I'm getting real tired of this f-ing war on women.

constructively terminated, my ass. Goes right along with all the other repuke rapes : of truth, language, the environment, human rights, social safety nets, oil bearing foreign countries. Etcetera ad infinitum.

a good lawyer would not be conceding that point!

time to make a mass emailing campaign listing all the Moral Values hypocrisy of the RWers...Guess it'll be too long of an email, uh..

As both a boss and employee, in many workplaces, I've seen bad language used in many workplaces -- especially by upset bosses -- and by both sexes.

I never saw it as sexual harassment (but who knows)?. That said, I have investigated and fired employees for sexually harrasing others, but fail to see bad language as an expression of anger or frustration as *neccissarily* bad.

Now, bad language with both sexual meaning and sexual overtones very well could be harrasment, but language itself I don't see that way.

Who does Faux news think they are? Why do they think this type of language is even acceptable? It isn't.

Yes, their lawyer's statement didn't even address the bigger issue that women are denied equal advancement opportunities.

but names will never hurt me.

Sorry, but the use of bad language alone is not sexual harrassment.

if it's the C word, then yes, it is. Actually if they're calling women bitches, it is too.

The the f-word can be too.

but in offices were I've worked, I've been "god bless you'd" constantly, seen offensive anti-choice bumperstickers in cubicles, been told I was going to hell, etc. and that is not harrasment, or a hostile workplace?

...you complained to the higher-ups and nothing was done about it, that would be harassment.

Probably nothing you can do about anti-choice bumperstickers. Same with "god bless you."

Nice. That renews my faith in this board. Sorta.

Don't tell me - this infringes on men's right to harass women??

I suppose it's a freedom of speech issue for you - the right to harass??


Sexual Harassment: Any unwarranted and repeated sexual comments, looks, suggestions OR physical contact that create an uncomfortable working environment for an employee.

http://www.lunewsviews.com/your_rights/glossary.htm


also:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/employment/sexual_harassment.html

But calling someone a B is not a "sexual comment" - it may be menacing, demeaning, hostile, etc, but not sexual harrassment.

go to once a year or once ever few years.

I've never been in one where they said foul language was okay. They said saying anything that intimidates or threatens someone can be considered harassment. Calling women names would do it.

and here anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or makes it a hostile workplace whether it's off-color jokes, bad language or the latest Raiderettes calender, if you make it known that you find it offensive it needs to stop.

If somebody has a swimsuit calendar up and nobody complains about it, then no Court is going to find anything wrong. However, if someone is offended and complains, and the swimsuit calendar still stays up afterwards, then we're looking at an illegal hostile work environment.

... if it contributes to a "hostile work environment" as defined by statutes it definitely is illegal.

Good luck with that defense!

...on whoever answers the phone. Then call Focks HQ and use bad language. Explain to them that it's not illegal, and since it was their idea, it's all just fun!

Ha, ha!

Except I would never be as classless to use that language on someone answering the phone at a business. How Faux/Bushco news defends such language is beyond me. But they did have their president referring to others as assholes and Cheney telling a Senator to go fuck himself.

Don't you just love these self-proclaimed "Christians"?

Heck, you can get away with a lot of crimes that way. Tell someone to kill your boss, tell him where you hid the money in case he does it. Just bad language. That should be Libby's and Rove's defense. No more of the "Ronald Reagan Defense" (I can't recall what I knew)--it's just all bad language.

The effects of the language are completely irrelevant.

Oh, and I think male genitalia should be shown. Let's be "edgy", wot?

...I really think it's sad, that we're witnessing what is essentially the criminalization of sexual harassment."

-William Kristol

:rofl:

Great, now I have to clean my monitor!!!

William Kristol needs to read more...


"The Afghan Women's Bill of Rights is a short, unambiguous document, carefully written to make the priorities of women clear while avoiding a head-on collision with Muslim leaders. Most Afghan women value their religion and would not readily choose a secular state. This upsets some American and European activists, who want a more radical approach. They, however, don't have to live in Afghanistan.

The women's bill of rights has only 16 short clauses. It asks for mandatory female education through secondary school and opportunities for higher education, an up-to-date health service that meets women's needs and the criminalization of sexual harassment, domestic violence and the use of women as compensation in disputes between families. The women asked for public freedoms recognized in many places, such as freedom of speech, political participation and a role in the judiciary. They want the right to hold and inherit property and the ability to rise to high positions in the country's economic life, along with equal pay for equal work."

http://www.theatlantic.com/foreign/unwire/crossette2003-10-06.htm


Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, Mongolia, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.47 (2000).


1. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights considered the third periodic report of Mongolia on the implementation of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/1994/104/Add.21) at its 34th, 35th and 36th meetings, held on 17 and 18 August 2000, and adopted, at its 49th meeting held on 28 August 2000, the following concluding observations.

23. The Committee calls on the State party to enforce efficiently in practice labour legislation prohibiting discrimination against women in employment, such as prohibition of the dismissal of pregnant women and the criminalization of sexual harassment. The Committee urges the State party to organize public campaigns to raise awareness about domestic violence, to criminalize spousal rape and to provide victims with shelters and adequate remedies.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/esc/mongolia2000.html

FNC for ya.

It's illegal to, in any form, discriminate against an employee or fire an employee for discriminatory reasons such as race, religion or ethnic background, lifestyle, etc.

What fox news did according to this fits the bill, they prejaduiced against this woman for being a woman regardless what words they used, and essentially fired her for the same reason. It isn't harassment if the EEOC is involved, it's discrimination at the work place.

I hope the EEOC wins on this one, my best friend works in the NYC office.