Who is financially responsible... if an elected arnie is sued for sexual

harassment in the office of the Governorship?

The voters now know of his 30+ year pattern of behavior.

It would only be a matter of time before the boorish, brute forcefully pawed some female staffer. Or perhaps a female lobbyist or legislator.

It is inevitable. And likely to occur multiple times.

There will be lawsuits.

Who gets sued and who pays the bill? Arnold the groper who creates the hostile work environment? Or the voters/taxpayers who by pluarality had put him into office KNOWING of his behavior?

You don't turn those attitudes off like a spigot.

I am being both sarcastic, and serious.

There would be sexual harassment charges filed against the governor.

Bet both he and the state would be sued.

would be on the hook. I might add, if any of the allegations not barred by the statue of limitations are proven it is grounds for impeachment which can proceed with a Democratic majority in the Senate and Assembly.

the assualt in 2000 that showed up in todays charges - as well as the woman on the set with the 'elevator' scenario (also 200?) both sound more serious and more recent.

even if he did it while in office. The taxpayers can only be dinged for official acts he did in furtherance of his duties.

that the voters' themselves, due to the media coverage of his track record of sexual harassment, had knowledge that this was likely to happen, and took responsibility for it by electing him?

I would think that a savvy lawyer, looking for a bigger payout, would try to find a way to work that angle.

the taxpayers could very well be responsible for any such judgment. Not knowing CA law, I will defer to yours and NSMA's legal expertise.

I will say though, that he would almost certainly be entitled to defense by the CA AG's office at taxpayer expense. It simply depends on the particulars of the insurance policy carried by the state or the governmental risk pool to which the state belongs. Most exclude acts outside the scope of employment or office held, but certainly not all. But keep in mind that his acts would probably not be considered outside the scope of employment either.

This is because in cases of harassment in the supervision of a subordinate, the acts ARE considered within the scope of employment for employment litigation purposes. Otherwise, NO EMPLOYER would ever be held liable for violations of Title VII, since it is obvious that illegal harassment is outside the normal scope of employment. But unfortunately, Title VII would prohibit suing him individually for harassment! However, a woman could get outside of Title VII if there was actual touching, since she could then bring a claim for state law sexual assault, and could then sue him personally. Of course, the California version of Title VII may also allow her to sue him personally (the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act would not).

BTW- In Texas, the governor would be entitled to a defense at my expense, and the judgment would more than likely be paid by the taxpayers through TML.

Sorry this is so sketchy- it's just a primer on verrry basic employment law!

If Arnie became governor he could be sued for
anything before he became Gov and those would
be his own costs.
Anything after he became Gov would in most part be paid by
the state.

So, add this to your list of concerns about the
Barbarian.

since the threads yesterday - of - this is slime.. it doesn't matter.. it plays worse for us...

I have been bothered. Diminishing reports of ongoing behavior that would likely continue into the governor's mansion... when the likely result is that sexual harassment would occur in the least in the form of creating a hostile work environment. Seemed as if there is a BIG, but undiscussed, liability lurking behind those stories.