| 12 18 08 Forsman on Complainant, Attorney retained by County and his interpretation of law
|
Forsman states that the perceptions of the complainant are
viewed as important by the attorney who did the investigation. The law says they very well should be. Forsman disagrees.
http://www.titleix.ucr.edu/topic_2_1.htm
Intent vs. Impact
Sexual harassment has been evaluated by whether a “reasonable person” would
consider the inappropriate conduct offensive under federal law, Title VII of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act . However, in 1991, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
decision in Ellison v. Brady, concluded that the harassing conduct must be
evaluated from the perspective of the victim. This means that the inappropriate
conduct must be evaluated from the victim’s perception. The victim determines
whether the conduct is sufficiently severe and/or pervasive as to create a
hostile environment. The intent of the harasser has no factor in the matter.
Because of Ellison v. Brady the standard brought the federal law closer to
state law’s interpretation of what is a hostile work environment. Under the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the environment is evaluated from
the victim’s perspective. In this case the court acknowledges that a man or
woman may suffer work environment sexual harassment even where his/her
co-workers, or a “reasonable person,” would not be offended by the offensive
conduct.
The Title IX/Sexual Harassment Office is aware that sexual harassment
complaints may be substantiated, in part, by the victim’s perception. To
determine whether or not there has been a violation of Title IX, will be
determined by whether the conduct is of a sexual nature and the victim is
credible, and the victim’s perception of the environment will be given great
weight to the complaint.
Forsman repeatedly discounts the perceptions of the victim
in his discussion yet as described in case law above it is a highly relevant
portion of the finding of sexual harassment.
Forsman is not an attorney and does not have the required abilities to
make such statements except as his unique opinion which does not serve the
needs of the county well.
Forsman Sept 4
lynch mob
Discounting severity of harassment
Demeaning credibility of Storassli
|
|
|