What do you think of laws that force companies to not hire the accused?

How can a public accusation ruin someone's carrier? Have employer or public views really changed that much, or is something else going on?


There are many state and perhaps federal laws that mandate that if an employer finds an employee responsible for sexual harassment, they must inform other employers who call for a reference or else by liable to anyone else who later accuses that employee of harming them as a result of being hired.

There are state and perhaps federal laws that allow the hiring employer to be sued for negligence if they fail to do research on new hires and or hire someone who has been accused or found responsible by a former employer, if the new hire is credibly accused again. (Credibly just means it can be proven not true.)

Obama Title 7 guidance, which might still be in effect, has very broad definitions of sexual harassment. Further, if someone files a complaint and the accused is not fired, they can ask the EEOC to intervene, who will do their own investigation. If they find it is more likely than not the accused is guilty, the company is liable. Since the company does not know how they will rule, and since so little is needed for them to rule, it is just safer to fire an employee unless the claim is provably false.

Broad sexual harassment definitions also mean guys can't even say what really happened since that is sexual harassment too, nor can they make this point since that is admitting to something. But their silence is used against them.

Also, the burden of proof in libel cases is on the side seeking damages. So suing accusers seems pointless, but not suing them is used as proof against the accused.

Companies can only be represented by lawyers, who see deep pockets and charge lots of money. It is so much cheaper to just settle, which too is used as grounds against the accused.


I believe it is those reasons, and not any societal opinion changes, that have explain how the accused are being destroyed (the ones without evidence. Obviously some are clearly guilty.) Further, people who speak against the movement are called "rape apologists".



Do you agree that these are the main factors?
Do you think the presence of these factors is good or bad? (Would you rather that companies be more free to make their own judgments?)

 

Thank you. I knew that things were bad, but I did not know they are that bad.

 

They are better than you think. Most people have not thrown out the presumption of innocence.

What we need is some wealthy guys to sue the government to overturn these laws on the grounds that they have the effect of denying them due process. While a private company does not have to give it, the government can't force the company to do so without denying the accused due process. The company does not have standing to sue, but the accused employees does.

That is the key. Overturn these laws, and future allegations will become just allegations, not career enders.

But we must act soon. The Gloria Allred types are likely coercing schools and employers into placing their own adjudicators into positions as a term of the settlements. Eventually they will convict everyone even if not required to.

Also, many lawyers representing big entities are not on the side of those entities, helping their clients lose.

 

The key is to get the word out to people currently losing their jobs. The courts don't recognise the rest of us as having standing, even if we are afraid to engage in political speech because those who don't like what we say can just lob a false accusation.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/feminists-power-metoo-timesup-rebecca-solnit

In this article, they admit what I have been saying all along. They are making quiet moves over decades, changing definitions of words, knocking out judges and administrators any way they can to put their own in, changing laws and rules so that they can coerce companies into firing key figures and putting their own in.

The removal of key people and suing of big companies is loud. The firing of small employees without a trial by biased "private" administrators is quiet, and will happen in the background for a while to come, even after #metoo dies down again. None of the MRA's are aware of this. They are disorganized and legally illiterate.

The article also equates failing to convict people without evidence to mean that men's word men's more than women's word, and other logical fallacies. It is correct though that if they put their people in power, logic won't matter, because it will be they who get to do the talking and deciding.

 

One other point by the article, if I remember correctly:
One of Weinstein's victims wanted to publish a statement about him years ago, and Matt Lauer, as editor, declined to let Weinstein's name be included in the article. We now know that Weinstein is gulty of many things. So, Matt's ouster could be punishment for not publishing Weinstein years ago, or may be that he actually harassed someone. I don't know the details of what else has been reported so far, but they are removing news editors who refuse to publish the names of the accused. They are controlling the press, which controls which people get defamed. That makes this look like a hit job to me, part of their strategy.

 

I do not know of any such laws exist? Please provide a link.

 

I see this as no different than making any other sexual predator tell people about their past.

If it was just an accusation with no actual guilt determined by a court, they should be exempt, but if a court ruled that they were in fact guilty of sexually harrassment, than they should have to deal with the consequences.

 

I agree completely, well, as long as the case is strong. If the jurors actually feel only 51% sure, that should just be enough to order him fired, not order other companies to not hire. I've read the list of 80 big guys accused, and several of them actually have strong cases against them. I'm just bothered by the lack of information published about the rest, and the appearance that anyone can be severely harmed by an unsupported accusation.

 

I'll try and find some and post here. Depending on the state, it may just be civil court doctrine or plaintiff arguments that worked when suing an employer. If a woman is found to have been credibly assaulted by a coworker, and it is found out that he was fired for a similar reason from his last job, some lawyers have used that when trying to sue one or the other employer, perhaps citing some laws or just using arguments.

I do know the violence against women act requires schools to give complainants a written copy of the final determination. I've read they some have shown that to guy's employers, who then fired them, and others gave it to a newspaper. I hope the cases are strong. I've read some that sounded strong, but also read that the trials can be "unfair". Without knowing the details, it sounds worrisome.

So even if an employer has their own opinion about someone, they may feel pressured to defer to a different company's decision, which itself could have been pressured.

 

On the flip side, I find it plausible that E! sided with Seacrest because he makes them lots of money. I wish someone would publicly ask him whether or not his stylist was at his house at all those 6 years and if so, why, and how it came about. The possibility of GPS location and such or her pictures dated then, without him knowing now if any where taken, would be a good start.

It seems without threats biasing companies one direction, money can biase them the other direction. It would be nice if there were a non-biased arbitrar. Even then, there would be a fight over who gets to appoint that person.

 

I never meant that there are laws that directly punish companies for hiring someone who was accused, or failing to report someone fired to the next company.

I think the laws just make it much easier for future victims/accusers to sue either company on the grounds that they were negligent. My object is that unless the case against a guy is fairly strong, that could greatly bias future employers and harm an innocent guy, when simply removing him from the first company is a better middle ground for close cases.

 

~~~~


Hence. 'Believe All Women' At Your Peril it's become a violation of our rights of due process in favor of women. In the eyes of the law all people are innocent before adjudged by a group of their peers. Women have now turned American Due Process Law into Russian law. A man accused must prove his innocence.