Village Voice lawsuite

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:25 pm

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1014051vv1.html

OCTOBER 14--A former editor at The Village Voice, the progressive alternative weekly, claims that he was sexually harassed and exposed to a barrage of crude comments about his gay lifestyle before being unjustly fired last year after 38 years at the New York newspaper.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:41 pm

Big news for those interested in sexual harrassment law in NYC. Do you have an opinion on the merits of the case, or are you just a proponent of sexual harassment awareness?

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:43 pm

i just thought it was an interesting case
i am also looking for opinions from the lawyers on this board

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:55 pm

Oh the tangled weaves we web!?!?!?

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:24 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:i just thought it was an interesting case
i am also looking for opinions from the lawyers on this board

From a legal standpoint, I really don't have any earth-shattering analysis for you at this point. I've only read page one of the fifteen-page complaint; maybe I'll read the rest later if I have time.

What's interesting about the case to me, though, is the irony. The Village Voice is a progressive, liberal (not intended as a dirty word) newspaper. Its editorial page generally preaches tolerance, and if gender-based and/or sexual orientation-based discrimination does occur there, it would be truly ironic.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:25 pm

well it is rather interesting that that would have happened over there since they are one of the first mags that will hang a repub for the same activity

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:36 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:well it is rather interesting that that would have happened over there since they are one of the first mags that will hang a repub for the same activity

You're making the assumption that a Republican magazine would hire a gay man in the first place. That's the part that mitigates any (EDIT to "some of the") irony that's on the surface. A mag like that likely has a lot of gays on staff. Gays, like straights, have a portion of their population that gets really upset when fired and likes to sue for anything they can think of.

And it doesn't look like he suggests that he was discriminated against for being gay, but rather he complains that people made crude references to his lifestyle (meaning lots of dirty jokes and lewd comments, like many other workplaces). The only basis upon which he claims to be discriminated against is on the basis of age.

This appears to be essentially the same type of sexual harrassment case as the lady who was upset about a co-worker talking about the "Delores" Seinfeld episode, only with a different set of players (and a different set of body parts discussed, presumably).

EDIT: After reading a bit further into the complaint, it does sound like his boss was well over the top in his comments, if the allegations are true and not taken out of context. I assume this will cost him his job, as you really can't be too harsh on gays and be in the market that the VV is in.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:08 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:well it is rather interesting that that would have happened over there since they are one of the first mags that will hang a repub for the same activity
You're making the assumption that a Republican magazine would hire a gay man in the first place. That's the part that mitigates any (EDIT to "some of the") irony that's on the surface. A mag like that likely has a lot of gays on staff. Gays, like straights, have a portion of their population that gets really upset when fired and likes to sue for anything they can think of.

1) I would honestly think that any good mag. would care less if the person they hired was gay or not
2) arent progressives supposto be the people who are sensative to the plite of gays? seriously?

And it doesn't look like he suggests that he was discriminated against for being gay, but rather he complains that people made crude references to his lifestyle (meaning lots of dirty jokes and lewd comments, like many other workplaces). The only basis upon which he claims to be discriminated against is on the basis of age.

doesnt excuse it...that type of action stinks regardless of who it happens to or "the heart" of the co-worker. it shows little regard to the feelings of that person and it stinks
[/quote]
This appears to be essentially the same type of sexual harrassment case as the lady who was upset about a co-worker talking about the "Delores" Seinfeld episode, only with a different set of players (and a different set of body parts discussed, presumably).

EDIT: After reading a bit further into the complaint, it does sound like his boss was well over the top in his comments, if the allegations are true and not taken out of context. I assume this will cost him his job, as you really can't be too harsh on gays and be in the market that the VV is in.[/quote]

one last thing. It sounds like,judging from the guys reaction, that the people who made this kind of crude jokes towards sombody else dont usually do it because they are looking for a joke

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:09 pm

I would honestly be shocked if any "Republican" (although the VV isn't a "Democrat mag, either) magazine hired an outwardly gay reporter and let him do a Queer edition of the magazine.

That being said, yes, I agree, sexual harrassment is wrong and shouldn't be done. But it does in work settings of all political persuasions. There are bad bosses and dickheads under all political banners and professions.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:20 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:There are bad bosses and dickheads under all political banners and professions.

Except for the legal profession, where there are absolutely no dickheads and everything is sunshine and puppy dog tails.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:41 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:I would honestly be shocked if any "Republican" (although the VV isn't a "Democrat mag, either) magazine hired an outwardly gay reporter and let him do a Queer edition of the magazine.

That being said, yes, I agree, sexual harrassment is wrong and shouldn't be done. But it does in work settings of all political persuasions. There are bad bosses and dickheads under all political banners and professions.

just because its done doesnt mean that it has to be tolerated...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:26 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I would honestly be shocked if any "Republican" (although the VV isn't a "Democrat mag, either) magazine hired an outwardly gay reporter and let him do a Queer edition of the magazine.

That being said, yes, I agree, sexual harrassment is wrong and shouldn't be done. But it does in work settings of all political persuasions. There are bad bosses and dickheads under all political banners and professions.
just because its done doesnt mean that it has to be tolerated...

I agree. If the charges in this case are true, heads should roll.

What are your feelings about Clarence Thomas, just out of curiosity?

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:28 pm

What are your feelings of Bill Clinton?

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:31 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I would honestly be shocked if any "Republican" (although the VV isn't a "Democrat mag, either) magazine hired an outwardly gay reporter and let him do a Queer edition of the magazine.

That being said, yes, I agree, sexual harrassment is wrong and shouldn't be done. But it does in work settings of all political persuasions. There are bad bosses and dickheads under all political banners and professions.
just because its done doesnt mean that it has to be tolerated...
I agree. If the charges in this case are true, heads should roll.

What are your feelings about Clarence Thomas, just out of curiosity?

well he got confirmed despite accusations of being a sexual harasser, which was rather embarassing if you ask me

but more appropriately has he been accused of anything recently?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:37 pm

I agree that his confirmation was embarrassing, both due to the accusations, but more importantly, due to his lack of qualifications (outside of being black and conservative).

He has not been accused of anything lately, so that is a good thing. Perhaps the accused in this case, after this public humiliation, will also change his behavior for the better.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:40 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:I agree that his confirmation was embarrassing, both due to the accusations, but more importantly, due to his lack of qualifications (outside of being black and conservative).

He has not been accused of anything lately, so that is a good thing. Perhaps the accused in this case, after this public humiliation, will also change his behavior for the better.

well then it was people who knew more about him then us peons who confirmed him, and to be honest i think he has done a good job...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:44 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I agree that his confirmation was embarrassing, both due to the accusations, but more importantly, due to his lack of qualifications (outside of being black and conservative).

He has not been accused of anything lately, so that is a good thing. Perhaps the accused in this case, after this public humiliation, will also change his behavior for the better.
well then it was people who knew more about him then us peons who confirmed him, and to be honest i think he has done a good job...

The people who confirmed him were politically motivated -- they weren't looking for the best person for the job. But this is totally different topic. Sorry for the hijacking....

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:46 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I agree that his confirmation was embarrassing, both due to the accusations, but more importantly, due to his lack of qualifications (outside of being black and conservative).

He has not been accused of anything lately, so that is a good thing. Perhaps the accused in this case, after this public humiliation, will also change his behavior for the better.
well then it was people who knew more about him then us peons who confirmed him, and to be honest i think he has done a good job...
The people who confirmed him were politically motivated -- they weren't looking for the best person for the job. But this is totally different topic. Sorry for the hijacking....

np i need the stress relief after the chem test

how can you say that it was politically modivated? and also if you want to argue qualifications we also have the former lead council for the ACLU on the Supreme Court

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:18 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I agree that his confirmation was embarrassing, both due to the accusations, but more importantly, due to his lack of qualifications (outside of being black and conservative).

He has not been accused of anything lately, so that is a good thing. Perhaps the accused in this case, after this public humiliation, will also change his behavior for the better.
well then it was people who knew more about him then us peons who confirmed him, and to be honest i think he has done a good job...
The people who confirmed him were politically motivated -- they weren't looking for the best person for the job. But this is totally different topic. Sorry for the hijacking....
np i need the stress relief after the chem test

how can you say that it was politically modivated? and also if you want to argue qualifications we also have the former lead council for the ACLU on the Supreme Court

It was political because all Supreme Court picks are political. His just happened to be more so due to the circumstances -- replacing Thurgood Marshall, a legend in the Civil Rights battles, with a guy who also happened to be black, but stood for almost the exact opposite ideals of the man he was replacing. That is a bit too much coincidence to not be intentional. There were certainly better choices out there, but they had a particular mold in mind for the selection, and he fit it. It was similar to Miers (sp?), except that she was SO woefully unqualified that nobody could endorse her with a straight face (except Bush).

There are great legal minds and there are not so great legal minds, and it has nothing to do with ideology. Clarence Thomas is not, in the minds of most/all legal experts, among the great legal minds in our country. He is largely silent in all Supreme Court proceedings, and the opinions he authors don't impress many in a legal sense. He's simply not highly regarded as a justice, all political bias aside.

As a consistent vote for your "team", yeah, he's great, but that's not really the mark of a great legal mind -- that's the mark of a follower.

I would argue that being the lead council for the ACLU does require a great legal mind (to do the job well). It's not easy to vigorously argue often unpopular legal positions in a very high profile position.

I guess it's a matter of what one wants out of a Supreme Court justice. If you want them to know the law and to possess an intellectual curiosity necessary to interpret the law, then a great legal mind is desirable. If we simply want a court full of partisans who vote along party lines, then ideology is the only real qualifier.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:29 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote: It was similar to Miers (sp?), except that she was SO woefully unqualified that nobody could endorse her with a straight face (except Bush).

Don't foget about Harry Reid. He was probaly her bigges supporter.