I was never a Seinfeld fan so I never saw the show you are talking about. I still don’t see the relevance. We’re talking about the real world here and not imagined events.
I suggest you read what I actually wrote. I am not discussing what happened on a TV show, but people talking about a TV show!
https://corporate.findlaw.com/human...on-to-executive-fired-over-racy-seinfeld.html
(Note that it seems to have been shot down on a technicality that I don't understand.)
Loren,
Thank you very much for providing a link. Just trying to decipher what you were getting at without the link was beyond my abilities. The link really helps.
My reading of the events of the link are as follows (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding anything. It's a little confusing):
1. 20 years prior to the #MeToo movement. MacKenzie, who was employed by Miller Brewing, attempted to explain an episode of Seinfeld to a female co-worker named Best.
2. Best complained to Miller Brewing, alleging sexual harassment.
3. Shortly after, MacKenzie was fired by Miller Brewing.
4. MacKenzie sued Best and Miller Brewery for interfering with his employment. The jury, comprised of 10 women and 2 men awarded MacKenzie $26M, and found there was no sexual harassment. (FWIW, I think that Seinfeld was a stupid show, and it was a stupid conversation to have with anyone, much less someone at work but I agree that the actions as described in the linked article do not constitute sexual harassment).
5. The decision was appealed and overturned and ultimately the appeal was upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court which ruled there was no sexual harassment but that the firing was not predicated on the allegations of sexual harassment.
It sounds to me like Miller Brewing treated MacKenzie unfairly or at least was dishonest about why they fired him--or he reached the wrong conclusion OR that he purposely misled the court in the initial case about why he was fired, alleging that it was for sexual harassment which didn't actually take place.
I may have misunderstood something but this particular case does not seem to support your thesis that #MeToo is making it too difficult to employ women or to mentor women.
For one thing, the case took place 20 years prior to #MeToo.
More importantly, every single court decision found and upheld that there was NO SEXUAL HARASSMENT. MacKenzie was not fired for sexual harassment, according to Miller Brewing and the court of appeals and Wisconsin Supreme court found also that MacKenzie was not fired for sexual harassment.
My guess is that Mackenzie was a proper asshole and that's why he ultimately was fired. It was only in his own mind that his firing/demotions were due to allegations of sexual harassment. No one aside from Best seems to have thought it was harassment.
I don't know if Mackenzie was a proper asshole. That's just a guess. He may have genuinely thought there was a connection between the allegation of sexual harassment and his demotion/firing. He was successful in arguing this in the original court case. However, ultimately Miller Brewing was able to convince the court that wasn't why he was demoted/fired. Maybe Miller Brewing lied. Maybe MacKenzie lied. Or was simply wrong. Neither would not surprise me at all. He may or may not have been treated unfairly or maybe just badly. Or maybe he was a big enough asshole that he deserved to be let go.
But the important relevant fact here is that NO COURT EVER FOUND THAT THERE WAS SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Ultimately, his firing was found to be justified.