The glass ceiling is now made of concrete.

[Tom Sawyer]

I have a few quibbles. First of all, at least some of the allegations, although not the most serious ones against DeGrasse Tyson were sufficiently public 6 months ago that I was aware of them, and I don't consider myself particularly 'in the know.' For the most part, they were trivial and he's a physicist making him relatively low radar. The drugged rape allegation is obviously the most serious one and will be problematic to prove. Unless something terrible is proven, I don't think he'll endure any lasting harm, aside from some women speaking badly about him and avoiding him. FWIW, some men speak badly about women and women can face serious consequences because of that.

Well, the only time I heard of it was the recent news and that is being handled appropriately.

A bad date is when your date picks his nose, insults the waitstaff and vomits in the cab. According to his accuser, Aziz Ansari pressured a woman into performing sex acts on him despite her objections/disinclination to 'service' him. At best, he was insensitive and clueless. This was more than a 'bad date' but probably less than sexual assault. What I find upsetting is that men seem to think think this is just a bad date or sex that the woman regrets. It's more than that. It's sex that a woman felt a great deal of pressure to perform and got not much out of except feelings of fear and shame. There are two parts to this: Women must learn to stand up for themselves much better than some of them do and to feel no shame or fear over turning down requests for sex. There is still too much pressure on women to put out in return for dinner or drinks or simply for being nice to her.
That has to stop. Men are unlikely to stop feeling entitled to whatever they demand from a woman so that's something that women will need to work harder on. The other part that men don't seem to get is that they actually need to pay attention to women's responses prior to and during sex to gauge whether the men's advances or actions are welcome or pleasurable or if she's simply tolerating it because she's too polite or too afraid to decline or exit. Sex is supposed to be mutual and mutually pleasurable. That means you need to pay attention and not just think with what's in your pants.

Well, if he didn't force her to do anything unconsensual or do it at a workplace, it's still not particularly related to this conversation and given the present state of his career, it looks like most join me in not finding it relevant.

For decades, men have written on bathroom walls the names/ phone numbers of women who would have casual sex and have shared the information wide and far. Increasingly, women are sharing information about men who push sexual contact, sexually assault and rape other women--men to avoid. Women are actually getting in trouble for creating and sharing those lists. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/shitty-media-men-moira-donegan-andrew-miltenberg/

Well ... good. They should get in trouble for creating and sharing these lists. You can't just go around labeling people are criminals. If there's credible evidence of sexual harassment or assault by these men, report them for it. If there's not, don't label them as such without being able to back it up. It's understandable putting something like that together in the opening days of the #MeToo movement a year ago when the floodgates opened and nobody was really sure how to talk about or deal with these accusations, but it would be way the fuck out of line today and any lawsuits against similar lists should be successful.

If Dr Z and a bunch of his male executive friends put together and pass around a list of women in the company who make fake sexual harassment claims so they can make a point of avoiding being alone in a room or elevator with them so as to not have their careers destroyed by lies or a group of white executives put together a list of the black people in the company who are thieves so they can make sure they're not left alone anywhere that has expensive equipment, they would be properly liable in the defamation suits which get filed if those lists become public and the defense of "Hey, nobody except us was ever supposed to see them" would not be considered a defense.

 

[Toni]

Well, the only time I heard of it was the recent news and that is being handled appropriately.



Well, if he didn't force her to do anything unconsensual or do it at a workplace, it's still not particularly related to this conversation and given the present state of his career, it looks like most join me in not finding it relevant.

For decades, men have written on bathroom walls the names/ phone numbers of women who would have casual sex and have shared the information wide and far. Increasingly, women are sharing information about men who push sexual contact, sexually assault and rape other women--men to avoid. Women are actually getting in trouble for creating and sharing those lists. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/shitty-media-men-moira-donegan-andrew-miltenberg/

Well ... good. They should get in trouble for creating and sharing these lists. You can't just go around labeling people are criminals. If there's credible evidence of sexual harassment or assault by these men, report them for it. If there's not, don't label them as such without being able to back it up. It's understandable putting something like that together in the opening days of the #MeToo movement a year ago when the floodgates opened and nobody was really sure how to talk about or deal with these accusations, but it would be way the fuck out of line today and any lawsuits against similar lists should be successful.

If Dr Z and a bunch of his male executive friends put together and pass around a list of women in the company who make fake sexual harassment claims so they can make a point of avoiding being alone in a room or elevator with them so as to not have their careers destroyed by lies or a group of white executives put together a list of the black people in the company who are thieves so they can make sure they're not left alone anywhere that has expensive equipment, they would be properly liable in the defamation suits which get filed if those lists become public and the defense of "Hey, nobody except us was ever supposed to see them" would not be considered a defense.

Why should women get in trouble for warning other women about men who abuse women? If you go into a room with someone prominent in your industry and he tries to assault you--you are supposed to just smile as the next woman goes into that room? No.

The fact is that a lot of women who complained found themselves not believed, ignored---and black listed. It's hard enough to file charges when a stranger --preferably a black stranger--drags you down an alley and rapes you, leaving a lot of identifying evidence behind. It's much, much more difficult when it is someone who is powerful or well known. Look at Larry Nassar, Bill Cosby, Weinstein. How many decades did these men get by with abominable behavior?

Women are socialized to always be nice. To demur, to deflect, to not complain. It sets women up for being sexually assaulted and it sets men up to be protected.

The lists were never intended to be made public, were never intended to harm anyone's careers. The lists were intended to protect women from physical harm. The lists were up by the person who authored the list for only a very short period of time. She took it down as soon as she gleaned that it might be problematic or inappropriately used. Unfortunately, as we all know, nothing is truly gone from the internet.

I am absolutely certain that men share information about which women are 'cooperative' and which women are problematic--i.e. not cooperative or prone to spreading lies. In my work unit, everybody knew who was prone to dissembling and who was always upfront and honest. Men are not so quiet about things when they talk as they like to believe.

There is an enormous difference between identifying employees who might be thieves with painting an entire race of employees as potential thieves. In the first case, most employers would try to identify if stealing were actually happening and who the thieves might be and then terminating or filing charges against thieves. Only racists would identify all black people as potential thieves. Or do you not see that?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There is an enormous difference between identifying employees who might be thieves with painting an entire race of employees as potential thieves. In the first case, most employers would try to identify if stealing were actually happening and who the thieves might be and then terminating or filing charges against thieves. Only racists would identify all black people as potential thieves. Or do you not see that?

It's strange that you post back the exact same thing that I posted to you and then ask if I don't see it. Of course I see what you're saying. That's why I said it first.

If a list like that were made and became public, the black people on it would be correct to be offended by their inclusion on the list and would correct in wanting the company to take action against the people who made the list and would be correct in filing legal claims for defamation against those people because it is an inappropriate way to share information about potential thieves in the company for exactly the reasons you stated. If the people who put the list together were to say "Hey, this list was never intended to be made public and we never intended to harm anyone's careers. We were just trying to protect ourselves from theft", that wouldn't mitigate their liability or the need for them to face consequences in the event that the list does become public. The people on the list would have even more of a reason if it was just an anonymously compiled list of accused thieves and they couldn't get information about why someone is calling them a thief in the first place so that they can even defend themselves to their co-workers who start looking at them askance.

Being included on on another list of another type of accusation doesn't change that. If John Smith becomes aware that people in his company are passing around a list which accuses him of sexually assaulting or harassing women, he is right to have a problem with the people who compiled that list and demand action against them, particularly if he has no idea what it is that he's actually being accused of so that he can defend himself to his co-workers who start looking at him askance.

 

[Toni]

There is an enormous difference between identifying employees who might be thieves with painting an entire race of employees as potential thieves. In the first case, most employers would try to identify if stealing were actually happening and who the thieves might be and then terminating or filing charges against thieves. Only racists would identify all black people as potential thieves. Or do you not see that?

It's strange that you post back the exact same thing that I posted to you and then ask if I don't see it. Of course I see what you're saying. That's why I said it first.

If a list like that were made and became public, the black people on it would be correct to be offended by their inclusion on the list and would correct in wanting the company to take action against the people who made the list and would be correct in filing legal claims for defamation against those people because it is an inappropriate way to share information about potential thieves in the company for exactly the reasons you stated. If the people who put the list together were to say "Hey, this list was never intended to be made public and we never intended to harm anyone's careers. We were just trying to protect ourselves from theft", that wouldn't mitigate their liability or the need for them to face consequences in the event that the list does become public. The people on the list would have even more of a reason if it was just an anonymously compiled list of accused thieves and they couldn't get information about why someone is calling them a thief in the first place so that they can even defend themselves to their co-workers who start looking at them askance.

Being included on on another list of another type of accusation doesn't change that. If John Smith becomes aware that people in his company are passing around a list which accuses him of sexually assaulting or harassing women, he is right to have a problem with the people who compiled that list and demand action against them, particularly if he has no idea what it is that he's actually being accused of so that he can defend himself to his co-workers who start looking at him askance.

There is a pretty big difference between being put on a list because of what you, as an individual, are known to have done/how you've behaved and being put on a list because of the color of your skin.

There's also a difference between people looking for employment warning others about a bad employer/bad boss and bosses putting suspicion on every single black person for stealing.

People often share information about work conditions at a particular work place: This place treats its employees well! This place treats its employees poorly! This place always seems to dump on single people! This place is especially inflexible with parents! This place is a pretty good place to work but the assistant manager can be a real dick.

People do it all the time.

They also share info about good/bad contractors/plumbers/electricians/babysitters.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There is a pretty big difference between being put on a list because of what you, as an individual, are known to have done/how you've behaved and being put on a list because of the color of your skin.

There's also a difference between people looking for employment warning others about a bad employer/bad boss and bosses putting suspicion on every single black person for stealing.

People often share information about work conditions at a particular work place: This place treats its employees well! This place treats its employees poorly! This place always seems to dump on single people! This place is especially inflexible with parents! This place is a pretty good place to work but the assistant manager can be a real dick.

People do it all the time.

They also share info about good/bad contractors/plumbers/electricians/babysitters.

And there's also a big difference between giving someone a rating and accusing them of malfeasance. If an electrician finds that he's not getting work in a neighborhood because a customer is telling everyone that he did a shitty job, there's not much he can do because the customer is passing on an opinion about the work product. On the other hand, if the electrician finds that he's not getting work in a neighborhood because a customer is telling everyone that he literally took a shit in the middle of the kitchen while he was there, he has a good defamation suit against that customer for costing him business because of that accusation.

Similarly, giving ratings about one's bosses is very, very different from accusing those bosses of malfeasance. Saying that Mr Smith was a dick to work for because he didn't treat his employees well is not remotely the same as saying that Mr Smith was a dick to work for because he kept taking out his dick in meetings. One is offering an opinion on his management ability and the other is accusing him of a crime.

If you can't see the difference between the two and view them as comparable, then I don't really know how to respond to that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was no bending over backwards, and if you actually read your link, you will find that the jury found for the Mackenzie and said there was no sexual harassment.

Firing him over it was bending over backwards about harassment.

Later the judgement was overruled because the courts found that Mackenzie was not fired for sexual harassment but for cause. He didn't do his job well. Also Miller Brewing lied to him about the status of his job but apparently Miller Brewing was allowed to lie, which I find horrible.

That's what Miller said, it was never established.

The appeals court and supreme court did not address whether there was sexual harassment but said that Mackenzie had failed to state a cause of action for which recover could be based. Miller Brewing lied to him (I find this confusing) about the status of his job. I am guessing although the article isn't clear about this that this misrepresentation about the job led to his poor performance at the job. I don't think that makes a lot of sense but basically the appeals court and supreme court said Mackenzie had no basis for his claim.

In other words, the reason for his firing was never determined.

 

[Toni]

Firing him over it was bending over backwards about harassment.



That's what Miller said, it was never established.

The appeals court and supreme court did not address whether there was sexual harassment but said that Mackenzie had failed to state a cause of action for which recover could be based. Miller Brewing lied to him (I find this confusing) about the status of his job. I am guessing although the article isn't clear about this that this misrepresentation about the job led to his poor performance at the job. I don't think that makes a lot of sense but basically the appeals court and supreme court said Mackenzie had no basis for his claim.

In other words, the reason for his firing was never determined.

Incorrect. The first trial said that he was unfairly fired because there was no harassment. Miller claimed throughout that harassment was never the reason for firing him. The court of appeals and Supreme Court of Wisconsin said Miller was within their rights to fire him.

Whether or not the Seinfeld discussion was sexual harassment was only addressed in the first court which found no harassment had occurred. The higher courts never addressed whether or not there was harassment.

 

[Toni]

There is a pretty big difference between being put on a list because of what you, as an individual, are known to have done/how you've behaved and being put on a list because of the color of your skin.

There's also a difference between people looking for employment warning others about a bad employer/bad boss and bosses putting suspicion on every single black person for stealing.

People often share information about work conditions at a particular work place: This place treats its employees well! This place treats its employees poorly! This place always seems to dump on single people! This place is especially inflexible with parents! This place is a pretty good place to work but the assistant manager can be a real dick.

People do it all the time.

They also share info about good/bad contractors/plumbers/electricians/babysitters.

And there's also a big difference between giving someone a rating and accusing them of malfeasance. If an electrician finds that he's not getting work in a neighborhood because a customer is telling everyone that he did a shitty job, there's not much he can do because the customer is passing on an opinion about the work product. On the other hand, if the electrician finds that he's not getting work in a neighborhood because a customer is telling everyone that he literally took a shit in the middle of the kitchen while he was there, he has a good defamation suit against that customer for costing him business because of that accusation.

Similarly, giving ratings about one's bosses is very, very different from accusing those bosses of malfeasance. Saying that Mr Smith was a dick to work for because he didn't treat his employees well is not remotely the same as saying that Mr Smith was a dick to work for because he kept taking out his dick in meetings. One is offering an opinion on his management ability and the other is accusing him of a crime.

If you can't see the difference between the two and view them as comparable, then I don't really know how to respond to that.

I wasn't talking about giving someone a rating. I was talking about sharing information. It doesn't matter how good an electrician is if he takes a dump in your kitchen.

According to your reasoning, it is wrong to warn others of someone’s inappropriate behavior.

One of my biggest regrets in life is that I never told anyone about the guy who tried to rape me and sexually assaulted me for years. The reason I regret it is that he went on to assault other girls. There is virtually no chance that charges would have been filed even if I had told my parents. Or that the police would have investigated. Most cases of sexual assault go unreported and where they are reported, go uninvestigated and uncharged. That’s simple and horrific fact.

And you think it is wrong for women to warn each other.

Go to hell.

 

[bigfield]

And you think it is wrong for women to warn each other.

That what the law says.

How would you rewrite the law to make it more just?

 

[Toni]

And you think it is wrong for women to warn each other.

That what the law says.

How would you rewrite the law to make it more just?

What law is that? Can you provide a citation?

FWIW, I am talking only about US Law. I am not familiar enough with law in GB or Australia or other countries to comment.

 

[bigfield]

And you think it is wrong for women to warn each other.

That what the law says.

How would you rewrite the law to make it more just?

What law is that? Can you provide a citation?

FWIW, I am talking only about US Law. I am not familiar enough with law in GB or Australia or other countries to comment.

The law in many jurisdictions exposes women to a defamation suit if they warn other women that a man perpetrated sexual assault.

 

[thebeave]

I don't really know much about the lifestyles of male CEOs with regard to the women around them, but if its even remotely like what rock stars, rappers, and athletes go through, I would think it is sensible that they should take precautions, and engage in avoidance with women altogether when necessary. Like the rockstars, etc. the male CEOs have power, status, wealth, and/or fame (to some degree anyway...perhaps just within the business). These are characteristics in men that women are attracted to. If he's young and physically attractive, that's just icing on the cake. Its not a secret that the rockstars, rappers and athletes have to be constantly on guard with regard to women who want to exploit them. Their managers and agents warn them about this from day one. Yes, most of the female fans just probably want a selfie or two, or a chance to say hi so they can brag to their friends or post it on social media, but there are women out there who are hoping to get them into bed to exploit them. Perhaps get pregnant and sue for a settlement or a lucrative child support payment. Or claim sexual assault or rape and get a big settlement. Or blackmail them, if they are married. It goes on and on. One could argue that its the men's fault for succumbing to the advances of these women, so boo-hoo. And I would agree with that. But, speaking as a man, it ain't always easy to resist the advances of an attractive woman, and if you feel you may not be up to the task, its best to just stay away perhaps. Just like if you're on a diet, you don't go to a donut shop if you just want to sit and relax with a cup of coffee. These CEOs have often spend decades of hard work and sacrifice to get where they are, and all it takes is one reckless encounter with a nefarious woman to have it all come to a crashing end.

 

[Toni]

What law is that? Can you provide a citation?

FWIW, I am talking only about US Law. I am not familiar enough with law in GB or Australia or other countries to comment.

The law in many jurisdictions exposes women to a defamation suit if they warn other women that a man perpetrated sexual assault.

Which jurisdictions would those be? It's not defamation if it is true.

 

[Toni]

I don't really know much about the lifestyles of male CEOs with regard to the women around them, but if its even remotely like what rock stars, rappers, and athletes go through, I would think it is sensible that they should take precautions, and engage in avoidance with women altogether when necessary. Like the rockstars, etc. the male CEOs have power, status, wealth, and/or fame (to some degree anyway...perhaps just within the business). These are characteristics in men that women are attracted to. If he's young and physically attractive, that's just icing on the cake. Its not a secret that the rockstars, rappers and athletes have to be constantly on guard with regard to women who want to exploit them. Their managers and agents warn them about this from day one. Yes, most of the female fans just probably want a selfie or two, or a chance to say hi so they can brag to their friends or post it on social media, but there are women out there who are hoping to get them into bed to exploit them. Perhaps get pregnant and sue for a settlement or a lucrative child support payment. Or claim sexual assault or rape and get a big settlement. Or blackmail them, if they are married. It goes on and on. One could argue that its the men's fault for succumbing to the advances of these women, so boo-hoo. And I would agree with that. But, speaking as a man, it ain't always easy to resist the advances of an attractive woman, and if you feel you may not be up to the task, its best to just stay away perhaps. Just like if you're on a diet, you don't go to a donut shop if you just want to sit and relax with a cup of coffee. These CEOs have often spend decades of hard work and sacrifice to get where they are, and all it takes is one reckless encounter with a nefarious woman to have it all come to a crashing end.

Or you could say, as the #MeToo movement has made its case so abundantly well that CEOs, celebrities and artists and otherwise rich and powerful men use their position to have access to often very young women and use their wealth and power to exploit the ambitions (for work, not fame) of these young women in order to force or extort sexual contact with them. You are right: most of the fans just want a selfie or two. Some do want to bed a star ---and sometimes stars confuse or don't care about the difference between those who just want a selfie and those who want to have sex. Stars are surrounded by body guards, so it is difficult to make the case that these men are forced by women to engage in sex unwillingly. On the other hand, it is pretty well established that body guards often turn a blind eye to all sorts of illegal and dangerous activity by the stars they are protecting---and keep the press from finding out. That would include access to drugs, excess alcohol use and the associated property destruction--and the procurement of sex partners, willing or unwilling.

I believe that anyone who isn't interested in contracting a possibly incurable STD or becoming a parent should take appropriate precautions, which would include actually *gasp* knowing you sex partner well enough to be comfortable discussing this with them and feeling confident of their intentions and medical history.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Firing him over it was bending over backwards about harassment.



That's what Miller said, it was never established.

The appeals court and supreme court did not address whether there was sexual harassment but said that Mackenzie had failed to state a cause of action for which recover could be based. Miller Brewing lied to him (I find this confusing) about the status of his job. I am guessing although the article isn't clear about this that this misrepresentation about the job led to his poor performance at the job. I don't think that makes a lot of sense but basically the appeals court and supreme court said Mackenzie had no basis for his claim.

In other words, the reason for his firing was never determined.

Incorrect. The first trial said that he was unfairly fired because there was no harassment. Miller claimed throughout that harassment was never the reason for firing him. The court of appeals and Supreme Court of Wisconsin said Miller was within their rights to fire him.

Whether or not the Seinfeld discussion was sexual harassment was only addressed in the first court which found no harassment had occurred. The higher courts never addressed whether or not there was harassment.

Which doesn't establish the reason for his firing.

- - - Updated - - -

What law is that? Can you provide a citation?

FWIW, I am talking only about US Law. I am not familiar enough with law in GB or Australia or other countries to comment.

The law in many jurisdictions exposes women to a defamation suit if they warn other women that a man perpetrated sexual assault.

Only if she isn't in a position to prove it. Truth is normally an absolute defense against defamation.

 

[Toni]

Incorrect. The first trial said that he was unfairly fired because there was no harassment. Miller claimed throughout that harassment was never the reason for firing him. The court of appeals and Supreme Court of Wisconsin said Miller was within their rights to fire him.

Whether or not the Seinfeld discussion was sexual harassment was only addressed in the first court which found no harassment had occurred. The higher courts never addressed whether or not there was harassment.

Which doesn't establish the reason for his firing.

It is confusing to try to sort out the details of the case. In the original case, Mackenzie alleged that Miller Brewing fired him for sexual harassment. Miller Brewing alleged that they fired him for several deficiencies in his job performance, not due to harassment--although they pointed out that he had been previously accused of harassment.

The jury said there was no harassment and awarded Mackenzie $26M. Appeals overturned the award and the Supreme court upheld the appeals. No ruling by either upper court on harassment. From what I can make out, Miller Brewing lied to Mackenzie about job restructuring, leaving him in a position where he did not fulfill his job duties--but didn't know that he wasn't. That's as much as I can make out. Neither upper court addressed sexual harassment claims. We have only Mackenzie's claim that he was fired for harassment which wasn't harassment to support that. Miller Brewing says that's not why he was fired and the other courts didn't address whether or not the whole stupid Seinfeld thing was harassment.

 

[bigfield]

What law is that? Can you provide a citation?

FWIW, I am talking only about US Law. I am not familiar enough with law in GB or Australia or other countries to comment.

The law in many jurisdictions exposes women to a defamation suit if they warn other women that a man perpetrated sexual assault.

Which jurisdictions would those be? It's not defamation if it is true.

In principle, yes.

In practice, it depends on who the judge believes, and the burden is on the defendant to show the accusation has substance.

 

[Toni]

Which jurisdictions would those be? It's not defamation if it is true.

In principle, yes.

In practice, it depends on who the judge believes, and the burden is on the defendant to show the accusation has substance.

In the US, the burden of proof lies with the person filing the suit--i.e. the person who files a claim of defamation against someone.

This lays out how a defamation suit works in the US:

https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-libel-and-slander.html

It is not at all clear that someone falsely claiming that someone else committed sexual assault could even be brought to court in a defamation claim. In the case of the US woman who shared info and encouraged others to share info on predatory people in her industry, this sharing happened on line, in a private group and was never intended to be made public. The woman who started the list took it down within hours. It seems unlikely even if any or every man could demonstrate that the claims against him were false that it would rise to defamation.

*edited to add link which I forgot because I'm multitasking here...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Incorrect. The first trial said that he was unfairly fired because there was no harassment. Miller claimed throughout that harassment was never the reason for firing him. The court of appeals and Supreme Court of Wisconsin said Miller was within their rights to fire him.

Whether or not the Seinfeld discussion was sexual harassment was only addressed in the first court which found no harassment had occurred. The higher courts never addressed whether or not there was harassment.

Which doesn't establish the reason for his firing.

It is confusing to try to sort out the details of the case. In the original case, Mackenzie alleged that Miller Brewing fired him for sexual harassment. Miller Brewing alleged that they fired him for several deficiencies in his job performance, not due to harassment--although they pointed out that he had been previously accused of harassment.

The jury said there was no harassment and awarded Mackenzie $26M. Appeals overturned the award and the Supreme court upheld the appeals. No ruling by either upper court on harassment. From what I can make out, Miller Brewing lied to Mackenzie about job restructuring, leaving him in a position where he did not fulfill his job duties--but didn't know that he wasn't. That's as much as I can make out. Neither upper court addressed sexual harassment claims. We have only Mackenzie's claim that he was fired for harassment which wasn't harassment to support that. Miller Brewing says that's not why he was fired and the other courts didn't address whether or not the whole stupid Seinfeld thing was harassment.

But since no actual valid reason for firing him was established I have a very hard time with the notion that it wasn't the alleged harassment. The whole thing sounds like someone trying to come up with a way out of the big judgment. Note that no jury ever got to decide if Miller was telling the truth.

 

[Toni]

It is confusing to try to sort out the details of the case. In the original case, Mackenzie alleged that Miller Brewing fired him for sexual harassment. Miller Brewing alleged that they fired him for several deficiencies in his job performance, not due to harassment--although they pointed out that he had been previously accused of harassment.

The jury said there was no harassment and awarded Mackenzie $26M. Appeals overturned the award and the Supreme court upheld the appeals. No ruling by either upper court on harassment. From what I can make out, Miller Brewing lied to Mackenzie about job restructuring, leaving him in a position where he did not fulfill his job duties--but didn't know that he wasn't. That's as much as I can make out. Neither upper court addressed sexual harassment claims. We have only Mackenzie's claim that he was fired for harassment which wasn't harassment to support that. Miller Brewing says that's not why he was fired and the other courts didn't address whether or not the whole stupid Seinfeld thing was harassment.

But since no actual valid reason for firing him was established I have a very hard time with the notion that it wasn't the alleged harassment. The whole thing sounds like someone trying to come up with a way out of the big judgment. Note that no jury ever got to decide if Miller was telling the truth.

Miller always alleged it was because he performed his job duties poorly and made mistakes. The original court said that MacKenzie was fired for harassment which was not harassment; hence the award.

The appellate court reversed: said not the reason he was fired; they sided with Miller who had deceived Mackenzie about what his job duties actually were under the restructuring. Miller lied to Mackenzie but the court found that Miller was under no obligation to be honest with Mackenzie. That's the part I find mind boggling. The court upheld Miller's right to fire Mackenzie for criteria he wasn't aware existed. I guess this is what you get under right to work. Anyone can be fired for any reason or no reason.