Hostile work environment enforcement and the "reasonable person of the opposite sex standard"
1. The more dishonest, intolerant, or militant one sex is in asserting that things that sex dislikes reach the "severe or pervasive" standard, the more biased the hostile work environment laws become in favor of that sex.
2. The more honest, tolerant, and moderate one sex is in accepting that not everything that sex dislikes reaches the "severe or pervasive" standard, the more biased the hostile work environment laws become against that sex.
3. With no penalties for losing hostile work environment lawsuits that are commensurate with the gains sought by filing those lawsuits, one can expect legal creep toward ever more dishonest, intolerant, and unreasonable lawsuits as attorneys fearlessly try to extrapolate legal precedence. After all, if some court accepted moronic argument A as valid, and argument B is only a little bit more moronic, maybe some court will accept B. Even if the court does not accept B, the plaintiff faces no significant penalties commensurate with the gain sought. With no restraining penalties, this legal creep tends to continue until it becomes legal crap.
Does this make any sense? Surely rewarding dishonesty, intolerance, and extremism does not result in a fair and tolerant work environment for all?
No comments:
Post a Comment