Homeland Security treated male staffers like lapdogs

[Broderick]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/janet-napolitano-run-homeland-security-treated-male-staffers-lapdogs-federal-discrimination-lawsuit-charges-article-1.1133207

Barr “moved the entire contents of the offices of three employees, including name plates, computers and telephones, to the men’s bathroom at ICE headquarters,” the suit says.
Barr also stole a male staffer’s BlackBerry and fired off a message to his female supervisor indicating that he “had a crush on [her] and fantasized about her,” Hayes claims.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/janet-napolitano-run-homeland-security-treated-male-staffers-lapdogs-federal-discrimination-lawsuit-charges-article-1.1133207#ixzz239VBzvRU

I don't know what it is all about, or if it is even going to be anything more than a few guys with sour grapes. I dealt with a company owned and operated by women top to bottom. Had a few male warehouse workers among the 20 or so women. They were in commercial flooring and a pretty big business. The guys had most of the contact with us and they all seemed fine and dandy to me. I never got the impression that the few guys felt like they were discriminated against. When we closed the location close to them, we lost the business so I don't know what goes on there now. I can assume discrimination can run both ways, but it is quite rare I believe.

HOSTS: This may create controversy, so if locking or self delete is appropriate let me know. I just want to get perspective if I can and discussion. Not looking for the political angle, but rather the men's angle.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. It's plausible.

I've worked for women before and they treated me pretty well.

However, I've seen this kind of bullying by male bosses toward male subordinates. I haven't seen it directed at female subordinates (flirting and arguable harassment, yes - but not bullying). I suspect that fear of legal retaliation may have played a role.

I have seen female supervisors who, for lack of a better word, have a chip on their shoulder which they use to justify all manner of antisocial management, and reward subordinates who adopt the attitude.

What's wrong with controversy?

[Broderick]

2. I think it is rare or often unreported if anything

But, there is little recourse for women bullying male subordinates, at least from a support standpoint. I had a number of females in my leadership group when I was in the corporate world. One in particular, who is now a city councilperson in a fairly large Minnesota town, was extremely hostile towards men that worked for her and with her. She was also extremely hostile towards me being in charge. No man could do right and no women could do wrong. We would talk it through and things would get better for awhile and then it would be the same old routine. Eventually I left for other pastures, so to speak. She subsequently blew herself out of a job after I left. I remember her op-ed's in the paper while she was employed. Subtle digs at men, her employment, and employer but she mainly focused on local issues.

As a board member of a smaller company in Maryland, we had two women on the board. One was hostile to everyone and anyone, men and women alike. That chip she carried was so large it wouldn't fit through the door, but at least it wasn't gender biased. She had it down though, and I mean how to dictate narratives. Always on the attack, never in a defense posture. I learned a lot from her by just watching her in action. She didn't live in a caveat world like I feel one has to here in cyberspace at times.

I think men are less likely to pursue legal retaliation because it is such a rare thing and patriarchy unwritten rules in societal upbringing tells men to cinch up their boots and not whine.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Controversy? Here?

Nah. Never.

[4th law of robotics]

3. Bullying is a result of power without restrictions

not what genitalia you're wielding.

Female bosses without restrictions are exactly as prone to this behavior as male bosses without restrictions.

Holly Graf comes to mind.

/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Graf

[Warren DeMontague]

5. I think sexual harrasment and workplace laws have to be enforced w/o regard to the genders involved.

I mean, the cases of, for instance, gay men being sexually harassed at work point that up. Anyone can be a victim, and anyone can be a perpetrator.

I have absolutely no way of gauging the validity of the suit, but I do know that the daily news is not considered a terribly reliable source.

[Major Nikon]

6. They are

Gender discrimination is gender discrimination. It doesn't matter if it's a female directing discrimination against a male or vise versa. The laws work equally for both sexes. It's also possible to have gender based discrimination in same sex situations if one or both of the employees are homosexual.

There really isn't enforcement per se with these laws or most civil rights laws. These laws just give employees a means of redress when and if they are discriminated against. In theory, an employer could continue to discriminate against employees indefinitely and there's very little the EEOC or civil courts can do other than levy penalties for non-compliance, and even then only if the employees file EEO complaints or federal lawsuits. Neither the EEOC or civil courts can order any employer to fire any employee for discrimination.

As far as the validity of the suit goes, I have no way of gauging that without hearing all of the story, and it appears as if we're only getting half of it. But let's say everything in the story is true. Initially it would be pretty hard for them to make a case. Even if a manager moved employees offices to the bathroom, that in and of itself would be a pretty weak case for sexual discrimination. Just because your boss is an asshole, doesn't mean they are doing anything illegal. However, if it's true that management launched investigations against the employees because they filed an EEO complaint, that would be a pretty serious charge against the agency. It's called reprisal, and it's illegal under the law. Even if the original complaint had no validity, they still may have grounds for a reprisal case. As far as reprisal cases go, administrative law judges in EEOC tend to favor complainants as far as the standards for evidence goes. If the employees had clean employment records previously, and after filing an EEO complaint they are getting investigated, the agency is going to have some serious explaining to do.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Yeah, on this story it's hard to get past the hyperbolic vibe of the Daily News.

Beyond that, it's gotta work its way through the system, just like anything else.

[Major Nikon]

8. It can take years for that to happen

It's pretty common for EEOC cases to last 2 years or more if they go all the way without a settlement. I know of one case that lasted over 10 years.