-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Lasseter taking leave of absence
- Thread starter Lou Filerman
- Start date
21stamps
Well-Known Member
I agree. I think both can be accomplished at the same time.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Um... are we really that politically correct that we can't tell the difference between cheating on a spouse with a willing participant vs. sexual assault? Yes, both are bad. Both can ruin lives, but one is a crime and the other is not. That's a huge difference.
Having said that, Clinton was accused of both. Just making a point on the actual difference not Clinton specifically.
Pixieish
Well-Known Member
Which, in and of itself, is horrible! You should NEVER become unemployable for not putting up with horrid behavior. There needs to be an organization to which bad/abusive employers can be reported...I've had a couple of doozies.
+1 for Amos reference!
Anyway... with regard to the idea that "they're just accusations therefore we can't say whether they're guilty or not guilty"... No. And that's because there are different fora of guilt: criminal conviction; lawsuit; adjucating bodies; individuals; public opinion.
Take, for example, someone who is tried for a crime and found not guilty. But then they're sued by the victim's family for damages, and a jury finds the accused guilty and awards the damages. So, was that person guilty?
What if a person is found guilty, but, after the verdict, it was discovered that the evidence was tainted by prosecutorial mishandling and is thrown out and the verdict overturned? Well, we know the person is guilty when we used the proof when it was allowed, but, now that it wasn't allowed... is the person not guilty? No, they are indeed guilty, but, the technicality means the state can't get a conviction.
What if the person is so very clearly guilty, but the statute of limitations runs out and therefore can't be indicted let alone convicted? By the criminal code, that person is innocent. And if the person publicly confesses? Still innocent technically because of the statute of limitations.
What if the person settles with their victims out of court? In many cases like that, the DA won't pursue an indictment precisely because the matter was 'settled' privately. Innocent? Almost always not.
Congress isn't a court of law, and yet it can determine if a member violates their own ethical rules and sanction them, even expel them, all without a criminal conviction.
And in the same manner a company or an individual employer can determine if an employ stole for them, or harassed other employees and fire them without a criminal conviction.
People who have been punished or fired or sanctioned in some way unfairly can always sue for damages.... but if they're really guilty they almost never do because they'll lose.
There are different types of guilt. The lack of guilt proven by a criminal conviction doesn't mean they're innocent, except legally. Private institutions, corporations, and individuals do not have to treat someone obviously guilty as innocent like the state does.
If someone privately harasses you, you can avoid them without having a court of law pronouncing them guilty. You don't have to treat someone as innocent when you know better.
bclane
Well-Known Member
Fantastic post! Thank you MisterPenguin for taking the time to write that up.
The EEOC.
Arguably one of the best explanations of American jurisprudence. Bravo!
Pixieish
Well-Known Member
I'm not talking about discrimination of any kind - more employers treating their employees like they're walking trash (disposable) and in general being despicable human beings. And I'm pretty sure almost every privately owned company disregards the equal pay stuff based on one excuse or another.
EEOC handles discrimination of any form - and harassment is considered that. From their website:
"Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA).
Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.
Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.
Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:
- The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
- The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
- Unlawful harassment may occur without economic injury to, or discharge of, the victim.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Slightly disagree with this one - Michael Jackson is a good example of why. I wrote a long post about this back when Captain Eo came back out, but pretty much all evidence that exists now is that Jackson was not guilty of anything but being weird and a man who was an emotional child.
In terms of the settlement itself, we know now that the insurance company settled because it was cheaper to pay out $30M to avoid a trial than to pay the $100M+ it would have cost them if he had to cancel his tour so he could attend one. He was a basket case on heavy medication at the time and they didn't even explain to him what he was signing aside from "this will make this living nightmare go away".
It's unfortunate, because it was just assumed to be true, when if a trial had ever happened over the first case, it would have fallen apart just like the second one did because it was a set-up from the get-go.
englanddg
One Little Spark...
I was just about to post a similar observation...
Settlements are not necessarily an indication of guilt. They, certainly, are not an indication that the story broadcast is 100% true.
Heck, with many complaints, many companies (I can personally attest for a Fortune 1000 restaurant company I worked for) have a default position of offering settlements. Simply because it is cheaper than litigation. Being personally familiar with several cases we settled (only a few of them that I was a part of were sexual harassment, but that was a doozie...more common is racial discrimination / termination / hostile work environment or some blend of them...normally always after a poor performing employee has been terminated)...again, easier/cheaper to offer them $5000 or so, more if they had a lawyer, and make them go away. And, HR did that. Often.
Once EEOC gets involved it gets even more complicated. The EEOC, in my experience, is a rather fair organization...but, you better have your proof of cause well documented on your end. If you don't, the slightest whiff of complaint can lead to a rather hefty mediated settlement.
I'll give some examples I was personally involved with (I wasn't the person accused, rather, I either terminated the accused or was brought in to replace someone accused, or was deeply familiar with the situation).
---------
1) We had a manager on our opening team for our Brooklyn location. As was normal for opening a new store, we shipped in people (normally assistant managers or coordinators...read, team leaders) from other locations around the country to help train and operate for the first month or so. They tended to be younger, in their early 20s or so. This manager was in his late 30s. He was hired as part of the permanent staff for this store.
Anyway, he repeatedly approached several of the staff we had brought in. I had them write up their statements, sent them off to HR, and then had a one on one with him (well, 2 on one, I had the GM with me) where we wrote him up and warned him that his advances were not appropriate and were not appreciated. He needed to stop. That is the first step, believe it or not, in harassment situations (unless they are glaringly inappropriate, which, at the time, the two who reported him hadn't indicated they were...they were more just persistent offers for "going out for drinks").
Well, he didn't stop. About a week later another trainer (19 or 20, under drinking age, I remember that) approached me with a series of text messages he had sent her that were...well...pretty raunchy. At that point I had all the trainers document their experiences, took pictures of the text messages, faxed all that to HR, and got the green light. I'm pretty sure if he was doing it to them, there may have been others on the normal staff who he had approached as well, but we never asked. I had enough.
I fired him that afternoon. He...wasn't happy.
Now, you'd think that would be the end of the story. Nope.
A month or so later, I'd moved on to another location opening, and I was contacted by HR. I had to complete a statement for the EEOC (which later became a short interview). See, he had complained that we had set up a hostile work environment and terminated him because of his race. The EEOC, once involved, has to (understandably) fully investigate all claims. And, in this case, he had also gotten a lawyer. It...wasn't pretty. He claimed, using rather sloppy evidence of hearsay including a stretch where I had said during the hiring process (and yes, I did say this) for the team "not to hire bozos" and "don't be lenient with tattoos". He claimed this was evidence of racial discrimination.
Well...it wasn't. The tattoos were because of our strict visible tattoo policy (we had a dress code ripped straight from Disney, to be frank...we were also focused on a family/children's environment)...and, in my personal experience, even if you make concessions for someone with, say, an arm tattoo, it will only be a matter of time before their "hey I will cover it with makeup" or similar promises will...fade...and they become a constant dress code issue. What he left out is that I had lamented that it meant that sometimes, you'll find someone who seems a great hire...but, they have that danged tat.
Now, you can question the dress code policy...but, it is a reasonable and legal policy. And one that, as a manager, I was tasked to abide by and enforce (part of the reason I, personally, don't have any tats). Some may see it as unfair...but, it isn't racial.
Well, he got a payoff (I dunno how much) to go away.
----------
2) I was working in Richmond and got a call to go to Fredericksburg as quickly as I could. So, I did. When there, the DM had driven down from Alexandria to meet me. Turns out, a manager there was being reassigned to another store in NC...immediately.
Why?
Well, the weekend before a massive snowstorm had blown through the state, and the manager had sent the whole staff home early when the storm started to pick up a bit. Except for...one of the coordinators...a woman. Now, nothing happened in the store, that I know of. They closed it out together, but had stayed too late and the roads had gotten bad. So, they decided to get a hotel room at the place down the street. Well, two 20 somethings, in a hotel room, of course they both decided to walk to the WaWa and get some drinks to pass the night away.
They...did the horizontal mambo.
The following morning the roads were better, but not great. Corporate had already made the decision to keep the stores closed for the day (my stores, a bit further south, were hit as well). They each went home.
When they both came back to work, he apparently thought the result of this night was supposed to lead to further...dates? He kept pestering her (according to her, he denied it), including approaching her in the costume room whilst she was changing. She complained. Frankly, I had worked with the guy before, and he was rather emotionally immature...so, I sortof believed her side more...but, it was some rather nasty he said / she said mess. Difficult, because...there obviously had been previous flirting.
Is that harassment? Well, technically, it can be.
Mind you, her complaint didn't involve anything to do with that night they spent together. She didn't deny they had slept together, nor did she claim at any time it was anything but consensual. And, she admitted to flirting with him prior to their...encounter. She just was no longer interested in him, and he wasn't catching the hint.
So, what a mess. HR came down and said we didn't have enough to fire him outright with cause, so reassignment or "voluntary resignation" was offered. He chose reassignment.
You'd think that would be the end of it. Nope. A few months later (I'd moved on), she was terminated with cause (she, apparently, had a significant tardiness problem that the previous manager overlooked regularly...wonder why?).
She threatened with EEOC. She got a settlement, I later heard.
----------
3) This one is a mandated settlement by EEOC from another company I worked for, and is more recent. A processor was terminated after repeated warnings. She kept a very messy workspace, which wasn't the reason for termination, but the fact that she repeatedly missed paperwork she was charged with reviewing (because she'd shove whole stacks of it into drawers) was. These papers were insurance contracts that, if not filled out properly, posed direct liability to the company. So, she was failing to do her job.
So, her boss (another woman) fired her.
A few months later, here comes the EEOC. This company opted not to settle. I mean, this is rather cut and dry, isn't it? Well, her story as to the "hostile work environment" she was The "forced to endure" was a complete fabrication. But, she stuck to her guns. The crux of her complaint rested on an investor who would come in and have drinks with our President/CEO. Her office was down the hall. They would often have drinks together (and I remember telling them not to do this, of course they didn't listen to me) with the door open. And, this guy would make rather raunchy jokes. He's the same guy who, in all seriousness, said we should have a commercial campaign with women in bikinis rolling around on luxury cars...thankfully that never went anywhere.
Now, none of these comments were directed at her, or anyone else who worked there. These were just him telling "locker room" jokes to another person (they were friendly outside of work, as well...that's actually what led to him being an investor in the company), in their office...but, the door was open and she could overhear.
That one, the company fought. As, 1) she had never brought it to our attention she could hear (she was 30 - 40 feet away), 2) she had never mentioned to anyone, even her peers, that the jokes bothered or upset her, 3) They were not comments that dealt with her in any way, nor were directed towards her or anyone else but the President / CEO in an "informal" way, 4) We terminated her with cause for a clear, documented and recurring performance issue.
EEOC disagreed. We...lost. She got a mandated payout for lost wages, and a bit more. Total, with legal fees (we paid a lawyer...to lose, mind you), cost the company about 75k. You can see why settlements, sometimes, are preferred.
Not only that, EEOC then did (and, I don't really blame them for this) a top to bottom review of the entire company, our HR practices and policies, etc...etc..., including face to face interviews with staff. That, actually, worked out well in my favor as a lot of the little HR things we were rather sloppy about, and I'd been crowing about, became important after that. But...that leads to another story from this company, from a few years later.
------------
4) So, I'd moved from consultant to Senior Management within the company, and HR now fell under my purview. When reviewing the mess that was there, I found that our employment paperwork was severely lacking, as was our employee handbook and policies manual. I instructed the person who now filled the position to fix these issues. One of the big ones was...I-9s. Out of around 60 employees, only 10 or so had completed I-9s. Including...myself.
If you know what an I-9 is, then you may see where this is going. If you don't know, an I-9 is the "proof of authorization" form for employment. Generally, citizens use a driver's license and Social Security card as proof of citizenship for employment, but other forms of identification and proof of residency (and ability to work) are acceptable, such as Permanent Resident Cards. The key is, this is where employers are supposed to verify that the employee is actually able to work within the US, and not here illegally.
So, he went about going through the company...asking everyone to complete their I-9s (and any other incomplete paperwork, such as dress code acknowledgement and completing harassment training with acknowledgements, etc...etc..., so, point is, it wasn't just I-9s...it was whatever that employee was missing).
It took him several months to complete this, mostly without hitch. But, there were a dozen or so who were...issues. Specifically because people regularly "forgot" their I-9 documentation. Eventually, he got to the point where he asked, and was granted, permission to state that if the employee couldn't provide the documentation within 45 days, we would be forced to terminate them. Mind you, this had already dragged on for months.
Well...turns out these employees kept "forgetting" because they "didn't have". They were here illegally. So, he terminated them.
About a month later, the niece of one of these terminated employees was fired for stealing. Not really outright "stealing"...per se...but the classic one you'll see in cash handling operations where people start issuing themselves unauthorized "loans" out of the cash reserve which they intend to "pay back", but never quite do...
Now, the niece is a citizen. Born in the US, raised in the US.
Here comes EEOC.
Her complaint was that the I-9 verifications (which is federal law, mind you) created a hostile work environment for hispanics. Amusing, to us, because more than half our company is hispanic...including her direct supervisor (a man) and his supervisor (a woman, who is also #2 in the company)...
The EEOC said we could make a settlement, or they could investigate. We consulted a lawyer, and even though we felt we were, again, in the right, it was cheaper to settle and avoid the hassle, so, we agreed. We had a settlement payout on this one that was around 20k.
---------
Now, I've had other dealings with EEOC (not direct, but aware because they come up in our management meetings) where we have "won", without settlement. But, the key to that was that we now have a bulldog of an HR person who is VERY particular about documentation. An example...when this lady (who has a degree in HR) came on board, she immediately put into place (with protest from employees and field management alike) a time clock system. The argument from the employees was...why should we have to clock in and out, it's a hassle...we are salaried anyway.
Well, what they don't know is that, first, we are not sure they will be salaried forever, so we need the behaviour. Their roles are, technically, allowed to be salaried, but had that law passed last July...and we seriously thought it would, most of them would have become hourly. Amusing, because that "wage law" meant to help "abused employees"...would have led to quite a few of them getting less pay. But, that's another discussion.
Anyway, point is, it was seen as bureaucratic nonsense, but she stuck to her guns and forced it down the throat of the company, going so far as to individually checking the timeclock daily and writing up repeat offenders until they got the message.
Then, we terminated a lady in Savannah for repeated tardiness. Not five minutes...2 - 3 hours. She also liked to show up still drunk from the night before, but we didn't put that in the writeups. Probably should have...because...
Here comes the EEOC. She claimed she was terminated because of her race and gender. Her supervisor, a hispanic male, apparently...because he is a hispanic male..."well, you know, hispanic men don't like strong black women" (yes, she told the EEOC this).
Anyway, we had all the documentation, and thanks to that timeclock and said related documentation (emails, internal chats, etc), the EEOC actually dropped this one fairly quickly. The whole review process only took a few months. She, got nothing.
Lesson from this (and I already knew it, and made sure my systems do it)...record...EVERYTHING. I keep all the emails, I keep all the chats through our internal chat system, I keep all the phone calls, and we now have cameras in all the stores that record the employees. When an employee is brought on, they sign a form that acknowledges they have been told these things, and that they are aware we may use them in the case of dispute.
------------------
So, gone on long enough, so I'll wrap up.
People can and do lie, they can and do misrepresent, they can and do "later take offense", up to and including manufacturing situations later... Was that every case I listed above? Not really...but, you can see, these situations rarely are cut and dry. And, I have more stories. These are just some examples...
So, the point is...settlement, doesn't always equate to an accurate reflection of what occurred, and therefore can't be taken as an immediate assumption of guilt.
And, as a result of my experience, when I hear some of these accusations, my first reaction is to, of course, listen. But, I certainly don't rush to believe, at least to the point to assigning guilt. Especially when the dirty details are likely NOT being said. But, whilst the devil is in the details, so, often, is the truth.
Last edited:
I've had similar situations. And what gets me is the supervisor fails to document poor performance, behavior or violations of company policy. If the performance is slipping, discuss with the employee, write up a performance improvement plan. Oh, but that's a pain... But you're a supervisor - it's your job as the supervisor/manager, not mine, I'm just the HR rep. I was trained from Day 1 that everything must be documented at the level it will end up in court. Having been a paralegal for a fee years, I knew what that meant.
Which is why it is so important to have updated policies, have employees sign, acknowledging they've received them and remind managers/supervisors that at least 50% of their job is just that. And communicate everything in writing. I've also encouraged employees who have issues with their supervisor to document. Keep a log. Follow up with an email to make sure you're both on the same page.
At the end of every day, I'd take out my notebook and document my day. When I arrived, tasks I performed, people I talked to and about what, phone conversations, meetings i attended, etc. We had a problem employee who was quick to blame and accuse others, so that log was a handy tool. And that notebook went home with me every night.
englanddg
One Little Spark...
Your professionalism and thoroughness sounds very similar to what out current HR person does.
She is fantastic.
After many years of not having someone professionally educated/experienced in HR (rather, I was the most experienced prior, due to the nature of my previous management level employment and experiences there...and I hardly claim to be an “educated professional” with the subject)...she has been a godsend.
She easily pays for herself with avoided claims and settlements. And, yeah, the key is documentation...clear communication...etc. all stuff that sales, operations sorts and senior management (and frankly, employees themselves) generally like to sneer at as bureucratic and impersonal.
But, when you need it...dang is it nice to have!
You....and companies...learn after litigation. Fortunately for me, the head of employee relations was a retired Air Force colonel. He was a stickler for documenting, following procedure, etc. But he wasnt so inflexible to be rigid. Someone like that can save your bacon.
Apparently so, to both.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Short answer. Yes, yes we have
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/arts/music/james-levine-met-opera.html
James Levine, conductor and former music director for the NY Metropolitan Opera, has been suspended after three men came forward with accusations that he had sexually assaulted them as children. I don’t bring this up because Levine happened to be the conductor of “Fantasia 2000”, but that’s a connection. Rather, current Met director Peter Gelb’s statement to the NY Times admits to institutional failures. In 1979 and 2016, Levine’s sexual misconduct came to the attention of the Met and they chose to ignore the allegations.
This is how you address these allegations. The responsible and adult thing to do is come clean to the press and tell them what the company/organization knew and when; admit your institutional failure. (Litigation’s coming either way) You certainly don’t do what Bob and Zenia have done, in an effort to preserve Bob’s legacy, and bully journalists and remind individuals who were harassed by Lasseter of the NDAs they signed.
Bob may look like an adult, but his approach to Lasseter’s misconduct has been decietful and deeply selfish.
James Levine, conductor and former music director for the NY Metropolitan Opera, has been suspended after three men came forward with accusations that he had sexually assaulted them as children. I don’t bring this up because Levine happened to be the conductor of “Fantasia 2000”, but that’s a connection. Rather, current Met director Peter Gelb’s statement to the NY Times admits to institutional failures. In 1979 and 2016, Levine’s sexual misconduct came to the attention of the Met and they chose to ignore the allegations.
This is how you address these allegations. The responsible and adult thing to do is come clean to the press and tell them what the company/organization knew and when; admit your institutional failure. (Litigation’s coming either way) You certainly don’t do what Bob and Zenia have done, in an effort to preserve Bob’s legacy, and bully journalists and remind individuals who were harassed by Lasseter of the NDAs they signed.
Bob may look like an adult, but his approach to Lasseter’s misconduct has been decietful and deeply selfish.
Last edited:
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Actions like the ones taken by Disney leadership is why most ordinary americans loathe corporate leaders because of this kind of craven behavior, IF corporate leaders stood up and OWNED bad behavior they would be held in a lot higher regard then they are.