$400K is a spicy meatball. Where did this dude come up with that kind of scratch?
Iâm confused.
- The woman working at the CA DOJ alleged that her boss (male) sexually harassed her.
- She complained
- After 3 years they moved her to another DOJ office
- The state AG said she ââŚfailed to utilize training and procedures to deal with harassmentâŚâ
- She was awarded $400K as part of a settlement which also said she couldnât work for the DOJ
How did we get from #4 to #5? She could no longer work for the DOJ, how about him? Was a big hush-hush attached so guyâs next employer (Harris) wouldnât find out?
If you live by the @MeToo movement you will die by the @MeToo movement. Harris apparently had an extensive background with Wallace. He had worked for her when she was District Attorney. Even if she didnât know about his background, she should have. It will be interesting to see if her Presidential ambitions survive.
I find it very difficult to assess these cases of alleged harassment. The Neil DeGrasse Tyson cases are concerning, but Iâm not able to reach a conclusion about them. I disagree with the idea that we must automatically âbelieve the womenâ, but rather I feel that we should not discount the stories of alleged victims. We should keep an open mind to their stories without presuming guilt.
Some behavior is ill-advised, clumsy, creepy, and/or inappropriate. At some point, it becomes harassment. Sometimes, people may not realize how their behavior may be perceived. For borderline situations, itâs really incumbent on the recipient of unwelcome attention to communicate their boundaries. When is a situation borderline? I donât have a pat answer for that.
In regard to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he is also accused of rape many years ago. This charge may be difficult to assess the veracity of. However, it appears there will be an investigation. I feel like news organizations are good at bringing these stories to light, but may not be the best at performing an impartial investigation.
Kamala Harris isnât alledged to have harassed anybody. The person who is alledged to have harassed somebody has resigned. Harris says she didnât know about the settlement, which is believable because her staff would want to wall her off from employment disputes, as would the staffs of most politicians.
Funny, though, how the press will now try to make her responsible for someone elseâs alledged actions.
Press done exactly the same to Hillary Clinton a few months ago, with many articles and editorials excoriating her because of some fellow, employed by her campaign in 2008 caused harassment complains. Democrats, a specially women are an easy target for such cheep shots by mostly women journos who fancy themselves pushing for women struggle movement.
Article is stirring up a mud, as Kamala Harris gaining possible status of a presidential candidate. She is not involved in any of the issues, although insinuation of guilt by proximity, is fashionable these days. There is little information about the specifics of complaint, but it looks more like a work place irritability (placement of the printer etc) rather than outright sexual harassment. Once the complaint is lodged, other forces take place and things may escalate quickly, leading to high amount settlements, and job loss for the accused.
No, women arenât to blame for not knowing about something that was quite likely not done in her presence and was intentionally hidden from her. Weâre also not to blame for the actions of problematic men. If anyone tries to go down that road I can pretty much guarantee you it wonât be pretty.
Unless you are saying that women bosses are held to a lower standard than male bosses, this is a boss thing. She was his boss before he went to the DOJ and she hired her again. She wasnât hiring a stranger. She clearly wanted him because she knew him. I guess she might not have spent time finding out what happened to him when he was at the DOJ, but if you want to be President of the United States you really ought to vet the old friends you hire to be top aides because if they screw up, you get the blow back. That is why this is a story.
The settlement was with the CA DOJ.
The whole story will remain unclear to those of us outside of the CA DOJ, because the information that is public comes from the suit she filed and the response filed by the CA DOJ. It generally takes a trial to resolve the enormous gap between the two different realities described in such filings. DOJ wonât tell us more, because it is a personnel matter and Hartley wonât tell us more, because she agreed to a settlement with non-disclosure terms.
If you read the SacBee article, youâll see enough to come up with a likely sounding explanation for #5; the relationship between Hartley and the department had deteriorated to the point that continuing her employment there would not benefit Hartley or the CA DOJ. Hartleyâs grievances with the CA DOJ had, by the time of the settlement, had grown beyond gender harassment. The CA DOJ felt that Hartley was failing to follow policies and procedures meant to address the issues she had.
Press loves salacious, it sells well. It will generate lots of clicks if the accused is prominent or famous enough. In other countries such as Australia, they have different defamation laws making it easier for accused have a legal recourse. Actor Geoffrey Rush, was accused by newspapers of sexual impropriety, while on stage, in a death scene. He took them to court and it looks like he may win the case. In US, accuser holds all the cards, accused has little recourse in such case.
Itâs a boss thing in which we almost never blame men for not knowing he had a problematic member of his staff. Thereâs no expectation that men shouldâve known, but there is with women. Also, considering the ass clowns who are working in the PP administration and the horrors theyâve been accused of, this really isnât a story nor is it even remotely disqualifing.
Vetting is important. You can think you know a guy pretty well and discover he behaves very differently with underlings.
I am not sure why so many people seem to think Kamala Harris is presidential material. This fundraiser she created really seems to sum her up. In the guise of raising money for Stacey Abrams she was exploiting the situation to raise money for herself as half the donation went to her coffers.
Harris wasnât exactly his next employer.
Wallace has worked for Harris in three capacities: while she was in San Francisco (before his harassment of Ms. Hartley); while she was in Sacramento (which is when he was harassing Ms. Hartley); and then after she went to the Senate.
Ms. Hartleyâs lawsuit was filed after Harris was elected Senator but while she was still in Sacramento. It was settled by the AG who followed Harris.
Apparently Harris is saying she was not aware of the harassment or the lawsuit.
what I find interesting about most of these âme tooâ things, is women never seem to complain about a guy who doesnât have âmoneyâ available for a pay-offâŚ
If the guy isnât rich or famous, no press coverage. If thereâs no press coverage, did it really happen? Why, yes, way too often to so many.
Unfortunately, you are correct. Many women factory workers, cleaners etc are subjected to harassment, and often afraid to complain because they cannot jeopardize the job or deal with threats.
It is only your guess that she didnât vet him. As CAâs AG, she was his boss at CA DOJ.
The DOJ spent time looking into what happened while he was at the DOJ. In their response to Hartleyâs suit, they denied âgenerally and specifically each and every allegation contained in the Complaint.â From her lawsuit and the DOJ response, we donât see any indication that DOJ found that Wallace had done anything that required action by the DOJ. Had Hartley been aware of any finding or action against Wallace, she almost certainly would have noted that in her complaint.
Should word of the allegation against Wallace made it to her ears while she was CA AG? Not if there was no formal complaint made by Hartley or if the complaint was investigated and HR found no reason to reprimand Wallace or to recommend any other action against him.
Should Wallace have told Harris about the allegation before he accepted the job with her Senate staff? Probably. The problem is that while not telling Harris makes sense if he did something wrong and wants to keep it under wraps, it also makes sense if he did nothing wrong and the department had investigated the allegation years ago and reached the same conclusion.
Should Wallace have told Harris about the lawsuit before he accepted the job with her Senate staff? He couldnât, because it hadnât been filed yet. It isnât clear if or when Wallace learned about the suit. It was filed Friday, December 30, the last weekday of 2016. I wouldnât be surprised if Wallaceâs resignation from his CA DOJ job was effective the first day the DOJ office opened in January 2017. By that point, he would have been involved full time in helping to get the Senate office open for Harris in Sacramento. I canât give an informed opinion as to whether or not the DOJ attorneys would have contacted Wallace about the suit at any time before the settlement.
It is possible that Wallace did some or all of what Hartley accused him of, in which case it is unfortunate that he didnât bear any consequences earlier and that Hartley had to suffer and struggle so long before eventually receiving modest compensation. Harris would not be the first person to be shocked to learn of something a friend had done.