I must admit, I had fallen prey somewhat to those right-wing talking points; it’s very re-assuring to know that sexual harrassment suits have a very heavy burden of proof to them.

It's fairly difficult to prevail on one — many are eliminated at the summary judgment stage, at least in this state. The flaw in the system is that there is a low barrier to filing one and forcing the defendant to incur legal costs. Nevertheless, on average, in my experience, plaintiff's lawyers will file a personal injury suit with a lot less evidence than they'd require to file a sexual harassment suit.

Another question comes to mind though: in defamation lawsuits, if the person raising the lawsuit does not win the case, they are generally liable to compensate the person they brought to court. Does the same thing apply to sexual harrassment lawsuits?

Actually, in most situations in American law a defamation plaintiff who loses is not liable for defense legal fees. Some states — like California — have an anti-SLAPP law permitting a defendant to file a motion to dismiss early in the case to determine whether the speech complained of is clearly protected by the First Amendment or state law. If the defendant wins that motion, they get legal fees. But even those states generally don't have a loser-pays system for defamation suits that comes into play after summary judgment or trial.

I must admit, I had fallen prey somewhat to those right-wing talking points; it's very re-assuring to know that sexual harrassment suits have a very heavy burden of proof to them.

Another question comes to mind though: in defamation lawsuits, if the person raising the lawsuit does not win the case, they are generally liable to compensate the person they brought to court. Does the same thing apply to sexual harrassment lawsuits?

My approach as a hired trainer is different than my approach as a snarky anonymous internet commentator, of course. My aim as a trainer is to (1) satisfy California statutory requirements that employers with 50+ conduct specified training, (2) conduct training that, if sexual harassment occurs, will be effective in demonstrating that the employer took reasonable steps to prevent it, thus preventing or limiting employer liability, and (3) actually change the way people act. As I've said before, 80% of the people I train would never do this stuff, 10% can be trained not to do it, and 10% are untrainable and will do anything that amuses them.

As I've also said, a large part of current sexual harassment training is countering the right-wing-talk-radio-WARGLBARGL that tells people that sexual harassment law is all a commie feminazi lawyer plot and that you can be held liable for any silly little thing. It's actually pretty hard to prevail in a sexual harassment case, the standard for "severe or pervasive" is high enough that lots of cases are dismissed or resolved at summary judgment. Therefore, in partial answer to your question, any hypothetical disinclination to hire women, gays, etc. should be countered by educating employers on what the provisions of the law actually are.

The notion that employers will refuse to hire women or gays for fear of being sued for sexual harassment is one that you'd think could be tested factually. I haven't seen any studies suggesting that there is a trend towards fewer women being hired as sexual harassment law has developed — in fact, women are a considerably larger percentage of the workplace than they were when hostile work environment law began developing in the 1980s. Also, there are parallel legal prohibitions against race-based workplace harassment, and I haven't seen any indication that those prohibitions have reduced minority hiring.

Moreover, refusing to hire based on gender — even if it's because you don't want to be sued — would expose businesses to an entirely different array of lawsuits, and would be irrational on that basis. Of course, people act irrationally all of the time. I'm just not convinced this particular irrational approach is actual rather than hypothetical.

First off, I think it's great that you're taking an approach to sexual harrassment that does not involve lobbying for some intrusive government intervention in the workplace ( or somesuch ).

I do, however, have somewhat of a concern about sexual harrassment policies and training; namely: that these measures can make businesses less likely to hire women, or gay people, etc., because those businesses do not wish to have to either undergo sexual harrassment training for their employees, or do not wish the possibility of a sexual harrassment lawsuit further down the line?

Do you think there is a way around this? Or is there already a way around this that I'm ignorant of?

Cheers!

-Walker

I, Pink Boy that I am, found him boring after his first post, but I 'spect I deal with more crazy pro se litigants than you do, because insurance policies cover and defend suits filed by nuts as well as those filed by the sane, and that's what I do. When you've defended twenty suits by people who claim the Third Amendment means ATMs should deliver quarters, well…

I look forward to banning him at his work address and his public library address when he returns, as he's asked me to do.

If he came up with new material, he'd be the source of endless hilarity.

"NOW COMES Popehat, and complaining of Supremacy Claus, alleges and says that Supremacy Claus is a tiresome jackass…"

Do you want me to say something in Latin? Or would you prefer Greek?

Ban me. The intellectual level here is not as I wish it were. I am probably not returning unless it picks up right away. This is like the remedial special ed section of law school. One has to explain the basics in concrete terms. Unruly cursing, and personal insults follow when you try to help the unfortunates here.