Just like the Catholic Church, cover up and move to a new parish. All bureaucracies are the same.
9
Sex abuse?? This was flagrant extortion and should have been criminally prosecuted.
6
Allow me to add some observations gained from almost 40 years of handling employment disciplinary cases.
Unlike Kevin O’Brien, the mayoral aide whose prior misconduct was hidden, thealleged harassers had tenure rights. A formal termination would have taken several months, inclusive of an administrative trial where witnesses testimony can always falter. And, with the exception of a 30 day suspension period the accused remains on payroll while charges are filed, a hearing date is set, a trial is held, the administrative judge deliberates, the decision issues, and the department commissioner acts.
Their relatively quick decision to resign makes it likely the accused employees knew the cases against them were strong. But the fact is a guilty employee is going to ask for something in return for surrendering his due process rights and for leaving the job that much sooner. The request for a neutral reference is normal in almost all discipline cases where resignation is on the table. It should come as no surprise that it was asked for here.
So the cases described are frankly routine in the context of government employment. The issue is whether employment decisions concerning allegations against sexual harassers should be treated differently from other kinds of misconduct. Doing so would entail more delay, more cost, and a greater chance that the malfeasance is not punished. There is no simple answer.
6
Victims of sexual harassment and assault are not taken seriously by either law enforcement or corporations. This makes it difficult for them to know where to turn. I agree that a person's life should not be ruined by an accusation of any kind, whether it be sexual assault, theft, or murder for that matter. But there must be avenues to pursue justice for the victims. I think we as a society need to take these issues seriously and look for solutions that protect all of our citizens and stop making it a zero-sum game.
4
A simple solution is to fire them.
7
"Officials said that they wanted to protect his accusers...." The more I read about de Blasio's administration, the more convinced I am that Kellyanne Conway does his PR releases.
9
Justice Clarence Thomas is right.
SCOTUS needs to revisit the decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). It has got to stop being so easy for newspapers to allege someone they smear is a limited purpose public figure and thus force proof of actual malice by the newpaper.
Time to go back to regular libel law, just like in the civilized countries of Canada and the United Kingdom.
6
Barely a difference between shipping a priest, who has been accused of raping several children, and packing him off to another church.
While I don't think innocent people should be unable to secure new employment, I do believe that we need some real change so that people are genuinely safe in their place of work. Mr. Blount sounds like he deserves to be punished for his abusive behavior.
5
So interesting that all the letter so far are from men worried that these guys will have their reputations ruined.
I totally agree that a single, unproven accusation shouldn't be enough to ruin someone's life. We need to follow due process.
But due process includes investigating claims. Too often, that's not happening -- as is clear in this article.
And when someone is accused multiple times, by different women, in different situations, and there are no consequences...then whose life is being ruined? The women who -- in many cases -- has to choose between losing their jobs or being sexually assaulted.
16
It occurs to me that his is less about sex and more about power over. These men used their positions to exercise power over (because they are powerless men) women and especially women in the Welfare to Work programs. Why would anyone want to hire a man who feels powerless over his life so much so that he thinks molesting and raping woman makes himself powerful when it reveals how weak he truly is. How about this, just give them weak references. We will understand the code and not hire them
Just a thot
2
Always lovely to see the pro-rape brigade out in force.
These men committed violent crimes. Why yes, intruding onto and into the body of a woman is always violent--and we always fear further torture and murder for refusing or resisting. While innocent until proven guilty is a legal status. It does not mean, if you did it but I can't prove it to your satisfaction, you did not, in fact, do it. (BTW, NYT, coerced sex is RAPE.)
Their victims proved the truth of their complaints to the city, which was bound not only by human decency but respect for the citizens they work for, 50% of whom are women, to tell the truth about why they dismissed them--criminal case or no.
Reporting the truth about these men is not harassment. Complaining that it is, like complaining that a man can't move on from the rapes he committed, just means he should face no social consequences for the profound harm he did to our fellow human beings and citizens.
And without harsh consequences for such vicious behavior, there is no incentive for these men to change.
13
We have already created a permanent underclass with excons -- now we want to do the same with harassment claims? At some point as a society we have to accept people made a mistake and were punished (lost their job or served their sentence) and we have to give them an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves.
2
This is a very ingenuous article.
The article describes accusations as being clear cut, with the accused being unequivocally guilty. The reality is likely much more complicated. It's rare that a person is proven to have committed harasssment, in a legal sense - and it is the legal sense that often matters.
"Proving" someone guilty is likely to me time consuming and expensive.
Further, almost all municipal employees will have union-negotiating contracts which give them substantial protections from dismissal.
Thus, the city must balance the time and expense of proving guilt, against the a much quicker negotiated process, which may include "neutral" recommendations. The city also wishes to avoid countersuits by dismissed employees, who may claim defamation of character, libel, slander, or whatever (I'm not a lawyer).
I understand why this may not seem fair to victims, or to future victims. But reality is often messy - very messy. Especially in cases such as harassment, which are often he-said she-said, and difficult to prove by legal standards.
15
@Alex
Your comment seems a bit more ingenious than the article.
7
@Alex Actually it is almost always he did and she said and then the city pays with our tax dollars not the pervert's money.
7
I have seen this in the large corporation I worked for, for many yrs. and read and heard about it in other corporations.
The problem is when a corporation gets a complaint, it gets tremendous pressure from women's group to fire, tar and feather and employment lynch the accused forever no matter what evidence or degree of offense there is.
The corporation then gets it from the other end from the accused and their lawyers that they will be sued up the kazoo.
The corporation takes the easy way out, ie agreements like this.
The resulting problem is that serious offenders get a pass so to speak but the less serious offender or the innocent gets shafted.
The answer is to take the victim's story seriously but also give the accused more due process ie with evidence, degree of offense (ie an ogle look as opposed to sexual assault).
In many cases it is he said, she said. Corporations should come up with more hi tech equipment like wearing wires or even closed circuit TV to protect both the victim and accused.
6
@Paul
Or simply require the case to be tried in a judicial courtroom and then act according to the outcome. We are a country with a judicial process, use it or lose it.
3
@SSS-Thank you for your reply. Agreed, reasonable people can disagree on the technicalities but due process is paramount.
2
Two questions:
1.How do other large employers, public or private, handle these situations? For example, what is the SOP at the Times organization if this happens? @NYTimes: I would really appreciate a deeper dive into this subject, also the motives and legal analyses that went and go into these decisions.
2. I am particularly struck by the statement in the article that internal investigations found those claims to have merit, so it wasn't just an unproven accusation. Why weren't those cases referred to law enforcement? Isn't that conduct illegal, was it not deemed severe enough, or was it mainly the worry over getting sued? Again, I would ask the reporters who wrote this article to directly question the respective HR directors about this. Thanks!
6
Maybe Democrats are following the Bill Clinton model - lie, intimidate and repeat behavior.
Apparently winning elections absolves their harassment crimes. Actually emboldens them.
Time to send them a message.
Vote independent.
1
Democrats are perpetrating this? Not Republicans or Independents? Or people with no interest in politics? Would be very curious to know the source of this information.
1
It's important for victims to feel safe and protected at work by rule, law, policy and their supervisors. However it is equally important, after one loses their job as a result of their behavior, to be able to move on. The punishment is loss of the job. People accused of sexual harassment are not convicted of a crime nor are they registered sex offenders for that matter. A pre employment background check, conducted with diligence , will elicit the neutral recommendation. Lack of references will say even more.
7
Happens at the Federal level, too.
I'm a whistle blower at State. I was accused of 'disloyalty' after protesting an attempt to cut the Fulbright Gazan program (The Times had covered the second time this event occurred, mine was the first time). I was offered $5,000 to resign and refused, so I got the door and a ban on federal employment.
In contrast, the State Department coddled those accused of sexual harassment. Those folks even got to keep their jobs and, thanks to the privacy law, their reputation.
12
The author's assumption seems to be men fired for sexual harrassment will remain forever incapable of changing their ways.
If so, a federal law requiring the wearing of a scarlet "H" vest to job interviews would be effective; having the letter branded on the foreheads of men convicted of sexual assault would be an alternative.
10
No, according to the Times, an accusation is enough to ruin your entire life forever. Remember, this guy wasn’t convicted of anything, it was an accusation.
If this man was convicted of something then he wouldn’t be able to hide his criminal background.
3
@BobMeinetz
Poor abusive men! So you are saying it is fair for the men to get away with this behavior but that the women have to spend the rest of their lives suffering emotional trauma from it. Statistics will tell you that a large percentage of these types of men reoffend so more women are put at risk. I was sexually assaulted when I was an eleven year old girl. The man was a professor at UConn. What are the chances that I was the first or last? I was a child and didn't understand and didn't tell anyone. I have been assaulted and/or harassed three additional times in my life by men who felt it was OK to do so. Don't look at me as someone who has sympathy for these entitled men who feel women were put on earth for their thrills or to be abused by their power. I am 72 years old and have forgotten none of these incidents.
5
@BobMeinetz-I take a somewhat different view. The most serious predators should get the worst punishment but often the opposite happens.
I have seen this in the large corporation I worked for, for many yrs. and read and heard about it in other corporations.
The problem is when a corporation gets a complaint, it gets tremendous pressure from women's group to fire, tar and feather and employment lynch the accused forever no matter what evidence or degree of offense there is.
The corporation then gets it from the other end from the accused and their lawyers that they will be sued up the kazoo.
The corporation takes the easy way out, ie agreements like this.
The resulting problem is that serious offenders get a pass so to speak but the less serious offender or the innocent gets shafted.
The answer is to take the victim's story seriously but also give the accused more due process ie with evidence, degree of offense (ie an ogle look as opposed to sexual assault).
In many cases it is he said, she said. Corporations should come up with more hi tech equipment like wearing wires or even closed circuit TV to protect both the victim and accused.
1