Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Follows Google To End Mandatory Arbitration For Sexual-Harassment Claims (cnbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Facebook on Friday became the latest tech company to end a policy of requiring employees to settle claims of sexual harassment through private arbitration, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. It will now allow employees to take these types of claims to court. Tech companies have long used arbitration as a method for handling instances of sexual harassment to prevent employees from suing them in court, but that's starting to change. Facebook's move comes shortly after a similar move this week by Google, which came after thousands of its employees walked out in protest last week over its handling of sexual harassment complaints. Additionally, Facebook changed its policy on office dating and will now require employees who are director level or higher to disclose if they are dating a colleague, the report said. Previously, the company only required disclosure if an employee was dating someone they supervised, according to the report.
This is nothing but Virtue Signaling. Nothing. You ALWAYS had the right to pursue legal remedies outside your employer. If people actually READ the contracts they signed for Employment they'd realize it's a farse because much of it is invalid but they put the language there expecting most people to not question it.
Typical American Puritanism -- they want to control what employees do with each other, on their own damn time, outside of work. Hope this new intrusive policy leads to massive lawsuits for privacy violation.
Picture this -- two employees in different departments start dating. Boss has a crush on one of them, and they disclose whom they're dating. Let the shitshow begin.
US employers are far too intrusive as to employees' personal lives.
How are these mandatory arbitration clauses even legal, it basically denies employees the right to law and justice. This issue should be addressed at the federal level.
They aren't, for the most part. It's just that people do not pursue the other options, possibly because they don't know any better.
I think I might be beginning to like country music.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They aren't, for the most part. It's just that people do not pursue the other options, possibly because they don't know any better.
Yes, people always have a right to sue. But that isn't always the best option for the harassee. Going to court can be very expensive, and it is rare to find a lawyer willing to work on contingency. Corporations know how to grind you down and bleed you dry, with motion after motion, discovery, obfuscation, and delay. Arbitration is far faster and cheaper.
A big problem is that the arbitrator wants repeat business from the corporation, and know they will likely never see the petitioner again. This is a built-in bias.
It will now allow employees to take these types of claims to court
Oh my goshm, thank you so much, corporate overlord!
Seriously, something along the way went very, very wrong here. We allowed the company we work for, take away basic civil rights.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
They aren't, for the most part. It's just that people do not pursue the other options, possibly because they don't know any better.
Yes, people always have a right to sue. But that isn't always the best option for the harassee.
Who said anything about suing? Reporting a crime at your nearest police station is free. If your employer doesn't want to do anything then take your complaint, charges and evidence to the place your're supposed to.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Predictably, this will make them less likely to hire people who are likely to become the target of sexual harassment. Any time you raise the cost of hiring people with a discernible shared characteristic (and a bigger risk of suing is a big potential cost to average out), people naturally hire less of people who share those characteristics.
Same reason maternity leave laws, and similar laws ended up reducing job prospects for the people they were supposedly helping.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Reporting a crime at your nearest police station is free.
The police are very unlikely to get involved in a typical office harassment situation. An intern was groped or propositioned by her boss with no witnesses, and no evidence? The police can do nothing with that.
Oh it's the "herp derp crime" meme that's been coming up like clockwork in every single one of these posts.
You seem to have forgotten that your country has two forms of courts, criminal and civil. This post pertains only to the civil form.
You also seem to have an immense and misplaced amount of faith in the police. You may recall in fact that multiple people had gone to the police over Bill Crosby for example before the whole thing broke, and none of them had any luck for decades.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Reporting a crime at your nearest police station is free.
The police are very unlikely to get involved in a typical office harassment situation. An intern was groped or propositioned by her boss with no witnesses, and no evidence? The police can do nothing with that.
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
Presumably they'd at least 'want' to speak to those involved and log the report, even if the claim is unverifiable.
In this way they'd become aware that repeat incidents, should they occur, were at least repeats, as opposed to an (alleged) isolated case.
Hard to spot patterns of (mis)behaviour by your employees if there's no institutional memory...
So ending mandatory arbitration is going to solve the supposed problem of police ignoring rape victims? Lol.
The fact that they had a large hand in starting this SocJus Witchhunt craze in the first place is costing them a ton of money. But they don't care because they're zealots. Nothing to do with saving money. Lehman brothers had a bigger Diversity Division than Risk management till they collapsed. They're insane and you are too if you can't see it.
> Same reason maternity leave laws, and similar laws ended up reducing job prospects for the people they were supposedly helping. FYI. Sweden gives the same number of days to the man as for the woman 240+240. Thus eliminating that gender part.
Employer "risks" the same with a woman and a man, as normally the man takes care of the child from 7-8 months and onwards.
My point is that if you really wanted to make laws, you have to go all the way.
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
Because they are working with a very different standard of evidence.
For the police it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
No. For a crime it is "beyond reasonable doubt".
For the arbitration, it is preponderance of the evidence.
No. For a civil case it is "preponderance of evidence". For arbitration it is whatever the specific employer wants it to be, ranging from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "accusation is enough".
For arbitration, the company sets the standard of evidence required, which can range from "You need incontrovertible proof" to "none". The company literally needs no evidence to fire your ass. Removing arbitration sets the bar to "preponderance of evidence" but requires that the accuser finance the suit themselves. If things are clear and evidence exists then the accuser need not finance anything and can simply report the crime.
Where things get hairy is when arbitration results in a firing with no evidence, in which case the accused (who presumably got fired) can then take the matter up in a civil proceeding against the accuser (not the company) and then the accuser has to pony up a preponderance of evidence.
Yes, accusers who cost someone materially can be forced to justify their statements regardless of what their employer believes. False accusation suits are not uncommon, although they are exceedingly rare for people who are fired after an arbitration (due to those people believing that the arbitration result has any legal standing).
In either case an employee (either the accuser or the accused) is going to either have to live with it or pay for the suit themselves. As you pointed out, employees may not be able to afford this, especially employees who have just been fired with little notice.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
It's never a company that is at the disadvantage.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM