Quote: (04-27-2013 12:05 AM)kbell Wrote:
Are you a law student? What does 9th Circuit case mean?
The Ellison v. Brady was a groundbreaking case for feminists and women, who simply wanted women put in the driver's seat for judging sexual harassment cases. Seriously, studies have shown that female judges, liberal to conservative, are all in agreement on only one issue - sexual harassment. The decision is about putting women in firm control of sexual harassment cases - making them the judge, jury and executioner.
The decision reads like a typical feminist exposition - so I won't go into that. However, the decision was a landmark one because the court states the appropriate way to judge sexual harassment was the perspective of the victim - yes, the court assumed a complainant was a victim out of the gate. The decision repeatedly emphasizes how much women have to go through that men don't, and how that makes them more sensitive than men. They assumed that the general person is biased in favor of men. The decision is simply boilerplate female-centric bullshit.
The Supreme Court in Breeden tossed out a sexual harassment case because, in their view, no reasonable person could have thought that the actions complained of were harassment. However, the context was a retaliation lawsuit; she was suing because she claimed her employer retaliated against her because she complained about the alleged harassment. It has implications for hostile work environment cases in general, but isn't on point.
My general point about the Brady decision is if it implemented by the Supreme Court, it would be a disaster, as a court would be trying to figure out what the reasonable woman would think about a particular fact pattern. As you know, it will be some hamster bullshit because attractive men will get a pass and betas and omegas will get fucked. I really don't what a court would deem a reasonable woman would think - but feminists would start bitching about sexism if some court "gets it wrong."
Given how much women see themselves as victims, there would be a run on the courthouse if that standard is implemented. Trial lawyers, like John Edwards, would be raking in the cash.