Is this sexual harrassment?

[vwrw]

The fact that coworkers of ML’ correspondent suffer from their boss courting attention indicates that his conduct causes hostile work environment and thus his behavior may qualify as sexual harassment.

Whether a compliment is sexual harassment depends on the content of the compliment. “You look wonderful or good” is not sexual harassment. If this compliment is told 10 times during day, it may be excessive and annoying but it is still not sexual harassment. Compliments of sexual nature are sexual harassment if they are told repeatedly. 

[vwrw]

.. it can just give an opportunity to anybody who has a good lawyer to sue anybody who doesn't.

Taking into consideration that the employee-victim typically has MUCH fewer financial resources to hire a good lawyer than the boss-offender has, it is usually the boss-offender who has a good lawyer.

I’m certain that accusing someone in sexual harassment is not that easy because it is not enough to say that sexual harassment took place, you must substantiate you claims with evidence.

[Lily]

IMHO ECOCKS gave the most exhaustive answer on the topic.


On my part I can add that despite there is laws against sexual harassment, as said above, but it would be very hard to prove it to the court's satisfaction.

Court practice might seldom be helpful here. Russia is not a common law country where legal precedents are a source of law. Proofs may be easily rejected by judges. There are a few harassment cases that are known to public, but not many yet, and courts may not follow the previous decisions.

At the same time, on the Russian Web there are a few mentions about victories on the sexual harassment field. Once I read blog of a well known Moscow columnist who told that one lady applied for a newscaster's job on local TV in a Russian city. The manager got back to her with an email inviting her to casting, and adding that this will depend on him whether she gets her foot in the TV door, if she understands what he means, and that he hopes that her morals are not hurt because this is the way everyone does business on TV. The lady made this letter public, and soon, as far as I have read online, she received a note from an executive person of that TV company informing that the manager was apparently fired.

The story here in Russian, if someone is interested, with links on the harasser's profile, the lady's blog, and others:

http://vkontakte.ru/note128629_10363169

[GQBlues]

Just because Ukrainian politicians kill each other with impunity doesn't mean murder doesn't exist.  

There has been only one case in the US that I know about where a murder trial took place and convicted a man of murder without a dead body and solely of circumstantial evidence. Ironically, that involved a MOB woman from Russia.

Beyond that Boethius, if there's no conviction, there is NO crime.

[Faux Pas]

Beyond that Boethius, if there's no conviction, there is NO crime.

Speaking in terms of sexual harassment as defined by the law, many times there is no crime, where there is a conviction. I know of a number of instances where there was no sexual harassment physical, verbal or implied. If a co-worker or subordinate is merely "uncomfortable" with a situation caused by another, by law it is defined as sexual harassment.

Is this a crazy world or what?

[GQBlues]

That's really amusing to watch how American men and a Canadian woman discuss what they think is going on every day in the FSU (no offence intended guys, really!) It seems to me that you're all talking about different things. What do you consider to be "harassment"? Compliments at workplace? Excessive or annoying compliments at workplace? Hints that if a woman agrees to sexual relations she'll get something extra? Or that she'll be fired? Because really I'm sure that first 3 are widespread all over the world, and the USA isn't different (watch your movies ). Can it be called a harassment? If a person is forced to quit a job because of that - that is really a harassment. And I don't know any girl who was harassed in such a way. It doesn't mean that this thing doesn't exist in Ukraine, but it means that it's not common at all.
On the other hand I know a lot of girls who had to quit their job because of absolutely impolite and rude attitude of their employers, who considered it to be normal to shout at and insult their employees. That is quite common here.

The caveat Nat, was in what the OP laid out in his post. Which is....

Sexual harassment as we define it in the WEST. We've had hundreds maybe even thousand of sexual harassment cases tried and convicted in the US...so we have more or less 'defined' what sexual harassment is/are. This/these definition/s does not 'exist' in the FSU/Russia. Period.

It is wholly separate from the 'act of sexual predation', 'innuendo, 'compliment', etc.....they definitely exist in Russia/FSU just as they do anywhere in the west. The difference is that they are not be classified as sexual harassment in Russia/FSU simply because its courts deem it doesn't exist...

"The term “sexual harassment” does not exist legally in Russia and so the law cannot technically prohibit its practice."

You cannot enforce a law on something the courts/legislation doesn't prohibit the practice of...  

[Boethius]

Yes, Nat, to GQ above.  We're not discussing the extent of harassment in Ukraine.  We're discussing it in terms of the Western concept.

However:

1.  Do you deny the substance of ECock's post?  Is his view as someone who canvassed Ukrainians somehow "lesser" because he's not a Ukrainian, even though he lived there?

2.  If it will make you feel better, when I have been in Ukraine, I have heard women complain of being asked for sexual favours at work.   It was said pretty matter of factly.  So, it can't be particularly uncommon.  

Beyond that Boethius, if there's no conviction, there is NO crime.

No, there may still be a crime.  It is just unpunished.

[vwrw]

I agree with Boethius. No conviction means that the provided evidence is not sufficiently strong to prove that a give person has committed a crime.  A crime still exists even if nobody is named to be responsible for that.

[ECOCKS]

No conviction, no crime? There's a head in the sand approach to life.

[vwrw]

"The term “sexual harassment” does not exist legally in Russia and so the law cannot technically prohibit its practice."

You cannot enforce a law on something the courts/legislation doesn't prohibit the practice of... 

Yes, it seems that sexual harassment by unwelcome verbal or physical conduct is not a crime in Russia if the conduct does not include compulsion to perform a sexual action. Thus, according to Russian legislature, as far as you do not coerce other person to have sex with you by some means, it is not  big harm to make offensive comments of sexual nature and touch the person everywhere. 

[GQBlues]

I agree with Boethius. No conviction means that the provided evidence is not sufficiently strong to prove that a give person has committed a crime.  A crime still exists even if nobody is named to be responsible for that.

A situation or event may have taken place, but if no one is held accountable then how can the law be enforced and punishment levied.

For the last time, 'Sexual harassment' doesn't exist in Russia/FSU in the way we defined it in the west. Further, its courts cannot enforce a law over acts it doesn't deem to exist nor does it prohibit practices which are easily defined as sexual harassment in the west...

When you guys quit arguing emotionally and realize the FSU, and Russia, have a societal differences with that of the west, notably the US, MAYBE you'll have a better understanding of what we're talking about.

In the US, women have far more rights of protection than they do in Russia/FSU. You can argue till the cows come home, but the fact is...that's just the way it is...The FSU is a MALE-dominated regional society. PERIOD. Outlawing these act of sexual predation/advances/innuendos in the FSU is like outlawing polygamy in muslim nations.

You cannot try to fit the US law, thus the public mentality/recognition, to the FSU. It simply doesn't fit.

Sexual Harassment as defined in the west doesn't exist in the FSU.

[vwrw]

For the last time, 'Sexual harassment' doesn't exist in Russia/FSU in the way we defined it in the west. Further, its courts cannot enforce a law over acts it doesn't deem to exist nor does it prohibit practices which are easily defined as sexual harassment in the west...

I hear you CQB. Yes, there is no a law in Russia against 'Sexual harassment' as you define it in US. And yes, the court cannot enforce a law that does not exist. What I cannot agree with is the statement that courts deem that sexual harassment as it is defined in US does not exists in Russia. I am certain Russian courts are aware that sexual harassment ( as it is defined in US) exists in Russia and Russians do NOT encourage such conduct. Why then there is no a law prohibiting such behavior in Russia? Is it because the FSU is a MALE-dominated regional society yet? Maybe. Or maybe there are so many problems in the countries that enactment of 'Sexual harassment' law is out of the “important things list”. Maybe because 'Sexual harassment' without compulsion to perform a sexual action is deemed to be an emotional distress that a person should be able to cope with without help of courts but with help of his or her community or his/her surroundings.  In US, you do not have a law against emotional distress caused by disrespect or annoyance for the same reason.

[Boethius]

Or maybe there are so many problems in the countries that enactment of 'Sexual harassment' law is out of the “important things list”.

I agree with this.  Given the larger problems in the society, it is way down the list.

Laws against sexual harassment and domestic violence, and civil damages in sexual harassment cases are the result of activism, primarily, but not exclusively, by Western feminists.  That type of activism is predominantly successful in countries with a well established rule of law and a middle class.

In US, you do not have a law against emotional distress caused by disrespect or annoyance for the same reason.

I am pretty certain there are civil cases in which plaintiffs have received damages based on emotional distress.  Granted, there is no law banning such, but there are legal remedies.

[OlgaH]

Sexual Harassment as defined in the west doesn't exist in the FSU.

Unfortunately this is true.

In 2001 a criminal proceedings on the base of article 133 (Compulsion of a person to enter into sexual intercourse with the advantage of a dependence of the victim)  was instituted against a colonel of one of the Military Committees situated near Moscow, but there were witnesses women who also were forced to leave their job due to the colonel's behavior)

Svetlana Pomilyayko became the first Ukrainian woman who filed a complaint against harassment by the employer according to the article
Google translation of the article
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://focus.ua/society/79935&ei=eQABTc2MB4L_8Ab3wanmBw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D0%25A1%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BA%25D1%2581%25D1%2583%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BB%25D1%258C%25D0%25BD%25D1%258B%25D0%25B5%2B%25D0%25B4%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B0%25D1%2582%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BB%25D1%258C%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B0:%2B%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BA%2B%25D1%258D%25D1%2582%25D0%25BE%2B%25D0%25B1%25D1%258B%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B5%25D1%2582%2B%25D0%25B2%2B%25D0%25A3%25D0%25BA%25D1%2580%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B5%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3Div

in Russian
http://focus.ua/society/79935  

[GQBlues]

A very interesting read/article, OlgaH. There was one case filed by another Ukrainian woman against her employer but it happened here in California not too long ago...She was hired and sponsored by a california-based company and was threatened deportation or termination and sent home if she didn't consent to sexual favors...I believe it ended favorably for the woman.

....Why then there is no a law prohibiting such behavior in Russia? Is it because the FSU is a MALE-dominated regional society yet? Maybe. Or maybe there are so many problems in the countries that enactment of 'Sexual harassment' law is out of the “important things list”. Maybe because 'Sexual harassment' without compulsion to perform a sexual action is deemed to be an emotional distress that a person should be able to cope with without help of courts but with help of his or her community or his/her surroundings.

You will likely be more informed on this than I will be VWRW.

I would hazard to guess the general underpinning why this isn't considered a serious enough issue in FSU is because up to now it lacks a substantial and persistent rally for gender parity by its female population at large and set a precedent of things to follow like it did in the US.

In US, you do not have a law against emotional distress caused by disrespect or annoyance for the same reason.

We do. Except it is limited to mostly in civil cases which is more often than not presented as an after-effect / damages. Unless it steps over to criminal circumstances i.e. stalking.

[OlgaH]

I would hazard to guess the general underpinning why this isn't considered a serious enough issue in FSU is because up to now it lacks a substantial and persistent rally for gender parity by its female population at large and set a precedent of things to follow like it did in the US.

GQBlues, I absolutely agree with you, women should be more proactive in defending their rights.

[vwrw]

We do.

Business Law Today by Miller : “Emotional Distress claims are subject to limitations…otherwise, the courts could be flooded with lawsuits alleging emotional distress….A society in which individuals are rewarded if they are unable to endure the normal emotional stress of day –to-day living is obviously undesirable….Indignity or annoyance alone is not sufficient to support a lawsuit based on intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Page 106.

You see, sometimes there is no a law to protect people from some phenomenon not because the courts are in denial that the phenomenon exists, but because they want people themselves to cope with the problem.

[BC]

Here's an interesting read to put the topic into perspective.  It's a case study and may or may not be based on an actual incident.

http://www.cluteinstitute-onlinejournals.com/PDFs/200625.pdf

Clearly sexual harassment will have different definitions in different countries.

I actually find the the current, no tolerance interpretations in the US as quite obscene and phobic - although it is the law.

[OlgaH]

http://www.cluteinstitute-onlinejournals.com/PDFs/200625.pdf

From the article: "The final straw came when she went into her supervisor’s office for a meeting and saw a copy of the magazine Der Spiegel on his desk, the cover of which reproduced a French painting of a topless woman waving a flag"

I bet Rebecca McDonald was exposed to the "Liberty Leading the People" by Eugène Delacroix ...  Ah, those naughty Europeans... 

[GQBlues]

I actually find the the current, no tolerance interpretations in the US as quite obscene and phobic - although it is the law.

I cannot disagree with that. The pendulum over-swings to both sides to find its center...



Sexuality, Romance, Harassment, and Cultural tap-dancing...An American woman's perspective of Men and Crabgrass.

Good read!

An excerpt...

"Imagine a huge hall. On one side a table of seven American men, on the other seven Russians, all having a rousing good time, with piles of food and batteries of bottles. Which group would I join? I'd make a bee-line for the Russians. Why?....."

The Grass is Greener by Michele A. Berdy

[Maxx2]

The Grass is Greener by Michele A. Berdy

Thanks GQ! Good read

I like this part

But it gets stranger. Say our average American male gets married to one of his Russian beauties. Within a day of his wedding, he immediately reverts to being a sensitive, responsible man who always brings home his paycheck, never goes on a binge with the boys (well, almost never), and willingly, uncomplainingly shares the housework. Except he's suddenly more "romantic" than he ever was with his American girlfriends, prone to impulse purchases of imported hot-house flowers and gold trinkets fashioned by the descendants of pre-Revolutionary jewelers. You see, he's grateful. He can't believe his good luck: His wife doesn't expect him to manfully bear the burdens of the world on his shoulders, she'll listen to him in moments of drunken doubt and forgive all his weaknesses. In old Russian, the word for "pity" also meant "love," and Russian women know how to love sympathetically better than anyone on earth (perhaps much better than American women...?). He thinks he's died and gone to heaven. His wife is happy, too: Her husband doesn't disappear for three days to drink away his paycheck, he's willing to wash his own socks, and doesn't jump on the next plane when she says, "Let's talk." True, he's a bit uptight. True, it's hard to get an indication of his emotional state out of him. But, hey, you can live with that.

Odder still is what happens when Russian men fall in love with American women. At least at first, or at least in some things, they don't misbehave with us the way they do with the women "next door." They feel the tug of shame when they drink away their paychecks, they feel the burden of guilt if they start a second (or a fourth) affair (well, most of the time). I'm not quite sure why this happens. I suspect it's a correlate of the reason why American men misbehave in Russia: because Russian men know they can't get away with it. Somehow they know that we just won't put up with the kind of blatant, unrepentant irresponsibility that Russian women silently endure (although perhaps they shouldn't. . .?). So they just don't try it. And they find, sometimes, that behaving like a grown-up has unexpected rewards-like self-respect, like not having all that much to confess to their drinking buddies at 3:00 a.m. We're happy with men who admit their needs without threat of divorce or firing squad. We're delighted with men who have blissfully uncomplicated feelings for us. True, they won't wash their socks. And true, they break out in hives when we say, "Let's talk." But, hey, you can live with that.

[vwrw]

….they don't misbehave with us the way they do with the women "next door." They feel the tug of shame when they drink away their paychecks, they feel the burden of guilt if they start a second (or a fourth) affair (well, most of the time).

Why the author has assumed that RM do NOT feel burden of guilt or shame when they cheat on their Russian wives or behave badly toward them? This is a ridiculous assumption. The author largely misunderstood the problem. RW who have that kind of husbands are unhappy not because their husbands show the lack of guilt after bad behavior, but because the husbands continue their bad behavior despite their feelings of shame and guilt. 

Somehow they (RM) know that we (AW) just won't put up with the kind of blatant, unrepentant irresponsibility that Russian women silently endure (although perhaps they shouldn't. . .?). So they just don't try it.

Really? WOW? Then who are the women here in America who put up with that irresponsibility of their men and with being beaten and mistreated by their husbands that the majority of Russian women would NOT tolerate at all? Are they all immigrants with perfect English or the author decided to deprive them of their American citizenship for putting up with that treatment? 

What is the “it” that RM do not try when they are married to AW? If RM do not try drinking or cheating when they are married to AW, then what is the author's basis for ascertaining that Russian husbands of AW feel the burden of shame and guilt after doing what they do not event try to do?
 

[GQBlues]

Business Law Today by Miller : “Emotional Distress claims are subject to limitations…otherwise, the courts could be flooded with lawsuits alleging emotional distress….A society in which individuals are rewarded if they are unable to endure the normal emotional stress of day –to-day living is obviously undesirable….Indignity or annoyance alone is not sufficient to support a lawsuit based on intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Page 106.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here VWRW...I do not know under what context the extracted excerpt was intended for, nor do I know who 'Miller' is? Reggie? The ex-Indiana Pacer forward?

Anyway, like I previously said above...emotional distress is more often than not an 'attachment' to a civil lawsuit - punitive damages, etc...I'm not sure what the legal terms for much of the lingo pertaining to this matter, but you see and hear this in civil cases involving 'Discrimination', 'Defamation lawsuits', Abuse cases, either Home or Workplace, etc...

Here's an example of this. Page 1 - Complaint for 'Damages' Nos. 7 & 8. I am not sure if the plaintiff actually received judgment for it. Just using this as a citation to exemplify what I was saying.

Generally, as far as I know, emotional distress in of itself cannot be the 'cause' of a lawsuit - not sure.

You see, sometimes there is no a law to protect people from some phenomenon not because the courts are in denial that the phenomenon exists, but because they want people themselves to cope with the problem.

I'm not sure what you're alluding to with regards to sexual harassment and/or its non-existence in FSU. So maybe you can explain your point once again. Are you saying that 'maybe' the reason why you don't have this in Russia is because its society have total community support, or should, and thus the legislators do not believe  it's necesary for women to have legal leverage against harassment? Sort of like the Russian Woman Support Group for Harassed Women?

If so, then the presiding judge did have a plausible point with his citation. If so, I can't comment to its merit but such sentiment (judge's remark) will likely not be condoned in the US courts.

[vwrw]

I'm not sure what you're alluding to with regards to sexual harassment and/or its non-existence in FSU. So maybe you can explain your point once again. Are you saying that 'maybe' the reason why you don't have this in Russia is because its society have total community support, or should, and thus the legislators do not believe  it's necesary for women to have legal leverage against harassment? Sort of like the Russian Woman Support Group for Harassed Women?

Earlier you made assertion that “You cannot try to fit the US law, thus the public mentality/recognition, to the FSU. It simply doesn't fit.” Although this assertion may be true and some US laws may not fit the Russian mentality, yet when it comes to sexual harassment, the majority of Russians (I do not speak about teens, but about adults) understands that sexual harassment is wrongdoing.  To prove my point that people can understand/recognize the wrongfulness of an behavior while they do not enact a law against the behavior, I pointed out what I have learned form a practicing attorney during my business law class and in my textbook, namely, that while intentional  infliction of emotional distress by annoying people or treating them with indignity is deemed to be wrongdoing in America, the civil courts would not interfere to protect a plaintiff against that because American society expects its citizens to cope with that problem independently.     

I do NOT allude that the legislators believe it is unnecessary for women to have legal leverage against harassment. What I am trying to say is that factors other than the difference of mentality may contribute to the absence of the sexual harassment law in Russia.   

The excerpt that I cited is from “Torts and Cyber Torts” chapter which make overview of American Tort law. Miller and Jentz are authors of the textbook, and the textbook is reviewed and approved by about 80 law-professors. I cannot believe that they all could overlook wrong info in the textbook.   

[GQBlues]

Earlier you made assertion that “You cannot try to fit the US law, thus the public mentality/recognition, to the FSU. It simply doesn't fit.” Although this assertion may be true and some US laws may not fit the Russian mentality, yet when it comes to sexual harassment, the majority of Russians (I do not speak about teens, but about adults) understands that sexual harassment is wrongdoing.  To prove my point that people can understand/recognize the wrongfulness of an behavior while they do not enact a law against the behavior, I pointed out what I have learned form a practicing attorney during my business law class and in my textbook, namely, that while intentional  infliction of emotional distress by annoying people or treating them with indignity is deemed to be wrongdoing in America, the civil courts would not interfere to protect a plaintiff against that because American society expects its citizens to cope with that problem independently.      

I do NOT allude that the legislators believe it is unnecessary for women to have legal leverage against harassment. What I am trying to say is that factors other than the difference of mentality may contribute to the absence of the sexual harassment law in Russia.  

The excerpt that I cited is from “Torts and Cyber Torts” chapter which make overview of American Tort law. Miller and Jentz are authors of the textbook, and the textbook is reviewed and approved by about 80 law-professors. I cannot believe that they all could overlook wrong info in the textbook.  

You don't believe your premise is a bit out of the ballpark? Emotional distress is an 'effect', not a 'cause'. Being a PITA is not a crime in America, otherwise we'd all be arrested. I, personally, would be doing 'life'.

Annoying anyone is not recognized in America as grounds for a civil suit. There has to be 'more'...

Cause & Effect: For example...

Cause = Sexual Harassment
Effect = Emotional Distress

What it can never be...

Cause = Emotional Distress
Effect = Sexual Harassment.

What I am trying to say is that factors other than the difference of mentality contribute to the absence of the sexual harassment law in Russia.

Sure. Like for example a judge ruling that such 'term' doesn't exist because such 'allegation' is simply ridiculous. Russia needs babies, America do not.