The first trial that we heard from in class was between a couple who had been dating for a while, and one night the boyfriend wanted to have sex with her, but she did not. It started to get physical, when finally he had sex with her. It took her a day to realize, but then she thought about it, and felt that he raped her. In the end, the jury, me included, decided that he was not guilty of raping her. Some of the compelling facts to this case was that in the past during their relationship, she was never very clear about when "No" meant "No." There were times where she would say no and wouldn't mean it, so it was hard to determine whether she meant it or not. Another point that the defense brought up was that she may have had other motives to say that he sexually harassed her. There was a note given to him by a student in his class. This note was an inside joke about their class, but she misinterpreted it, and got very angry. This was a big fact in the case because this whole case could have been a result of jealousy. This changed the motives of the case. Not only that but the man in the relationship was thought of by many of the witnesses as a great guy that would not harm a fly. The case seemed to iffy, and it was hard to tell if it was just a case of jealousy, so I still feel like this is not a case of sexual harassment. The big problem with the plaintiff was that their expert witness did not really seem like a real expert. If the examination would have gone better with him, then maybe my opinion would have gone differently.
The second case is a much harder decision than the first one. To be honest I am still swaying between if the District of Columbia is guilty of sexual harassment, or if they are not guilty. Elyse Roberts was someone who was very hard to deal with, and even though the District of Columbia handled this problem in the wrong way, it did not seem like Ms. Roberts handled it very well. This case seemed, and was described as a childish problem that the two could not solve. Some key facts of the case were that Ms. Roberts' transfer was not a promotion or a demotion, and eventually would be a better fit for her because she was not a very good trial attorney. Not only that, but Kevin Murphy was one of the best trial attorneys, and very well liked throughout the office. This is one of the reasons why it was such a tough case because either Ms. Roberts was misinterpreting Mr. Murphy's humor, or unlike what everyone else in the office thought, Mr. Murphy had taken it too far. One of the biggest key facts of the case was that every other woman in the office liked Mr. Murphy, which made it look Ms. Roberts was just being sensitive. However I will admit that the Sports U.S.A. issue was definitely handled poorly. In the end I feel like everyone in the District of Columbia handled this poorly, and this could have easily been avoided. They could have switched offices, Mr. Murphy could have apologized, or Ms. Roberts could have been transferred because she was not a suitable trial attorney. Any one of these options could have solved this case, instead of going to trial.
Sexual harassment is an issue that I don't think people take too seriously (and maybe I am an example of that). A lot of times people just look at it as a women being too sensitive, however women should never have to feel uncomfortable at the workplace or at school because they should be considered equal. It is hard to say what is considered as sexual harassment and what is considered as just a women being too sensitive, which is why these cases become very complicated. I don't think sexual harassment is that big of an issue at DHS because the administration is very strict on the subject, and punishments can be very severe. The culture at Deerfield is that sexual harassment is very frowned upon. Even though it may exist at times, people are very conscious about the issue, and try not to make people feel too uncomfortable, which is why it is not too big of an issue at DHS. These problems can be addressed by teaching kids about the problems of sexual harassment and the punishments for harassing someone.
No comments:
Post a Comment