- Quickdraw McLaw
- 62 Comments
- 120 Views
Some of this discussion has come up under the topic of civility before, but one of our readers would like to talk about the frequency that female attorneys experience sexual harassment in the practice of law in Las Vegas. What have you experienced? Is there a lot of it going on? Is is only the creepy, old men or are younger guys part of it too? Feel free to speak your mind, but please keep it work-appropriate, slander and bully-free.
The managing partner at a former firm where I worked would pretend he was drunk and kiss female associates.
I learned a long time ago to give as good as you get. It is only harassment when you let it bother you.
8:45 – your privilege is showing.
9:15, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
9:15 here. What I mean is that if you think sexual harassment is only harassment when "you let it bother you" then you're either too privileged or too young or too wealthy to have experienced sexual harassment. When you have an individual who can make or break your career/future sexually harassing you, it's not so much a matter of "letting it bother you" as it is life altering. If you have never been in that position then you will either be there one day or you're privileged. Hence "your privilege is showing." It means exactly what I thought it meant.
Sexual harassment is wrong obviously, but 8:45 seems to have a practical attitude about it. You have to choose your battles. Almost everyone deals with BS in life from powerful people in control. Sexual harassment is just one example.
@ 9:15/1:19 spot on. @8:45, bless your privileged heart. This take as good as you get will only work until you hit 40 or 45 – then, good luck. I hope you never feel the sting of harassment in the form of being frozen out of work or the big pay days. Harassment isn't simply quid pro quo. Harassment is more prevalent in the – lets keep this stupid bitch down – arena. Let's see if it bothers you if you ever face a situation where you find out you've been paid less, overlooked for promotion or partnership or passed over on the big fun case work simply because you are on the mommy path – or for just having boobs. I hope you don't find yourself in a law firm for ten years before you realize all your male associate friends are making huge bonuses while you're not only to find out it's because their clients allegedly pay when mysteriously the client files you work on go for months without any receipts or because the boys allegedly have more billable hours and they're just around more – when if you actually compared the work you, as the female do the same or much more. I hope you don’t find yourself in the middle of a spirited argument with another female attorney in front of a male judge or arbitrator only to be told to “calm down ladies” and to “quit bickering.” I can’t recall ever hearing my male attorney friends being spoken to in that way. Ask yourself how you treat the men around you when they have to leave work early for a child sporting event vs. how you treat a woman for doing the same thing. I hope you don't find yourself in a situation to have to confront harassment only to be offered an amount of hush money that you can't turn down and then later feel guilty for accepting. You’re “don’t let it bother you” comment shows just how deeply immature you are about this issue, and for your sake I hope you remain so because it will mean you’ve successfully walked through life untouched by this harassment disease. If I had to guess, you’re either in your late 20’s, early 30’s, you are a solo practitioner or work in a small office without many male partners and you do not frequently appear in front of old school male judges.
Great post, 3:12 and those you respond to. Many men have no idea how marginalizing their treatment of women is, even women these men like to say are their valued colleagues.
Every week, if not every day of my 10+ year practice, I have seen or experienced what many would call sexual harassment. Embarrassed to admit I have learned to cope and thrive in the profession by developing a thick skin and using femininity to my advantage where and when possible. I acknowledge this makes me part of the problem. Happy to say I now work with a group of men that support and encourage my professional growth and have my back at every turn. But yes, I still see it everywhere and most often from older males.
I used to work for a guy that always came across as a creep, but never did anything in public that anyone could point to and say "okay, we've all finally seen you cross the line, now you're finally going to face consequences." I guess some secretary and/or some female associates finally said something, and he was demoted pretty quick. The problem is that he was replaced by another pompous douche, but fortunately not one that sexually harasses women. As is life.
I was asked if I watch porno. I was also harassed by a male co-worker, who was married.
I have sexually harassed women. Didn't think it was harassment at the time. Seemed flirtatious, fun and frivolous. Seemed like that is what you do in a high stress profession where you spend inordinate amounts of time working with the same people and sharing the same inside jokes. Pretty cringeworthy stuff now which seemed innoculous then.
I did not expect to see anyone actually write that, but I am glad you did.
Good on you (and others) who can recognize it now. May the enlightenment persist for us all.
10:41 AM is right that a lot of what we think of as sexual harassment today, may not have been considered so bad back in the day. There has been a big cultural shift and increased awareness of the way women are treated by men. Sometimes men who would consider themselves "nice guys" or "respectful of women" did things that may have been acceptable back then because of the environment or culture. Reminds me of old Bush and his habit of grabbing women's behinds during photo opportunities and joking about it. That was probably considered acceptable behavior back when he started doing it. But the world has moved on and it's time that us men adjust.
When I was in college I worked at a tire store. One of the bookkeepers was a cute college girl. The manager and the tire salesmen harassed her constantly. When I was around, I'd try to get them to lighten up but there wasn't much I could do being so low in the hierarchy. That was when I learned what a "hostile work environment" is. I talked to her later, after I quit, and found out that she hated that job because of the harassment. I've always felt bad about that and ever since then I've always tried to be as respectful as possible to my female co-workers. I have a teenage daughter now and I hope she never has to deal with what that girl was subjected to.
Putting your hands on a woman is never acceptable behavior. Give my best to Roy Moore.
I put my hands on your wife as often as I can. When she consents, that's not acceptable behavior? What about when I put my hands on my own wife and she consents?
Thanks for your thoughtful and nuanced response, 1:18 PM. The world has also changed its position on slavery, racism and homosexuality (for the most part), but that doesn't mean that we have to condemn every person who lived in those times as a racist or a homophobe. People are a product of their culture and their environment. If a behavior is not seen as wrong, and in some cases may be taught as correct behavior, it's unfair to hold someone accountable for their actions when they are unaware that their actions are wrong.
We now live under a different standard than we had 100, 50 or even 20 years ago. The only people who should be condemned are those who refuse to change their behavior once they should know better. Like the Harvey Weinsteins of the world.
The problem with 2:48's historical relativism is it confuses straight white views on slavery, racism, and homosexuality with "the world's" views on these things. Slavery and the oppression of lgbt people were seen as wrong by the victims of those eras. 2:48 would only take the perspective of the oppressor, ignoring that the oppressed never needed the hindsight of history to appreciate their own humanity.
I've seen it take all kinds of forms – from unwanted touches on the knee and shoulder rubs, to the public employer who hires eye candy instead of the more qualified candidate, to another employer who had an ongoing relationship with his secretary and allowed her to continually act of line because she could expose their relationship to his wife and employer, to judges who had relationship with hot young things who continued to appear before the judges while they were in a relationship and who used the judge's staff to act on behalf of the girlfriend of the day, to the handsy attorney who used alcohol as an excuse to misbehave, etc. It's everywhere – public agencies, private firms, judicial departments, and few take it as a serious problem.
2:41 is team Mormon.
3:09 – Helluva response. There were plenty of abolitionists decades before the end of slavery. Title VII and the prohibition on sexual harassment is over 50 years old. Don't be on the wrong side of history.
JD Evans treats people like shit.
@3:09 PM – That's easy to say when you have the benefit of hindsight. It's true that there's always a minority out there fighting for this right or that right. Some of them get ignored and some of them eventually gain a voice and acceptance. 50 years from now polygamy may become accepted culturally and legally even though for hundreds of years it hasn't been accepted. To take it one (gross) step further, even bestiality may become acceptable hundreds of years from now even though it's morally reprehensible to our current culture. Should we be condemned by future generations for something we currently believe is wrong or unacceptable just because standards change over time?
You are still doing what 2:48 did-you are using "we" to include only a narrow group of privileged people. "We" did not need the hindsight of history to know slavery was wrong. Some people may have, but that knowledge was certainly available to the slaves, among others. "We" never thought that men had a right to women's bodies, consent be damned. That knowledge was always available to the women forced to work in environments where they were forced to choose between bodily autonomy and economic security. The fact that your "we" implicitly excludes these people is the problem.
6:28 – you're assuming that if you grew up in the 1800s you'd have the same values that you now have in 2017. You may be right, but that's certainly not a sure thing. If the arc of history tells us anything about the evolution of accepted mores, it's that our great grand kids will look at what we thought was acceptable and think we were total bigots. Keep in mind that President Obama proclaimed that marriage was limited to a union between a man and a woman less than a decade ago and Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act two decades ago. Imagine how either of those things would be received in 2017.
I think what 2:48 was saying is, sure some of our forefathers were shitheads under 2017 standards, and it's totally fine to say "hey [insert name of pretty much every prominent American from the 1700s and 1800s and most of the 1900s] acted totally unacceptably when he did/said X, Y, and Z," but that doesn't mean that some of those people weren't also important figures in American history that are worth celebrating on, e.g., Presidents Day.
I think the same holds for some (not all) more recent sins. If a guy told a sexist joke in 1989, and if he recognizes his error now, I'm willing to give the guy a pass. Obviously other things would be harder to forgive. Like this Moore guy in Alabama doesn't win even if you grade him on the most lenient that-was-a-long-time-ago scale.
I am not saying I would have the same views. I am saying that saying "well we can't judge by 2017 standard" impliedly assumes only the values of the powerful group matters in a given discussion. When we apply historical relativism to slavery or sexism in the workplace or whatever, we are impliedly saying it is the white view or the male view that should start as the baseline. By judging the sexist joke guy by the standards of the time in which he told that joke, you are completely missing that the victims of that sexism would have recognized the problems with the joke at the time. So judging sexism by 1989 standards actually means judging it by the standards of a man in 1989. Sure, if all we care about is what white people thought of slavery in 1830, its easy to excuse white people who supported slavery. But now, by 2017 standards, we recognize that women and people of color have views that get to count for something too!
7:20 here. I agree with you that the persecuted’s view matters too. (I’m not sure that it’s white males versus the world necessarily. Certainly in the 1700s and 1800s it was closer to that). But what does that mean practically speaking for the 1989 jokester? He can’t be foregiven? More concretely, what if you were a gay person that was deeply troubled by the Obama 2007 or 2008 view on marriage? Does that mean that everyone has to put an asterisk on their Obama pictures? Can’t people that like Obama notwithstanding dislike of that one thing say “hey that was unfortunate but that was the prevailing view at the time and he evolved as society did”?
Anyways, I sincerely appreciate the dialogue but I’m shutting down and I won’t be able to check back until tomorrow.
Yeah, I don't think we're really that far apart. I was not arguing it is white males against the world, just that when saying "we" did not used to know racism or sexism were wrong, we mean white males by "we." Presumably people of color did not need to wait until now to know they were not inferior to whites, and women did not need to wait until today to know they were not inferior to men. I also have not taken the position that we should not view actions in context, whether historical or cultural or whatever. My point is a more narrow one. It isn't that we need to judge actions by the standards of today, it is that even far in the past many people knew what we accept generally today. I just cringe a little when people say things like "everyone used to joke like that" (when they mean many men used to joke like that and women just had to suck it up) or "many people thought slavery was morally acceptable" (when its doubtful many slaves ever had serious questions about the morality of the institution). I just want people to understand that tradition defenses based on historical relativism typically only value the view of the historical defendant, and ignore that the victims knew they were victims at the time.
Also appreciate the thoughtful engagement.
3:09, slavery was never only a white thing. Egyptians, Persians, etc. It was historically ubiquitous. It was ended by force both in England and the English colonies via English imperialism. No English imperialism, no abolition of slavery in most of the world. It has never been abolished in some parts of Africa. The castles of the Middle Ages were originally developed not mainly due to wars between rival kingdoms but as sanctuary against Moorish slave raids in southern Europe. Slavery still exists today, mostly practiced by non-whites in the Middle East and Africa. Although it was a white thing in the US, it was never a mainly white thing from a world-wide perspective, and today it is almost exclusively a non-white thing.
Right, but one of the particularly insidious aspects of American slavery was the framework of religious and pseudoscientific justifications of white supremacy used to justify it, frameworks that still reverberate today. I have also never heard someone going out of their way to use historical relativism to justify Roman or Persian or Mesoamerican slavery-it is used almost invariably to minimize the evil of American slavery.
Chuck Muth is a hack, but his email blast take down of Jon Ralston today is on point. Broken clocks and what not.
I disagree with Ralston's position fairly regularly. That said, I really enjoy The Nevada Independent. The RJ was already pretty skewed before Adelson turned it into a complete joke – but for the Internet and TNI, we'd basically be living in a company town where the wealthiest old man in town controls the news. I thought TNI's work through the Legislative Session was particularly strong. Chuck Muth has no credibility. He freaks out about how Ralston is obsessed with Laxalt – but Chuck is even more obsessed with Ralston. This matters because Laxalt is a public official/ politician that may become our next governor despite what many see as what should be insurmountable issues (nothing is insurmountable now – thanks Trump!); whereas Ralston writes for a Website for "insiders."
Jesus NSC. Managed in Saticoy Bay 2227 Shadow Canyon last week to take a mildly ambiguous standard and make it entirely incomprehensible. As one of the critics that the Court is atrocious at getting decisions released timely, sometimes they truly are so incompetent that they meet the adage that they say it best when they say nothing at all.
If you're a bright and mildly attractive female and make it to your 40's, odds are the harassment you experience won't simply be quid-pro-quo or overtly sexual. The harassment I experience is in fighting the old school men in the office and profession who find women belong at home, not in the work place and they do things intentionally or subconsciously to promote those beliefs. For example, Partner X gets a big case and his first call for his trial partner is to the Associate Male. The brief writer is Associate single female with no children. More harmful to a woman's career than that, what I have personally experienced is a lack of mentors for female lawyers. I routinely see the guys handed client's and originated work when the gals have to fight tooth and nail – with zero help from anyone – to get a $25,000 book of business. I've seen time after time my male counterparts spoon fed originations and clients then later promoted and paid more – when I was told I am not being promoted or paid more because I have not accomplished their level of work (work they didn't earn at all – but were given). Not all men are bad. Not all harassment is intentional. There definitely is a sliding scale. I'm happy that there is a heightened awareness – there being a heightened awareness does not mean the instances of harassment aren't real or more prevalent – it just means we're now more aware. I've seen time and again females take a severance check over dealing with fighting big firms, or small firms. Maybe the recent awareness will put a spotlight on this issue not just for the victims of the slap and tickle, but for the more prevalent victims of harassment who just work in a mans world.
Your problem seems to be you have children, not discrimination and certainly not harassment. I am a female with no children, and what I have noticed is the women and men with kids are given breaks from the late night/all nighter assignments. This type of "unfairness" is no different than your complaints. Everyone perceives "unfairness" according to their personal perspective.
To: 3:25: The main problem here is that whatever the reason(anti-female predilections or whatever) is that until you are on your own,(or with let's say one other person to partner up with), and instead choose to remain with a larger firm where the cases are given to you to work on, you will have no control over these matters.
Some female attorneys in the larger firm setting seem to believe the only matter limiting them is a gender-based predilection, or gender-based preconceived notions, of the older male members of the firm.
But if we waived a magic wand, and changed your gender to male but everything else remained the same, you might be shocked to learn that in many firms you are not treated much better.
I can't tell you how many times younger male associates of larger firms have complained that they should have been selected to second chair a trial, as opposed to being limited to a briefing or research position for such litigation. Since obviously(unlike yourself) they can't cite gender as a factor for why they have been marginalized, they cite other factors such as office politics or the partners having their pets and preferred associates.
This isn't to suggest the dynamic you discus does not occur(it certainly does, and quite consistently) it is only to suggest that if it were not that, it would be something else. If it weren't your gender it would be that they want to let their favorite suck up pet, or an associate who is less capable than you but is the son of a judge or prominent politician, second chair the trial rather than giving the nod to you(even if you are more deserving).
So, things will never really change until you get out of that setting, and strike out on your own, or with a much smaller firm, or get hired by a government agency, or some other viable option.
Now I understand that can be easier said than done. Often, one should wait until they have their own book–clients who will follow them to their new firm, and till they develop the ability to make rain and generate cases of their own.
@ 6:01 – your statement is part of the problem. what @ 3:25 describes is disparate treatment of women in a professional setting and it is, in fact sexual harassment and a huge problem. the post is that the men get the opportunities and the ladies don't. why should women not be afforded the same opportunities in a law firm – access to big cases, good clients, large bonuses? why should she have to quit? obviously you are correct – the system will likely never change at some firms because the culture starts from the top and trickles down so quitting is likely the best for most women in this situation, but it does not make it right. when women quit or get terminated for reporting harassment (which happens all the time in Las Vegas in law firms) it chills any effort at change and fuels the problem.
@3:50 – your comment does not address the post at all and there was no mention of children. I can guarantee women with kids are not given "breaks" in law firms. I have kids, i'm a woman and your comment is laughable, respectfully. I don't mean that as an insult, i'm saying that it literally makes me laugh because it is so far from the truth that I chuckled a little bit when I read your post. if this is your perception, you are likely a lower level associate who is still "paying your dues," thus your all nighters. the women with kids may not be pulling all nighters in the office – they are pulling all nighters at their home office in between doing their best to give their kids the attention they need. the kids go to bed and the laptop comes out. maybe when you have kids you'll understand – if you decide to do that. but re-read that post, it is about sexual harassment – not the woes of motherhood.
9:37,
6:01 speaks the truth. Your ability to get decent cases has less to do with whether or not you wield a Staff of Justice than it does with how you hustle. The simple fact that the ones who aren't getting a piece of that pie will find an justification for it. Men get shafted – damn partners. Women get shafted – damn misogynists. The ones who don't get shafted? The hustlers. And the set of hustlers does not necessarily overlap with the set of the folks pulling all-nighters either in the office or in a home office.
@10:19 – let me guess, you're a dude? You sound like you're a dude. Pat yourself on the back for what sounds like your work achievements due to "hustle". Aside from that, you're certainly clueless about sexual harassment so keep living in your bubble and keep pretending it's all about the hustle in law firms. I've personally witnessed male associate after male associate be HANDED work – HANDED client credit. This situation has nothing to do with hustle but everything to do with being in the dude club. I also know a lot of female solo practitioners who hustle and who do well (myself included – because I left the firm rat race years ago). No doubt people who actually obtain their own work deserve credit and it certainly does come from the hustle. That is not the point of the post (I don't think and I've read it a few times). In fact, it has zero to do with it and you're totally missing the point. The point is disparate treatment. It's a mans world, I'm just living in it.
The OP's post doesn't sound like sexual harassment, it sounds like misogyny or something else. The technical definition of sexual harassment is
"harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks."
Both sexual harassment and misogyny are serious problems in the workplace, but let's not confuse the two. They are separate issues that present distinct problems.
@12:11 – that is only one form of sexual harassment that you defined. You've excluded disparate treatment. Title VII prohibits employers from treating employees differently based on gender. Google it. They are NOT separate issues. In fact, this type of discrimination is far more prevalent (talk to an employment lawyer). So, yeah – there is no confusion here. By the way, the impact and effects of misogyny are what lead to disparate treatment and other forms of harassment. there's a lot of education left to do on these issues.
12:11 here. Disparate treatment based on gender is not the same as sexual harassment. Of course, both men and women can be victims of sexual harassment. There is no need to blur the lines between gender discrimination and sexual harassment. They are clearly separate issues, although they are both very important.
Title VII, by the way, is not the "sexual harassment" statute, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up. It prevents disparate treatment of employees on a large number of bases, not just sex/gender. From the statute: it is unlawful "to discriminate against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Perhaps you should speak with an employment lawyer yourself.
Again – I am not suggesting that either gender discrimination or sexual harassment are not important issues that are deserving of our time, discussion, etc. But the topic of discussion here is sexual harassment, which is a specific and narrow issue. It is not a catchall for any kind of poor or objectionable treatment based on gender, which seems to be what you are suggesting.
Sexual harassment and sexual discrimination are not the same thing. Both invidious. Not the same thing. Hence the reason #metoo has taken on more people than it was designed to carry.
It's all gender inequality and a form of discrimination so the label doesn't really matter. Yes sexual harassment can come in many egregious forms including sexual assault but gender discrimination can also ruin ones life and career. they are both ripe for destruction and neither should be tolerated and it seems highly appropriate to me that the "two" distinctions don't really make a huge difference in the current dialogue. the #metoo movement was targeted at those who have been sexually harassed or RAPED. it's likely some women have taken the label a step further than intended, but so what. it does not dilute the intended purpose. moreover, who is to say that the masses adopting the #metoo label haven't, in fact, been sexually harassed or assaulted. it's conceivable that there are just that many victims out there. how do we know that some women who identify with #metoo have not been assaulted or a victim of harassment? are we just making the assumption that because so many have adopted the label that certainly there can't be that many women assaulted or a victim of harassment? I would bet my life on the notion that the number of women who have been assaulted in some form is staggering. yes, there is a sliding scale. there's a difference between rape and unwanted physical touching, no doubt. but the highlight on these issues is long overdue. and too the posteres above who feel the need to distinguish between harassment and gender discrimination – your points have no meaning because the bigger issue remains gender inequality, period. (yes I know the title of the original question was "sexual harassment") Harassment, bad. gender discrimination, bad. all worthy of debate and to try and distinguish the two really serves no purpose – only than to remind us all that you're a lawyer doing what lawyers do – flex your muscles by correcting people and arguing over meaningless issues.
Incorrect. The #metoo movement was directed at those who had been sexually ASSAULTED or RAPED, not discriminated. Yes, it makes a HUGE difference to someone whether they were physically assaulted versus someone installed a glass ceiling over them. The latter is not right but is not even in the same category as the former. This is why many of the people who felt comfortable speaking up about their assaults felt betrayed when people who watered down the message when they perceived that they had suffered discrimination by being passed over at work. So what? Because the entire argument of equating assault with pay gaps is insulting and fallacious.
I concur with your point that the number of women who have been sexually assaulted is staggering; hence the reason that the focus on sexual assault stands on its own without equating discrimination with violence. You are correct: there's a difference between rape and unwanted physical touching, no doubt. But those are forms of sexual assault. Discrimination is not in that category and should never be put in that category. "Gender inequality" is a completely different issue. Your argument is so nonsensical and illogical that candidly it is too bad that this Board does not allow you to delete your post once you realize how outlandish it is.
Here's a non-PC but serious question:
It used to be that a woman who is a shrill, angry, terrible person, who appears to have nothing but hate in her heart, would be called a bitch. I get the sense that this is no longer acceptable. So what would be the appropriate terminology?
I would call a similarly-dispositioned male an asshole, but it just doesn't feel right to call a woman that.
Asshole is gender-neutral (whereas bitch is unequivocally not); feel free to use it for both male and female assholes.
Bastard. Because people aren't chocolates. They're mostly bastards. Bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.
Harry Pregerson from the 9th Circuit has died. http://beta.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-harry-pregerson-snap-story.html
My favorite memory of Judge P.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfnXDFAiCoo
At 32 minutes he starts mocking the guy for being in superlawyers ("I wonder how many super lawyers there are in this country"). Then he goes on a rant about Nevis and Alexander Hamilton. Pure gold.
A great Jurist. Yes I used a capital J. Sandoval in his seat?
Trump will give Hillary Clinton oral sex on live TV before he appoints a Republican who refused to back him in 2016. And Sandoval is not a solid conservative pick, anyway.
This is a serious question. How many relationships (genuine relationships, not affairs) start in the office? Many. Is the line from flirting to sexual harassment dependent upon whether the woman accepts the man's advances?
Um, yeah. Seems like it.
Affairs are real relationships too. I'd say most that start in the office start the same as those that you term "genuine relationships."
Hi, Legal Assistant here. The entertainment business is bleeding serial harassers right now and I'm hoping the worst of the legal community experience the same. One firm I used to work at has a couple of multiple violators who have gotten away with it for years by having people who are fed up and quit sign NDAs and give them a paltry severage (hush $). When people are desperate to escape they will take a little $ to help them move along and agree to the NDA in order to get the check. Not all of us went that route though. I found another job, put my reasons for resigning in writing, and refused to even take a call from management because I wasn't interested in hush money. I want the ability to tell my story if I ever decide to do so and I want him to always know he's not protected by NDA's in all cases of his bad behavior. I wasn't the initial target of the harasser but I helped his target get a new job and escape when she didn't have the strength to report him. He was aware I assisted her exit and when I was assigned to him he immediately started a campaign of retaliation. I sought relief from HR but didn't get any help. I sought counsel and was told at that time I didn't have a good case since the original target didn't go on the record against him. So, I saved myself and have since helped another assigned to him escape to a new job. She and I never signed an NDA, so there are at least 2 of us who can provide evidence of a pattern of harassment if someone ever has the strength to take him to court.
After reading all of this, it makes me really happy knowing that I have a really hot wife who is much younger than me, looks great naked and is way hotter than any of my employees and lets me do anything I want with her anytime I want. So I have no reason to even think about harassing my employees. So I don't have to worry about any of this.
Come on. You want to forbidden fruit just like everyone else.
Give it a few years and you'll be boning the help. Beauty fades, my friend. She'll get tired of sleeping with you, and/or vice versa.
You need hotter employees, my friend.
Truth is, his wife is the one boning the staff.
Will someone address why Century Link is still trying to get Hi
Speed into this valley when they have no BANDWIDTH to handle even their old customers. We are getting crappy service . They are not addressing this problem. It's all about selling customers new equiptment when it's not the equiptment at all. They are taking our money and cannot deliver the service promised. I have decided to exit Century Link and go to cox.
Someone must address this situation.