Quote:
Originally Posted by Major
California law may have a different standard for what constitutes a hostile work environment than New Hampshire law. When I retired from the Army 11 years ago the standard was that the conduct must be persistent, intentional, severe, recurring and pervasive, and must interfere with the employee's ability to perform. The person making the accusation must reasonably believe that he or she will be discriminated against, e.g., if not he or she will be terminated. Instances of locker room humor or inappropriate jokes are not enough.
That said, the standard probably has lowered over the years, especially with the "me too" movement. Also, there may be legal theories prohibiting such behavior other than hostile work environment. And while I agree we have to do the best we can to make people feel comfortable and perform well, those who can relate and adapt to all personality types do best. I thought the world was a much more interesting place where we had to deal with "characters." When I was a kid, there were "characters" everywhere. Now, in our effort to be diverse, we are creating a society of homogenous behavior. Boring!
|
Weird and sad that you imply the standard for keeping a police chief is that he has not broken the law. This is the kind of thinking that leads governments to function so poorly compared to businesses. Any decent business would just fire his sorry ass for being a lousy leader, as described in numerous reports that you seem to ignore.
If he's your brother, cousin, or BFF--that's cool and you're a good friend. But other than that, this is your toughest defense since Silber & Co