[flagged]
That's what lawyers do. They throw shit and see what sticks.
What do you call 500 lawyers lying on the bottom of the ocean?
A good start...
(The War of the Roses, 1989)If you're a guy you are always going to be open to accusations of impropriety with or from a woman.
Whether yours the boss or the subordinate doesn't make a difference.
Best approach is to keep the relationship friendly, cordial and at a distance.
How would that help defend you against the accusation that you resented her not wanting to date you?
That's the "cordial and friendly" part; if you've never expressed any negativity about her it boosts your credibility.
> not wanting to date you?
That's the "distance" part.
If you've never approached her in private, or for watercooler chat, or had lunch in the cafeteria together, or got coffee together ... that buys you some credibility.
In short, you never reached out to her for anything other than a work request, made in a work-provided channel (email, slack, etc), and only reached out verbally/telephonically/in-person when urgency was required.
Right, but much better for them to have flimsy reasons that literally won't pass even a cursory glance by a court (like alone time with someone), than give them situations which allows them to introduce doubt about your innocence.
Come on guys, this stuff is pretty simple.
All this would do is provide support for the idea that she didn't want to date you, and you were aware of that.
Only in criminal cases. In civil suits, you'll have to prove your innocence.
If you don't know how things work, maybe you shouldn't talk as if you do know.
If you read the court transcript, he actually did ask her out on a date and she said no :)
I didn't read the court transcripts, but my understanding from the various stories was that she claimed he asked her out on a date.
She claimed lots of things, much of which appears to have been outright lies.
AFAIK, he did not deny that he made romantic overtures (or whatever the hell phrase they used, i can look it up again if you care).
If he denied it, i don't see it.
What he denied was that he was resentful she said no, and in any way used it against her :)
If they had no evidence, etc, it would not be an even mildly viable way of attacking his credibility (IE ignoring whether it's smart/dumb/ethical/etc, if wouldn't be effective).
It would also be cut off by a judge very quickly because you'd lack any foundation.
So it would be a very short questioning, too.
IE you'd end up STH like this:
"Q:Did you ever ask her out on a date
A: No
Q: Did you ever flirt with her
A: No
<3 other ways of asking the same question>
Q: So you weren't resentful she declined to date you or flirt back
A: No "
At this point, if you try to go further, you have no basis on which to do so, it will be objected to, you will be forced to move on. Actually, you probably won't even get to ask the last question if they answer no to all the others, it will get objected to, you will have to withdraw it, the jury will think you are an ass.
You'd have to have evidence to impeach them or ask them about (IE conversations they admitted to, etc).
Or they'd have to say yes to one of these questions, so you could hammer them some more.
A ton of no's like the above where you have nothing else just make you look desperate to a jury, and worse than doing nothing, so you really wouldn't do it, even if you are losing badly.
A particularly revealing aspect of Menchel’s cross-examination focused on Mr. Vovor’s feelings toward Ms. Javice. He admitted to sending her flowers, messages, photos, playlists, and even a card without signing his name, instead using a heart emoji. His behavior had previously led to a human resources complaint by Ms. Javice, resulting in a discussion with the company’s legal and Human Resources representative.
> AFAIK, he did not deny that he made romantic overtures
Depends on how it's phrased - it's common to preface with "What's not explicitly addressed is denied. My Client reserves the right to address the unaddressed claim in the future." in court papers, but I'm not sure if that works for witness-box testimony.
TBH, if he neither denied it nor admitted it while in the witness box, then it is unlikely he was asked the question "Did you make any romantic overture to $X" at all.
And, to be even more honest, if her lawyer avoided asking that question, it's because he knew the answer already.
> (or whatever the hell phrase they used, i can look it up again if you care).
Actually I cannot find the court transcript (my google fu is failing). Do you have a link?
It seems a pretty important part of this thread's premise; assuming that the main witness [did/did not] ask out his boss on a date.
Why do you insist on making this about one-way false claims of sexual harassment, etc, that didn't happen, when it's about something that did happen.
This guy did ask his boss out on a date. Which is just ... beyond stupid. Yet somehow you insist on making this about things that did not.
You seem to have a serious axe to grind.
have you yourself had a bad experience with women in management?
He actually did ask her out on a date.
Maybe just don't ask your boss out on a date?
Modern sexuality might mean that avoiding the opposite sex is off little help. Instead you need to know how to avoid manipulative sociopaths - which takes years of experience to learn (and perhaps after you learn the skills you decide to join them).