The court recognized that there is a difference between harassment and sexual harassment. That's a good thing. Most would agree that it is also a good thing that the law recognizes a difference between assault and sexual assault.

Maybe the court's message was that plaintiff needed to prove ALL the elements or change the charge to one wherein she could prove all the elements.

In poor taste? Yes. Degrading. Absolutely. A sue-able offense? Oh yeah.

Sexual harrassment? I don't think so.

If men were being subject to this same treatment, how can a woman claim harrassment on the basis of her sex? She should have taken a different approach. I'm sure there's a whole slew of laws this business violated.

So next time I grab the butt of one of our cute female interns I can follow it up with a handful of man-ass and get off the hook? Awesome.

I know a lot of people toss the terms around loosely and interchangeably but a court of law should understand the difference. Specific laws vary from state to state but typically harassment does not have to involve any type of discrimination of one group over another. Unwanted physical conduct unrelated to ones job duties is a form of harassment.

So the boss can put his hands on womens' behinds as long as he fondles mens' behinds as well? Nice.

in associating with homo saps, you gotta expect monkey business.

Not necessarily based on your sex, but unwanted sexual behavior. Quid Pro Quo is when there is an exchange of sexual touching etc. for say, a promotion something like that. Hostile working environment (which this seems to fall under) is basically what it sounds like - your workplace is made uncomfortable/unpleasant due to sexual contact/overtones which have no place there.

Glenn Greenwald made a great point a couple of days ago about how we don't know the circumstances of the court's decision, and how it takes a working knowledge of the brief and the laws involved before we can make a harsh judgment against the bench for their decision.

I'm no lawyer, but after reading Greenwald, I'm more inclined to give pause and weigh the issues of the case, rather than be appalled at the outcome if it didn't go my way. It may be that the claim filed by the plaintiff wasn't appropriate for sexual harassment. It may be that the appeal by the defense cited a specific law or incident that nullified the plaintiff's original argument. It may work out that an appeal filed by the plaintiff will cite a different case or law and right the situation. We just don't know. Law is a puzzle, and to win a case, you need to have the right pieces in the right places. It really may work out that the woman's attorney's just filed a bad case, and need to go back and work on a stronger argument.

I can't imagine that a court of law would find that type of behavior acceptable in any workplace environment, so I have a feeling it's an issue of semantics as to what kinds of harassment and laws are involved.

Under something regarding corporal punishment, even private parochial schools can no longer strike the students, seems that could apply to being spanked in a workplace environment, regardless of gender.

Though I do find it odd, is that what the Fresno judges ruling means? That as long as say an employer requests blow jobs for promotions from both men and women it's not sexual harrasment?

Why did the woman allow herself to be spanked as part of a game?

Can't she refuse to take part?

Please tell me this is just a case of too much beer and mob mentality. Damn glad I don't work there, male or female. Harassment? No. Just really stupid, which I think is worse.

Please think -- we as a society cannot make illegal at work anything that can be construed as harassment. It would be like outlawing difficult bosses -- our economy would come to a halt. What we outlaw is harassment that is UNLAWFULLY MOTIVATED, which includes harassment based on gender, religion, age, race, disability, etc. I can't really see how you escape a plain old battery claim based on what is reported in the blurb, but one can conclude that the court was correct in determining that it was not based on gender, religion, age, race, disability, etc.

So now I can hit on my secretary and pinch her butt as long as I do the same to the delivery guy? Happy days are here again!

Sounds like a reasonable judgment to me.

How was this women SEXUALLY harassed? Was her job or promotion on the line?

Perhaps she had to pay her mortgage. Maybe she needed health coverage. Could be she needed to continue eating. Or any and all of those things that employers always hold over employees heads to make them do degrading and demeaning things every single day.

If we could sue employers for acting in mean or degrading or even outright abusive ways then those who criticize her suit might have a point. However in most "right-to-work" states (how's that for doublespeak?) none of these behaviors are actionable. Don't like being mistreated? Accept it or go somewhere else and work. Or live under a bridge and starve if the previous option isn't open to you. Your choice.

So what we have is a legal system that sanctions degrading behavior as long as it isn't sexually degrading.

Oh, ok then, that's so much better.

So what we have is a legal system that sanctions degrading behavior as long as it isn't sexually degrading.

They only thing the judgment means is that the plaintiff did not make a case for *sexual* harassment. In short, they overreached. If they had attempted to make a case for harassment, or better yet assault and battery, they might have won.

Am I the only person that is shocked that she sued for ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Really? Suing for ONE MILLION DOLLARS?? For some asinine game at a stupid work picnic? Does this not seem frivolous beyond belief?

I never have, and never will, understand The United States of America.