What should the DJs board have done instead?

Simon says:

12:07pm | 03/08/10

I think it’s a ridiculous amount of money and believe it will not only backfire on her but also other cases in the future. I fully support the comments made by the company which stated “it was a large claim for a person in her position and will fight all the allegations”.

Tails says:

01:03pm | 03/08/10

“It was a large claim for a person in her position…”

What exactly is that supposed to be other than another insult?
Sure it’s a big amount to be asking for when you look at it as a while number, but it’s 5% of their profit and a further 5% of his salary for the time.
When you put it in that context, it’s not that much.
She’s put her neck on the line to have something done about the issue in general, not just her case. As such, it’s no good asking for hush money.

Peter says:

03:20pm | 03/08/10

No doubt this woman deserves her justice, but she has done herself no favours by seeking $37 million. Now it just looks like opportunism.

I don’t want to see American style litigation coming to Australia thanks. The yanks can keep that one for themselves…

GreekSnake says:

03:41pm | 03/08/10

It’s a ridiculous amount of money for that sort of claim.

A New York woman was paid out almost $4 million dollars for wrongful death. In total the amount paid out was almost $9 million to the dead mans family and partner. I’d like to know what makes her think this is worth $37 million.

Not only does one have to prove damages, one has to prove damages to the amount in question. There isn’t a judge alive that would let this one pass (and rightly so).

Furthermore, the notion that she will donate all of it to charity means she doesn’t need the money and therefore wasn’t damaged to the degree she said she was.

I agree he should have been fired, but that is all the company could have done. They will pay her out with half a mil hush money, if she’s lucky.

Peter says:

03:54pm | 03/08/10

@ GreekSnake. I currently work with a woman who was harrassed for a while. She just wanted the harrasment to stop and the manager moved to another area. He lost his job, she feels that although it was harsh treatment (to lose your livelyhood), she never would have dreamed of suing.. What is this girl thinking? She won’t get anywhere near that amount of money and now she has made herself unemployable almost…

Reg says:

06:29pm | 03/08/10

Your mistake Peter. It is American style litigation that brings all traffic to a halt if some idiot wanders on the road. Here they just run over the poor bastard. Nothing like a fear of litigation to put the wind up the neglectful. Ask your mate Alexander Downer. The right to manage is the shield all companies hide behind and that includes their right to conceal all details from the supposed harasser. If this young lady likes notoriety she will get it but the reward may be disappointing and the cost exorbitant. Best she drop it now and glory in her moment in the spot-light.

Peter says:

10:01am | 04/08/10

@ Reg. No mistake at all. I don’t oppose litigation, but it’s got to be in proportion of the offence committed. A friend of mine who became a quadraplegic in a sports accident got $5 million. I think it is a lesson learned for the club he was at.  Sorry but $37 million dollars for a few pick up lines used on you is not appropriate. Its your mistake…

The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

11:18am | 03/08/10

Dead right, Eric.

The other thing is that normal interpersonal relationships in the workplace will suffer as men start to watch carefully everything they say to a woman, probably choosing to say nothing at all. This, in turn, ruins the ‘gestalt’ or team dynamic, resulting in a flawed workplace.

Tails says:

11:26am | 03/08/10

That’s why it’s called “punitive” damages Eric.
It’s not compensation. It’s not a sorry. It’s a ‘you’ve been asked to change your behaviour nicely and you didn’t, so cop that’.

Macca says:

11:27am | 03/08/10

@Scarlet Pimpernel, depending on legal interpretation, asking someone (regardless of their gender) out for a drink or on a date after they have already rejected your advances previously may be deemed Sexual Harassment. This is extreme, but it does blur the lines on the fabled Office Romance

Ray Graham says:

11:32am | 03/08/10

Scarlet, men already have to do that. And the savvy (and unscrupulous) women already know how much power it gives them. Try working in the Federal Government.

Jack Thomas says:

12:36pm | 03/08/10

She is seeking approx. $2m compensation for herself, which seems pretty fair when you consider a career in tatters at a young age. What would harassment, fear, possible damage to your relationship, then the substantial loss of earnings for a long time be worth?

The $35m is punitive (look it up if you don’t understand it), and is calculated against the profits earned by DJ’s when he was CEO. She has made the statement that this amount is not for her personal gain, that it would go to a charity. Punitive by definition is punishment, for not doing anything.

The size of the punitive claim has had the effect of gaining huge publicity, it simply would not have if she had sought around $500,000 or so (the current maximum anount awarded in these cases).

She has succeeded in raising the profle of the case, of the issue, and that is a big win for many like her.

Up against a well-liked CEO with huge media prescence and clout, most would fold under the pressure and he would keep on doing what he did. She would be lucky to get media coverage better than page 10.

The Board appointed him, so questions must be asked of them about the quality of their background checks before appointing him, ie. if he had ‘form’ in this sort of thing already.

The Board is happy to take the good when he was CEO, ie. profits, so must be responsible for the culture around him that allowed this behaviour to go on, and her complaints go on un-answered.

It is such a stupid question from Eric about questioning hiring a woman I am amazed I am answering it. But…how many male publicists do you think there are anyway?

Surely any decent Board would look at the problem, not the perceptions of the victim. The Board is responsible for the culture and staffing, if they want to salvage anything out of this they would have HR sacked and make this a priority for future Board meetings.

Time to do something for your Board seat and huge return boys…

Michael says:

12:46pm | 03/08/10

Tails is right about what punitive damages are - but no Court in Australia has ever, or will ever, award such a ridiculously large amount as punitive damages.  Speaking as a lawyer, the amount claimed is self-evidently preposterous: the sort of amount that hick juries in the deep South of the US are wont to dish out, only to have them slashed by the appeal courts.  As far as I know, punitive damages awards in this country are a) rare as hens’ teeth and b) almost never exceed the amount awarded as compensation.  As for b), she’ll be lucky to get $37K, not $37M.  Yes, even that part is way over-cooked.  Someone who’s made a paraplegic by a work place accident can struggle to get even $3M.

Richard says:

12:48pm | 03/08/10

@Tails,

That type of “punishment” has traditionally been the role of the criminal law. If one’s alleged assailant works for a major company will we be setting a precedent for using the civil law when it was previously the role for the criminal law?

Tails says:

01:47pm | 03/08/10

Agreed, but how about setting a precedent for not being a slimy douchebag? The days of “You pay ‘em, you poke ‘em” are long gone aren’t they?

Macca says:

02:00pm | 03/08/10

@Tails, what further punishment would you like to see? the bloke has lost his job and is basically unemployable for a long long time. The board responded to the harassment claims less than a month after they occured. What else would you like to see happen?

RT says:

02:03pm | 03/08/10

Alternatively employers must wonder about the risk of employing men who might turn out to be sexual predators (far more likelihood of a male than a female doing that)

Ray says:

02:21pm | 03/08/10

@Michael

That mooted amount of yours is fairly interesting and got me thinking. Is the amount actually so very important? Or is it who she is suing? Why did she name David Jones the corporation, and use their profit to make a point? Why did she not name McInnes and the board members? Could she have? I am ignorant about legal matters, but I would have thought it would be more appropriate than seeing mom and dad shareholders get damaged as innocent bystanders…

Tails says:

03:05pm | 03/08/10

@Macca
Are you a defence lawyer? Why don’t you look at the victim’s side of the story?
It seems that this wasn’t a one off. It seems to be generally accepted that he was prone to bouts of less than acceptable behaviour when it comes to women. I would imagine this would not have escaped the attention of the board. Hence there’s an argument they were complicit until push came to shove and this girl spoke up.
I’d say she deserves compensation and a deterrent should be put into effect - exactly the situation we see here.

weird world says:

06:27pm | 03/08/10

@RT:

I wish that were the case.  You’d think the logic would work both ways (consider risk of hiring a woman who might sue/consider the risk of hiring a man who may be a sexual predator), but unfortunately I suspect that the prominent train of thought will be to “blame the victim”... Since most board members are men (and assuming, considering the level of power they have attained, that they also egotistic and definitely competitive), most (not all) may find it easier to relate to the perpretrator in this case and therefore be reluctant to hire women.

RobJ says:

11:17am | 03/08/10

“will turn many people in the community against this woman now”

Really? I suggest that those who will be ‘turned against’ women have a problem. I think she’s a brave young woman and sexual harassment MUST be stamped out from the workplace. How would you feel if an exec was harassing your daughter or your wife?

Macca says:

11:30am | 03/08/10

@Alecwinters, I tend to agree with you. I can’t see there being any long term benefits in this case. It will cause DJs some pain, but unless she can document historical examples where McInnes acted inappropriately, that the Board was aware of and failed to act, she probablty won’t have a case

@Robj, if it was someone I was related to, yes I would be naturally upset, but I’m not sure what other action you would like the company to take other than sacking the responsible Employee

RT says:

02:07pm | 03/08/10

Even if some do turn against her, so what? Not like she’s running for election or something.

Jack Thomas says:

02:45pm | 03/08/10

What if the woman is not seeking the “approval” of women in the community, but to ensure that her colleagues and others like her are not treated like this at DJ’s in the future?

By putting a ridiculous punitive damages amount out there she has gained massive exposure and gained some power in the court fight.

The inevtiable massive pressure from a massive companyand unfair fight (barrister vs. young woman) in court is now back to an equal fight.

Others will see this and realise they should report it, they should not put up with it. By saying she will donate it to charity indicates she is doing it for the benefit of others too. If she took a settlement quietly, she woudl remain a victim.

The DJ’s Board are now forced to do something to ensure this does not happen to this extent again in their organisation. Heck, they could even take some responsibility instead of just taking the profits. Start with HR by sacking the whole lot who let it go on. Remember, this is unlikely to have been a one-off, this sort of behaviour is ongoing and gets worse as the perpetrator gets away with it.

A small claim would result in no action from the Board, probably the same thing might easily happen again. Other victims would probably see it not worthwhile to report it and fight it, that they are powerless. The CEO might even come back after “counselling”, mea culpa’s, media statements and whatever else footballers do in the same instance.

I would hate to see my wife or daughter treated in this way, so I applaud her for her stand. As a shareholder, I expect DJ’s to do a lot more than sack the guy.

The issue of workplace injuries being “more deserving” is completely invalid to this argument, and not a reason for attacking another victim.

InkyV says:

09:54am | 04/08/10

What is “comparatively minor sexual abuse”? I didn’t realise there was a scale. Is it, therefore, easier to excuse? Sexual harassment isn’t just about sex. It’s about the abuse of power and trust.

Macca says:

11:24am | 03/08/10

@Julia, firstly, Sexual harassment and Bullying are not the same thing, although they do both come under the EEO banner.

Secondly, I’m not entirely sure that David Jones turned a blind eye to McInnes’ actions. The First account of Sexual Harassment occured on May 23, and he was sacked on June 18. Any Workplace Investigation takes time to find all the facts (innocent until proven guilty and all that), I think the time period above could have been slightly quicker, but on the surface it looks like the Board took the appropriate actions with the information they were provided. What would you like to see different?

Julia says:

03:28pm | 03/08/10

Sorry Macca. As a person who has experienced both in the workplace, I think this type of sexual harassment is a form of bullying.

I’m not talking about a guy who is infatuated with another colleague and wants to take her out.

It would seem McInnes didn’t simply crack on to this girl and when he was rebuffed walk away.  He kept going and going and going. The more she said no, it would appear the more ribald and graphic he became.

He was the CEO, so I’m not sure what DJs should have done further to stop him, but I hope corporate Australia looks at this case seriously and does something about the culture of bullying and harassment in the workplace.

At the very least, it will save them a few bucks in lawyers if they review their reporting and mediation processes.

Macca says:

11:34am | 03/08/10

@RobJ, what else would you suggest companies / Boards could implement to prevent sexual harrasment in the Workplace?

Other than the standard policy, the traditional 10 minute HR video from the 1980s and instant dismissal for those found guilty, not sure what else you would implement

BK says:

03:37pm | 03/08/10

Macca, when two co-workers begin a relationship, they should sack both of them. This makes the line clear. It will also make both genders equally responsible for fixing the problem.

RobJ says:

11:29am | 03/08/10

Yes, sorry Tory, my bad..

Boards need to vet execs more carefully, they need to impress on all their staff, including the CEO that harassment of any kind will not be tolerated then follow through when necessary. They should stipulate that if a CEO (or anyone) is dismissed for harassment then they wont be getting a golden parachute.

I get the feeling that some of these execs may think they’re untouchable after all (I’m talking generally here, not about David Jones) sometimes they get handsome (obscene) pay packets/bonuses even when the company performs poorly.

Peter says:

03:38pm | 03/08/10

Agree Tory.. My workplace has done such a great job of it, it’s now the women initiating things these days instead. Which is great really, makes my life easy..

This DJ CEO was just plain stupid. Anyone with common sense understands that after the 2nd, 3rd or 4th no, that no is no…. But then again, i don’t agree with American style litigation which awards people money way out of proportion of the crime..

AJ says:

01:16pm | 03/08/10

No, he’s admitted it - because he left the organisation after she hired a legal team and said his behaviour was unacceptable.  The only questions that remain are (1) is this endemic or a cultural issue at DJs? (2) if it is, then why didn’t the Board address this earlier? 

Sounds like she’s going well at proving this is a cultural issue by referring to other women who were similarly harrassed by the CEO, and she’s got the media attention by the amount of punitive damages.

Xanthus says:

01:35pm | 03/08/10

If he has done nothing wrong, then why is the CEO out of a job?

Are you not able to put one and one together ‘Infense”?

Macca says:

01:47pm | 03/08/10

@AJ, she may be able to refer to other women in the organisation, but if they have no proff / witnesses than she is going to be left alone with just her case. While it appears Xanthus’ hysterical outburst is somewhat correct, lets wait and see if Ms Fraser-Kirk can provide evidence of other circumstances where this occured, indicating that DJs does have a cultural issue.

A board can only act on the information they are provided, and just because women come forward now, does not mean the board had been provided with that information previously and could consequently act on it.

I hope that there are no more women who have been harassed, unfortunately thats not the gut feeling

Infense says:

06:24pm | 03/08/10

@AJ - Can you show me where he has ‘admitted’ in a legal sense to any of the charges levelled at him.

@xanthus - I learnt one plus one last week. It was a very special moment. My teacher gave me a gold star.  Also, whether he has done something ‘wrong’ or not is irrelevant, the question for a court is whether he, or DJ’s has done something ‘illegal’

Hermoine says:

10:50am | 04/08/10

@infense - no, we’re actually not dealing with “illegal”.  We’re dealing with failures of duty of care.  We’re dealing with DJs being liable for the acts of their employee (the CEO) to another employee.  It’s a civil case, not a criminal one.

Infense says:

05:52pm | 04/08/10

@Hermoine The word illegal can pertain to both civil or criminal actions. For example, it is illegal to fail a duty of care. Trust me - I am a lawyer. I do this for a living.

Muttley says:

01:58pm | 03/08/10

If education is the problem, then we are seeing the effect of poor education from 30 years ago. I would be hesitant to see any knee jerk reactions/ changes because of this. I think you will find the younger generation actually sees this kind of behaviour as abhorent. Lets not lump all men in the same basket.

Ray says:

08:03am | 04/08/10

Muttley, may be I need to explain. I’m talking of boys EDUCATION where they have been systematically done over. Not education on sexual harrassment. The sexual harrassment is a two way street. Used as a weapon in many cases.

Macca says:

12:08pm | 03/08/10

No Where near as much.

I don’t want to dismiss equity in the workplace and the importance of eliminating sexual harassment from the workplace, but it is a wonder that this receives more coverage than the poor fellas who have died working on the docks this year

RT says:

02:09pm | 03/08/10

We don’t know how much (if anything) will be awarded out of this, yet. Don’t jump to conclusions.

The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

01:17pm | 03/08/10

One of my mates reckons he avoids one on one meetings with female subordinates and a number of my colleagues prefer not to do any out of hours socialising in the company of women with whom they work. Covering your arse has become a serious issue wih some people.

Simon says:

12:44pm | 03/08/10

I agree Paul! It will be settled out of court for a fraction of the asking amount and doing what she did yesterday will completely damage her future employment with other companies.

Semiotic says:

01:08pm | 03/08/10

Being male and having worked with senior execs (including board members)... etc yadda, yadda, yadda exactly the same as above…

I have never seen a male sexually harass a female in the workplace at all, let alone in an openly boys club manner as described above and I have been working for 25 years. When it does happen though, Sexual Harassment is not limited to board members but is more aligned to the size of the persons ego, irrespective of seniority.

I have however witnessed the female version when I was sexually harassed by a former female boss.

What did I do? I left. I terminated my contract early ( the only time I have ever done that) and found another job.

Did everyone else know about it? Yep they witnessed a lot of it. Only one female co-worker told me that I should complain about it and when I walked through the probable outcomes she agreed that it would probably damage my chances of future employment (I am a consultant) and would probably not change anything.

What is the funniest part? I was working for a state government department.

Mike says:

01:31pm | 03/08/10

If that’s how men get into these top positions, how do (the few) women get there?

Sexual harassment and bullying gives me the shits, no matter by whom, male or female.

Helen G says:

02:01pm | 03/08/10

Semiotic - you took the option that was only available to women not so long, put up or shutup or find another job.  You had to pay the price for another collegues bad behaviour.  Plenty of co-workers will see what’s going on but won’t say anything for fear of rocking the boat.  Some won’t doing anything because it’s not happening to them and they really don’t care.  When I was harrassed by male colleagues in previous jobs and the others noticed do you think they gave a crap and would back me up?  Good God no.  Just because you say you never saw a female harrassed didn’t mean that it wasn’t going on behind your back - most ‘attacks’ are not made in the open.  They’re not completely stupid you know.  You should have complained when harrassed and you should have spoken to your other colleagues and asked for support.  That’s what I did and I got an apology and a promise to behave.  Some people quite simply have no manners

Reg says:

07:42pm | 03/08/10

Charlotte your description of senior executives as ruthless ego driven and power hungry may be correct, but it also suggests there is a climate of envy among their subordinates.  There is an inequality of the treatment of complaints with each gender and there always will be. Senior female executives will do anything to protect a female compliant before she will protect the male from a potentially false accusation. Envious or resentful female staff are well equipped to bring down a senior manager or teacher, much more than men are. And I don’t believe the charitable thing for one moment, this is purely vindictive as so many women are. Well that as well as the a solicitor and QC who will take his fee before any wasteful charity.

bella starkey says:

01:41pm | 03/08/10

@Kathy, I was talking about this to my mum last night (she being 55). She said pretty much the same thing, but I think that once you get to a certain age you forget the imbalance of power that can occur in work places.

At my first job out of uni my boss tried to grab my tits when he was drunk and made repeated inappropriate comments to me and other younger workers. It was upsetting and it was bullying. How do you think it feels to be 20 or 21 years old and having a middle aged man who does have power over you, treat you like that? If it was a bloke in a night club it’s far easier to deal with than if it’s the person who pays your wages and who you are relying on for a reference for a new job.

I couldn’t take it, and left after 6 months and was completely ashamed that I had failed at my first job. Of course with time comes with perspective and I realised that I hadn’t failed, my employer had failed and I probably should have taken punative action, if for no other reason than to stop him from doing it to the next girl who comes along.

Kathy says:

05:31pm | 03/08/10

I do agree with you Bella, and yes the imbalance of power plus the man being so much older would have freaked me out as a 20 something.

Ken says:

05:03pm | 03/08/10

Oh Chris, you sound so sweet. Perhaps that explains a lot.

Vicki PS says:

05:31pm | 03/08/10

If the facts as alleged by Ms Fraser-Kirk are accurate, then McInnes’ behaviour was quite a bit more than workplace flirtation.  (What the heck kind of workplaces do you hang around in, Kate)?  Potentially, the matter is more than merely civil, as well.  Grabbing someone and lifiting them off the floor constitutes common assault at least.  Sticking one’s hands under a woman’s clothing against her will is called indecent assault.  McInnes is lucky he hasn’t faced criminal charges, or (if the circumstances or victim had been different) either a good hard elbow in the face or knee in the chokoes.  I suspect the DJ’s board are very well aware of this, too.
(BTW, in any of the workplaces I’ve worked in, the males would no more dream of behaving offensively to female colleagues than they would pash their grandmas.  And out “team gestalt” hasn’t suffered for it.  Any sane woman is well able to make the necessary distinctions between harmless joking, flirtation, and harassment).

Reg says:

08:01pm | 03/08/10

Yes you’re right. The right to manage is more important than justice being seen to be done. But why heap it on a government? Just because it’s too hard? All these companies highly value their independence from regulation yet they cannot regulate. Confidential agreements and back-door redundancies conceal all sorts of injustice both for and against both the parties and the company. As the complainant effectively concedes with her rush for publicity and her willingness to give her award for the public good, it is vital that full disclosure be made so that justice is seen to be done.

Ray Graham says:

11:56am | 04/08/10

Oh Pat. Poor women again. Men get done over with affirmative action and education. It’s rife and what are we doing about it? Like the mythical 17% wage difference.

I’ve never heard history’s most priveleged group in society complain longer and louder. Please treat cases on their individual merits. And don’t stereotype men in the tried and true feminist fashion.