's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Office "Distraction"...(20 posts)

Office "Distraction"...jrm
Jul 3, 2002 8:40 AM
There are two woman in our office that about once a week wear minimal support/matierial bra's or dont wear um at all. Their choice of outer wear does little or nothing to disquise this.

On one hand to take attention of the subject is to detract from the "person" and focus on a genders body part instead. Yup you guessed it..sexual harrassment.

On the other hand i kind of take offense to this in that their choice of clothes does distract people like me. And does in fact aid in the detraction away from the person and on the specific gender part.

i've though well they choose to wear these clothes because they want to draw attention? are comfortable or they just dont care what they look like. Also their behavior is very A type all the time. And to make matters worse they are about a 6 or 7 which doenst help.

I understand that some of my comments may seem chavienistic(sp?) and/ or offensive to some in here. That wasnt my intention at all. Just blame it on poor grammar and word usage.
re: Office "Distraction"...TJeanloz
Jul 3, 2002 8:44 AM
I'd say you have a sexual harrassment claim of your own. Though it may not get much support from your male co-workers. Sexually suggestive or distracting clothing could be construed as harrassment in and of itself.
re: Office "Distraction"...netso
Jul 3, 2002 9:08 AM
Come to my office, they are all so ugly it does not matter!!!
Good luck....Starliner
Jul 3, 2002 10:03 AM
If it's a distraction from your work, then discreetly make an issue out of it until a satisfactory resolution is made.

Arousal being a cornerstone of male sexuality, a man should not find himself exposed to unwanted "distractions" at work. In other words, your reactions to their bouncing breasts are normal, and your desire not to be subjected to that kind of sexual stimulus at work should be respected.

Even if your company's sexual harassment policy is not specific on matters of sexual enticement (heavy perfume, suggestive clothing, etc.), assume it to be a form of harassment and follow the guidelines the policy spells out towards stopping such stuff from occurring.
how to handleDougSloan
Jul 3, 2002 10:21 AM
I enountered this at one firm. The firm personnel manager, a woman, wanted me to speak to a young, female, let's say, "endowed" lawyer about displaying a little too much cleavage. I said, "no way in hell am I going there." True, it was very distracting. Right or wrong, put it this way, it was hard to look her in the eye.

I had the personnel manager do a generic policy memo to everyone that attire should be appropriate, fully cover certain parts, and professional. Guidelines for what was and was not appropriate were included.

This got rid of the problem with little potential for liability.

There are such lawyers?TJeanloz
Jul 3, 2002 10:46 AM
This must have been in California. All the lawyers in Boston are crusty old men- at least the ones I have to deal with.
you don't meet enough lawyersDougSloan
Jul 3, 2002 11:17 AM
There are many very attractive women lawyers. Frequently, they do the opposite of this young lady, though, and attempt to de-emphasize their looks.

Boston is a crusty old town, isn't it? BTW, I thought you were back in Boulder?

you don't meet enough lawyersTJeanloz
Jul 3, 2002 11:31 AM
I wish I was back in Boulder. I run into a lot of lawyers- just no attractive ones; I'm betting they all move to California. Or New York.
So Ally McBeal was all just a lie?...:)...nmmr_spin
Jul 3, 2002 11:52 AM
Probably filmed in LA. (nm)bikedodger
Jul 3, 2002 11:57 AM
Filmed in LA, yes, butmickey-mac
Jul 3, 2002 1:19 PM
it doesn't reflect L.A. reality. Women lawyers are no more attractive here in L.A. than they are anywhere else I've gone. However, most male L.A. lawyers probably won't win any beauty contests either.
that was Boston, wasn't it?DougSloan
Jul 3, 2002 11:59 AM
The Erin Brockovitch law firm, not her (Julia Roberts), is more typical.

i say "god bless 'em"ColnagoFE
Jul 3, 2002 10:22 AM
i suppose they are doing it to draw attention...either that or you're just easily distracted. as long as it is in the realm of proper business attire i'd say it's not a problem...personally i'd consider it a benefit. no shame in looking at attractive women in my book. just don't be a pig about it and drool or something.
So I'm sitting here on the afternoon of July 3....cory
Jul 3, 2002 12:49 PM
....two hours from the start of a two-week vacation, and I'm reading some guy complaining because there's TOO MUCH CLEAVAGE in his work environment?
Man, I have GOT to find a hobby.
the real complaintDougSloan
Jul 3, 2002 1:35 PM
I don't think anyone would complain about the cleavage. I think the complaint is having the cleavage in context of sexual harrassment suits (i.e., is it ok to look?).

Doug, what would happen if....Starliner
Jul 3, 2002 3:34 PM
Let's say the lady with the inappropriate attire filed a sexual harassment complaint against a male coworker for staring and/or making suggestive comments about her body. Then, the same male filed a counter complaint against her for wearing sexually suggestive clothing which caused him to be distracted from his work.

How do you think this would be resolved? Who would lose- him, her, or maybe the company itself for not sufficiently controlling the workplace?
Jul 4, 2002 8:39 PM
The female worker probably wouldn't have much of a case based solely on what you described. Nonetheless, her case is a lot stronger than the guys'.

The company's responsibility depends upon what the management knew, and maybe did after they knew. This is assuming the guy was not a supervisor of the woman.

I doubt a guy would ever make a case based upon a woman wearing suggestive clothing. He's get laughed out of court.

I suppose it would depend on how suggestive the clothing wasColnagoFE
Jul 5, 2002 7:08 AM
I mean if a secretary shows up to her job at a new york law firm wearing a garter belt, stockings and a transparent tube top then there might be a case.
Jul 5, 2002 7:26 AM
I doubt that would be a problem, either.

A harassment claim based upon a "hostile working environment", as opposed to a direct act (quid pro quo, for example), needs to be "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment." It also needs to be committed by a superior or the the superior needs to know about it and do nothing. (I'm simplifying here.)

The woman likely would be reprimanded or fired the first day, assuming they let her in the door.

If it's really that bad maybe you can just politely ask her to128
Jul 3, 2002 11:04 AM
Take me on your rockin' horse
Hit the lights and shut your doors
Grab your ankles, everyone
Ain't my way of havin' fun
Can't give it up
Gotta give it up, give it up
C'mon Nancy
Can't give it up
Gotta Get It Up, Get it Up
For your fancy
Seize my ass, don't speculate
I'm just your slave, your master's fate
Can't Get It Up,
Gotta Get It Up, Get it Up
C'mon Nancy
Can't Get It Up
Gotta Get It Up, Get It Up
Really have a good time
Really have a good time
Suckin' up the moonshine
Up underneath her clothesline
Really have a good time
Love me 'til the sun
Get It Up and down and all around
Take a ride and paint the town
Slow me down and make it fast
Scream almost and make it last
You know you gotta
Really have a good time
You know you're really gonna
Really have a good time
Suckin' up the moonshine
Up underneath her clothesline
You know you really gonna
Really have a good time
You know you really wanna love me
'Til the sun can't Get It Up