Too Big To . . . . Inge on the Soul and Leisure

Letterman Laughs at Lecherous Lessons

18 comments

Posted on Oct 6, 2009 in Discipline, Documentation, Employee Communications, Federal Legislation, Firing and Terminations, Handbook Policies, Leadership, Man Gene, Sexual Harassment, Supervisor's Corner, The Word In-Depth | 18 comments

Lest anyone think that The Man Gene has gone into hiding, we now know that it’s spent a lot of time at the Ed Sullivan Theater, inhabiting David Letterman (Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post). No one seems surprised. He’s famous, rich, surrounded by young women wanting to advance their careers. It’s the entertainment world, for goodness sake. The multiple female employees he had sex with haven’t complained. No harm, no foul.

That’s pretty much the main lesson so far. When Letterman went public with his expansive sex life at work, he presented it — and it was received by his audience — as a joke. He has continued to joke about it, and the audience has continued to laugh. Never mind that Letterman has pilloried other public figures whose far more modest sexual indiscretions have been revealed. He is, after all, a comedian.

Of equal interest is the way his employers have responded. CBS says he really wasn’t the network’s employee, and besides, he didn’t violate any company policies. His production company, Worldwide Pants (thinking of changing its name to Worldwide Pants-down), says he is an employee, but having consensual sex with a lot of subordinate women half one’s age is also not a policy violation. In fact, it appears that Letterman has been having his way with young female interns for a long time, with no repercussions.

Of course, both CBS and Worldwide Pants are still holding their breath for two reasons. First, they want to see if any of the women complain now or say the sex wasn’t exactly consensual. Second, they want to see if Letterman’s lechery negatively affects his TV ratings. At present, it looks as though they’ll be able to breathe easy on both counts.

There is no exemption under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for the entertainment industry, rich people, famous people, powerful people, funny people, people tightly controlled by The Man Gene. We’ve seen plenty of examples of people in these categories being brought down by a sex scandal, but the truth is that it’s less likely to happen to them.

The Letterman lessons don’t help employers in their effort to prevent sexual harassment or inappropriate sexual relationships at work. These lessons also don’t help male junior executives, supervisors, managers, and other bosses who’ll never be given the pass Letterman is being given.

I would hesitate to follow the example of CBS, Worldwide Pants or Letterman. Saying that none of your policies were violated by a superstar who went from office to office having sex at will is pathetic. One wonders if either company will even conduct a superficial investigation of what happened. Joking about work-related sexual escapades will land most people in the prison of unemployment.

When I was much younger and just beginning to provide employment law training for employers, an executive introduced me and my sexual harassment workshop by joking that I was there to teach everyone how to engage in sexual harassment. The nervous laughter from those in attendance belied the fact that the executive had just said the training wasn’t to be taken seriously. That’s never happened again, because I always have a chat with my introducer to make sure he understands sexual harassment is no laughing matter.

One of CBS’ new shows this year is The Good Wife. It’s about the wife of a corrupt politician whose sexual adventures do more than cause embarrassment. They land him in jail. I’ve seen a couple of episodes, and I think it’s well done. What irony! The network that condones Letterman the Lecher has a soul-searching show about the unspeakable pain and tumult a philandering husband causes his wife, children and friends. The good wife soldiers on, trying to make a new life. She doesn’t give her husband a pass, but she doesn’t abandon him either. “They” have children. For the family’s sake, she holds her head up and tries, in part, to salvage what’s left of her husband’s good name. (As long as CBS makes good money on both Letterman and The Good Wife, all will be right with the world.)

Am I saying that I’m too pure, too righteous to engage in Letterman-like behavior? Certainly not. The Man Gene is part of my makeup, just as it is every man (though I’ve found that its power lessens with age). Fortunately, I’ve never been in Letterman’s situation, having a bevy of good-looking young women standing at the ready every day to satisfy The Man Gene’s desires.

If I found myself in that situation, someone — my employer, my colleagues, my family – should call me out for what I am. Either that, or let’s drop the facade of a law or policy that’s most often enforced against employees at work’s lower echelons.

18 Responses to “Letterman Laughs at Lecherous Lessons”

E. says:
October 7, 2009 at 10:23 am

Great post John. The Letterman thing would be a great case study in a Employment Law training. Thanks, E.
L. says:
October 8, 2009 at 10:44 pm

I work for county gvt, there was a rumor of sexual harassment but it’s in an elected official department. When he said it didn’t happen (he wasn’t accused, another staff was), that was the end. Very sad.
Not that we were dedicated viewers, but our family doesn’t watch Letterman anymore
yoyo says:
October 8, 2009 at 11:30 pm

Thanks for bringing this to the forefront. When this first came out I said the same thing. I have been a compliance officer for sometime, and trying to train people on the importance of this issue in the workplace has been challenging, especially trying to implement policy which speaks of inappropriate relationships which may not be a violation of the law but not a good idea for the workplace.
JCG says:
October 9, 2009 at 9:06 am

The fact is that consensual sex between co-workers, even bosses and subordinates, happens all the time. Bosses who get involved in these kinds of situations might be stupid, but if the relationship is truly consensual, there’s no “harrasment” and no violation of the law.

And I don’t really get The Man Gene Thing. This is the 21st century, John.
Derrick L. Washington, SPHR says:
October 9, 2009 at 9:34 am

I was wondering when someone in the HR community would address this situation. I thought the Supreme Court found that sex between a subordinate and supervisor is a “prima facie” case of sexual harassment. Would people be so forgiving if Letterman had done that with their wife/daughter/girlfriend. Even if the sex was consentual it was done to further someone’s carreer. Even if the woman agreed with having sex, the situation probably made other employees uncomfortable. I don’t know about you but I hope my daughters don’t make it in the world of work that way. What Letterman did was sexual harassment and the more he talks about it, the more he erodes decades of progress the business community has made in the area of sexual harassment.
John Phillips says:
October 9, 2009 at 9:36 am

E, L, yoyo, and JCG,

Thanks very much for your comments. I always appreciate feedback.

JCG, I think your comment deserves a response from me. While you’re right, I have seen numerous “truly consensual” relationships go south. One of the parties will say that it really wasn’t consensual or that it was consensual for a while, but after one of the parties said it was over, the other continued to press to the point of virtually forcing sex, which means that the whole thing turns into a sexual harassment claim. I realize that as long as men and women work together, they’ll have sex inside and outside the workplace. It is, as you say, stupid, but it happens all the time. I never take much comfort when one party says it was consensual, if the other party later says it wasn’t. That hasn’t happened in the Letterman situation yet, but I suspect there will be more revelations. If Letterman really has had sex with multiple female staffers and all of them say it was always consensual, then Dave is The Man.

Which brings me to The Man Gene. I’m sorry you don’t get it. If more people did, it would be easier to discuss inappropriate relationships at work and would lessen their chances of occurring. The Man Gene has been a powerful force in every century. Its presence is just a lot more evident in the 21st century than ever before.

One more thing. Some employers have policies that forbid dating and romantic relationships between bosses and subordinates, even if consensual. A violation of the policy can be a valid reason for termination.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

John
John Phillips says:
October 9, 2009 at 9:59 am

Derrick,

Thanks for your comment, too. It must have come in when I was working on my response above.

I don’t think the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s a prima facie case of sexual harassment if a supervisor is sexually involved with a subordinate. What it has said is that if a supervisor is guilty of sexual harassment, the employer is automatically liable. Once a relationship runs off the rails, it unusual for one of the parties, ususally the subordinate, not to say that the supervisor abused his/her power, which turns the matter into a sexual harassment claim.

Your point about the impact such a relationship has on other employees is a good one. That’s one of the reasons that some employers have a policy against dating, romance and “fraternization.”

If a male boss could think of his wife, daughter, girlfriend, or mother while he’s contemplating a sexual rendezvous with a subordinate employee, the rendezvous would be less likely to occur. The Man Gene makes it difficult, in those circumstances, for the boss to think about anything other than sex.

Thanks again.

John
Maggie says:
October 9, 2009 at 10:01 am

I tried to watch Letterman last night. Can’t do it. I was always a big fan and watched him instead of Leno. This has put him in a new light and I no longer find him funny.

What about his wife? How does she feel about all of this? I can see an ugly divorce coming because of this. And what about his mom? Isn’t she just a tad embarrassed? Didn’t he realize that it not just about him and the women?

A huge % of the population with The Man Gene can keep it in control. I resent that he can flaunt his behavior and feels that we should be accepting. I don’t accept this from my family or my co-workers. I also don’t accept it from Letterman.

I have spent most of my professional career keeping just this kind of thing from happening where I work. This is a slap in the face to those of us who fight this on the front lines every day.
KSB says:
October 9, 2009 at 10:56 am

How about the young assistant involved with Letterman who has now been put on paid leave from her job because the company has deemed it “inappropriate” for her to return to the worksite. How convenient for Dave and the production company that employs them both!

What happens when the company decides it is no longer willing to pay this employee to stay home and they separate her? What pandora’s box of litigation is opened then?

I understand team environment and making sacrifices for the sake of the boss and team, but this is absurd! There surely is more to follow as fallout from Letterman’s serial behavior at work.
Allison V. says:
October 9, 2009 at 12:18 pm

I once heard the H/R Director refer to a relationship between a staff member and a supervisor as “low rent” behavior. Eventually, the company came to the realization of the ripple it caused within the team, and within the lives of the supervisor’s family, and chose to create a policy to deal with it.

Eventually, the supervisor was fired, by reasoning that a person with decision making authority on behalf of the company needs the ability to make better decisions than that.

No surprise, the subordinate was fired later on for other shady behaviors (i.e. theft) for which she was caught participating in red handed, actually resulting in her incarceration.

I wish I could agree with Maggie that a “huge % of the population with the Man Gene” is able to control themselves. If that were true, hollywood leading ladies would have an average age of above 21 and a higher percentage of Amercian blondes would not be “bottle blondes” (currently only 12% of blondes in this country are real)…the Man Gene virtually rules American pop culture. We have E.D. drugs but no cure for cancer or Alzheimers and somewhere, someone made women think that tanning and breat augmentation were reasonable alternatives to being a 100% real woman. I am sure one could argue the reasons for these travesties, but for me Hakam’s Razor brings it down to one thing…

Fortunately, I could care less what a TV jokster does with his philandering pee-pee…I am too busy reading my “continued education requirements” to watch junk TV.
Paul M. Cashion says:
October 9, 2009 at 12:37 pm

One element that’s both interesting and frustrating is the wide gulf between the law, some companies, and John’s training clients, on the one hand, and a huge swath of society, on the other.

Here’s a business executive who almost certainly has committed serial sexual harassment over a period of years, but many people think he’s “the Man”? His ratings are sky rocketing, temporarily anyway, out of prurient interest over what jokes he’ll tell on himself? And then the corporate brass waffles because profits are more important than doing the right thing. The double standard is appalling–and daunting. The next thing you know, Roman Polanski will get a pass.
JCG says:
October 9, 2009 at 2:01 pm

JCG here again. I get what you’re saying, John, about once-consensual relationships turning sour, etc. That’s why it’s foolish for a boss to get involved with a subordinate. My point is only that, based on the information that’s currently available, Letterman has violated no law and his conduct does not meet the legal definition of harassment.

He might be a cad from a personal perspective (especially his wife’s), but let’s not mix apples and oranges. There’s enough confusion out there already as to what constitues harassment in the legal sense.

Sorry, I still don’t get the Man Gene. Sex is a powerful force for both genders. There are plenty of women who sleep around and plenty of men who don’t.
Mary O'Driscoll says:
October 9, 2009 at 2:13 pm

John: I was particularly taken with the cleverly performed “confession” on tv that first night. Letterman was clearly aware that the audience thought he was in the middle of some sort of comedy skit the whole time, yet he never once insisted, “Folks, this isn’t a joke — this is a very serious situation and I feel the need to come clean.”. Instead he sometimes mugged and sometimes shrugged his shoulders. As an HR Director, who instructs new hires in Orientation twice a month about Sexual Harassment, I’m appalled at the lack of censure from virtually all news media on this event. While some are invoking the “consensual” aspect, we always teach that a person who holds authority over your livelihood will always be in a position of power — whether or not the person admits that to themselves or anyone else. I’m really beginning to believe that if you’re cute, young, powerful, or rich — you are judged by the American public in a completely different way than the general public. America used to stand for respect based on personal character and the will to at least try to do the right thing — whereas now I feel that many feel the rules are for the lowly ones who don’t have the celebrity stamp of approval. Wake up America!
John Phillips says:
October 9, 2009 at 3:26 pm

Maggie, KSB, Allison, Paul, JCG (again), and Mary,

Well, it appears that this topic has caused a bit of consternation. I really do appreciate all of your comments.

Maggie, it will be interesting to see how many of Dave’s regular viewers (particularly women) will end up where you are. As Paul points out, Letterman’s ratings are up for now, but as more things are revealed (and there surely will be more things), his ratings could just as easily take a hit, depending on the nature of what else comes out.

KSB,

Since I’m not privy to the whole story as JCG correctly notes, it’s difficult to judge the actions being taken by any of the parties. Putting a subordinate on leave because of an inappropriate relationship without putting the boss on leave always has a tendancy to smell. Maybe she asked for the leave. If the female subordinate ends up being cut loose, she’ll get a nice severance check I would imagine. Hakam’s Razor does point to The Man Gene as the simplist explantion for what you call “travesties.”

Paul,

This is another indication that money rules all else, even sex. The right thing has become what makes money or what stops financial bleeding, regardless of what else might be involved. I’ve been mulling the possibility of a Roman Polanski post. Your reference to him may give me inspiration.

JCG,

You’re right that we shouldn’t leap to legal judgments without all the facts. Remember, however, that a person’s conduct doesn’t have to rise to the level of sexual harassment for discipline to be imposed. I’m still sorry you don’t get The Man Gene.

Mary,

Letterman’s confession did seem like a normal comedic routine. I suspect he’s incapable of doing it any other way. And by the way, I still think Letterman’s one of the funniest people around. However, the same rules should apply to him like everyone else. That would, of course, be Never Never Land. Your comment about what America has become reminds me of the last thing I said in my above post: “Either [call a boss out for what he is], or let’s drop the facade of a law or policy that’s most often enforced against employees at work’s lower echelons.

Thanks again to all of you for weighing in on this. You’ve made a lot of points that give us plenty to think about.

John
Kay Davis says:
October 9, 2009 at 3:39 pm

Once upon a time there was a department director and an administrative assistant secretly enjoying a consensual relationship. Then one day the administrative assistant became angry with the department director because he was “picking at her work performance” at which point she ran to HR and demanded a transfer to another department because she just couldn’t stand her boss any more. She didn’t disclose the tarnished romance part of her story claiming only that he was too demanding, etc. So, as requested she was transferred to another department where a vacancy existed. Apparently their was a disagreement regarding personal issues betwee the lovers as well. After the job transfer went through they resolved their personal issues and got back together…until several months later when a big conflict happened that was not related to work. She ran to EEOC and filed a complaint naming names, dates, and details. Even though she had withheld the consensual relationship portion of the story from HR. EEOC held the employer responsible and wanted to know why she was forced to change jobs to get away from the sexually harassing boss. That is why there should be a no “dating policy between supervisor/subordinates…regardless of how many steps there are between them in the chain-of-command. “JUST SAY NO” WHERE SEX AND EMPLOYEES ARE INVOLVED IN THE SAME SENTENCE.
Karla Porter says:
October 9, 2009 at 4:31 pm

There have been many web based conversations by the HR community on this topic, nice to see one here too. Here’s what I posted on my site:

Companies would be much better off to understand human nature and create policies that deal effectively with office romances rather than try to negate them. I understand why they try – it can get messy when lovers are scorned. But it’s not realistic to think it isn’t going to happen.

The whole HR industry is furiously making new policy for Bird Flu and social media use and only 20% have a dating policy. Dating has been around for ever and social media and Bird Flu are new. Where have we been?

According to an article by Business Management Daily, SHRM revealed that among employers that do set such policies:

64% but discourage dating between co-workers.
28% permit dating.
8% prohibit it.

I applaud the 28% that deal with it!
KS in Texas says:
October 9, 2009 at 4:44 pm

It is a power relationship, not a consensual relationship. Any man much older than the “consensual” partner and/or with a position of supervision or power over that person is fooling you and himself if he believes otherwise.
People in power take for granted that they can get away with anything. That is not always the case. Two very brave women who worked for (former) U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Kent spoke up. “He tried to undress me and force himself upon me, while I begged him to stop. He told me he didn’t care if the officers (courthouse security in a nearby room) could hear him because he knew everyone was afraid of him,” his former case manager said in court. While Kent described the liaisons as consensual, “being molested and groped by a drunken giant is not my idea of an affair,” according to the staffer, who said she initially believed she had been hired into her “dream job.”
John Phillips says:
October 14, 2009 at 10:03 am

Kay, Karla, and KS:

Thanks for weighing in on this.

Kay,

Your “Just Say No” advice has a nice ring to it, although a no dating policy can be difficult to enforce because it involves the personal lives of employees and because it’s hard to get everyone, including leadership, on the same page. Also, inventive employees are masters at hiding their dating for a long time. Your example is very instructive, however. Once two employees are romantically involved, regardless of their positions, it’s impossible to know where the relationship is going and how it will end. No one knows when the consent started or when it ended. The possibility of a sexual harassment complaint is always lurking around the corner. By the time the matter gets to the EEOC or to court, there’s no telling how many twists and turns “the facts” will have taken. Thanks again for your input.

John

Karla,

I’ve helped clients prepare and implement no dating policies, and then I’ve help them abandon those policies. They’re very hard to enforce because of, among other things, the reasons you mention above.The 28% who permit dating don’t necessarily deal with it, in my opinion, any better than employers in the other categories. Once a relationship spirals out of control, and it’s likely to sooner or later, policy or no policy, an employer has a big mess to deal with. So, I guess, one way or the other, we get back to dealing with it. Thanks for your thoughtful point of view.

John

KS,

You describe what the reality can be in some situations. I think, however, that some relationships between boss and subordinate are truly consensual. It may be impossible to get power completly out of the way, but some relationships are more about sex or emotion than power. What you describe does happen, and when it does, someone has to have the courage to deal with it. The kind of behavior you talk about isn’t only sexual harassment; it’s probably criminal. Your point about power is a good one — something worth some serious thought and discussion. I appreciate your making it.

John

Thanks again to all of you.