Quote Ari1: I'm going to relate my knowledge of sexual harassment for those of you who are interested. In my line of work, we are required to take sexual harassment course once a year. Also, the previous university I worked for was sued for discrimination, and as part of the settlement, everyone associated with the university was required to attend lectures by discrimination attorneys every semester. (The lawsuit had nothing to do with the administration or professors. It had something to do with the cleaning crew, but nevertheless, all members associated with the university were required to attend)
As defined by the Supreme Court discrimination and sexual harassment are defined as anything that makes someone feel uncomfortable. The definition is purposely made broad so as to give the courts leeway. Each case must stand on it's own merits. So something seemingly as benign as paying a coworker a compliment all the way to telling an employee the he/she must have sex in order to keep his/her job all fall under this umbrella. There is a lot of grey area.
Other things that are taken into consideration are the workplace environment. For example, is the workplace permissive and does it allow employees to make sexual comments without being reprimanded? Are some employees allowed to make sexual comments or allowed to cop a feel and it's brushed off as good fun? (JC admits to doing all of this throughout her tenure on y&r. Some might see this as silly harmlessness, but no company should allow such behavior to continue or the company could be liable, not just the individual.)
Also the context in which the sexual harassment happened must also be considered. I will give some hypothetical examples. Did one employee say you spilled something on your chest and he tries to wipe it off? Or were the employees discussing boobs and one employee grabs another's boobs and says "well you have big honkers." Or did one employee lure someone into his office and start fondling the breast of the victim?
I give these examples to show how grey sexual harassment is. It's never black and white. An investigation must be pursued and all evidence must be brought forward. Each case is handled differently according to all of the evidence brought to light. Punishments can range from simple reprimands to termination depending on the severity of the incident. But both sides should be allowed to present their side. If someone makes an allegation, the other party cannot be fired without an ensuing investigation.
My point is there is always three sides to every story, person 1, person 2, and the truth. I reserve judgment until the entire story is brought forth. I feel sorry for both parties who get their reputations dragged through the mud based on unsubstantiated rumors.
One reason why I bring this up is MM, in his interview, did not say he was fired for sexual harassment. He was told that tptb wanted to give the character a break and they would recast in 3-6 months. Any actor can be fired for any reason at the end of the 13 week contract. People should not read into why he was fired when it could strictly be story line dictated. Tptb don't have to give a reason. Now if he were told it was bc he sexually harassed a coworker, he would be allowed to make a case for himself. The fact that they told him his termination was storyline dictated and not for any other reason is suspect. The fact that they come out now saying there was cause is very convenient. If there was cause, he should have been allowed to defend himself. Apparently he was not given that right. They told him it was for story line purposes and then they leak all these rumors to cover their butts. That is the problem I have with this. No person should be convicted on allegations alone. We all have rights, and are innocent until proven guilty. He, apparently, was not given that chance.