Being familiar with harassment, you should know that inappropriate jokes count, even if the person being harassed isn't the recipient.
Reading up on legal stuff is a bit of a personal curiosity of mine. It might surprise you to discover that hostile environment sexual harassment (there's also "quid pro quo" sexual harassment, like having to fuck the boss for a promotion, which is not what Miseta was suing) has a considerably higher bar for "help help I'm being oppressed as a woman" than "someone was telling naughty jokes around the office and wouldn't stop." Just because HR might flip tables over this shit doesn't mean the courts would even blink at it. In fact, if the woman in question can be demonstrated to have
participated in such ribaldry even once, complaints about jokes in an office environment are frequently utterly rejected in court. Miseta has been proven to make fun of men's genitals and talk about giving guys squeezejobs through the pants with coworkers. It's also hard to prove you're oppressed by the boss when you make an occasional office joke that you're going to tase him (the taser does not actually exist) for lack of punctuality and it's a known fact that you have a foam bat which you
do use to jokingly beat the boss for missing deadlines.
You might also be surprised to discover Miseta was moonlighting for a long time (even using office hours to do so) while working at Stardock. Now, hostile environment sexual harassment suits require evidence that the hostile environment was oppressive enough to disrupt the ability to function in an office environment or otherwise drive you out of the office, so if you are capable of working on two jobs at once while at the office, you probably weren't being oppressed enough that you couldn't do your work. More to the point, Miseta already found and accepted a new and higher-paying job before she even sent the e-mail which started this chain of events. This is also problematic for her case because you can't say his response was responsible for you needing to find a new job when you already accepted the new job before you even brought up the issue with him esp. when it's a known fact that the new job pays much better (so it's not like you left just because you couldn't stand working at Stardock). Beyond that, before this e-mail, she never contacted HR (Actually, she didn't contact HR with this e-mail either. She contacted Brad, who had to forward it to HR.) or anyone else in the office, which also ruins her case because you can't complain if you never tried to fix it.
Did the point go through yet? Miseta had no case. It consisted of one damning e-mail after she was already leaving the company (but before the company knew she was leaving) and a few minor incidents that would get scrutinized and rejected by the court.
So, why would she sue? Same reason she left Stardock, really: Money.
Companies exist to make money, not to stroke the ego of a tactless moron who calls himself a manager.
That is nothing but bullshit. Companies don't need to make more and more money. Companies only need to cover their operating expenses. Beyond that they exist to do whatever the fuck the owner wants to do, whether that means making more profit, helping run an orphanage, or posting stupid youtube videos to the detriment of mankind. It's publicly traded corporations that actually have a legal mandate to keep making more money because otherwise you are stiffing some of the owners what they paid for. A company owned by 1 guy does whatever that 1 guy wants, preferably with the consent of the employees.
I'm in the process of watching a company go down in great big balls of flames due to retards like this and trying to whip the owner of another into shape before he drives his company to implosion again. They both say shit like that. They both do shit like that. They've both managed to scupper million dollar projects in the past year through stupid ego bullshit and they've both managed to lose 50% of core staff in a six month window with more on their way out. There may be some business genius out there (or, more likely, someone who's insansely lucky) who really does know all the answers and their moronic games will pay off, but surely you've been in the workforce long enough that you don't me trying to covince you that this attitude is a losing attitude.
Oh good. Starting with "I've been in a completely different company, so it must be like this one." (a non-sequitur) is a good way to make a point. You have me convinced. Dumbass.
Read it again. It's not "this company is for making money, not for providing you with friends that you like, so buck up," it's "this company is for me and I do what I want." Yeah, I don't think it's stupid to think the former when you sign a contract instead of the latter. He's making the ridiculous claim that making vulgar jokes IS the objective of the company. The company exists to make money for its shareholders, not make some man-child feel self-important.
Again, this is bullshit. Wardell is the sole owner of the company, so yes, he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it - within the confines of the law. That's what ownership is about. When you sign the contract, expect what's written on the fucking contract and what's written in the law. When you work, expect your job. Don't expect that the boss will run the place the way
you believe it should be run, because he is probably not you and most likely does not have the same priorities and perspectives in life as you do.
As I understand your opinion, Wardell must be an asshole boss who you hate to work for. Which really means something, considering you don't work for him or even know him. But at least you've judged him. For the shit that went wrong in your company, and not his.
If anyone is being a man-child, I think it's you.
