How can you possibly justify sueing a sexual harrasser and company for 37 million dollars?
The guy is a scumbag and what he did is terrible, but 37 million dollars worth of terrible?
Comments (29)How can you possibly justify sueing a sexual harrasser and company for 37 million dollars?
The guy is a scumbag and what he did is terrible, but 37 million dollars worth of terrible?
Comments (29)
particularly as she’s stated she’s giving it to charity, i think the point might be that it’s not much of a punishment for the dude if it’s not something so costly, and that it’s not so much putting such a high price on her distress.
her / her lawyer’s rationale might be that a payout smaller wouldn’t make any difference to his life since he has so much wealth, and it wouldn’t make enough of an example of him and his company for them to change their ways.
Comment by chelle — August 18, 2010 @ 10:26 am
Once it gets in the media I think the company is going to do everything in its power to make changes. I don’t know how they will split the damages as regards to how much each party pays, so I can’t say much about the impact on his personal wallet, but the mere fact that it has come this far is probably going to ruin him anyway.
Also, I am aware of punitive damages. I was aware of it last night before someone explained it to me*. Just saying in case someone thinks I don’t get that aspect of the legal system.
*It got explained to me anyway and I listened for the joy of having someone tell me something I already know.
Comment by Zombie Master — August 18, 2010 @ 11:00 am
Zeriously Mate they are asking for this Zum of Money for punitive damages. Have you even heard of punitive damages? I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up.
The purpose of punitive damages is to punish a defendant and to deter a defendant and others from committing similar acts in the future.
Comment by Lecturer One — August 18, 2010 @ 11:08 am
well, according to that article, she’s seeking 5% of his salary and 5% of profits made by DJs for the time he worked there.
i’m not saying i agree or disagree with her decision, just suggesting why such a large amount might have been chosen.
and yeah, i’m sure that once the media gets involved, the company would endeavour to make the relevant changes to the business culture, if for nothing else than appearances. (who, me, cynical?)
but at the end of the day, nothing hurts as much, or convinces you to do something more than losing money.
Comment by chelle — August 18, 2010 @ 11:15 am
i didn’t know what punitive damages were. as it is, even now that i’ve looked it up, i’ll probably still forget by the next time i discuss anything remotely related to the legal system. nouns and me don’t get along.
however, now that i know what they are, and with them in mind, i’m not sure why you think $37 million is a lot for a company and a CEO to pay. i imagine that if i was seeking punitive damages in her situation that i would ask for a large amount too.
Comment by chelle — August 18, 2010 @ 11:22 am
I can’t diagree about fines working, I just don’t think this amount of money is reasonable.
Comment by ZM — August 18, 2010 @ 11:24 am
I think I am looking more at what was done. Sure, this is a lot of money and will impact the company and the person, but they will survive financially. I’m just not sure that the punishment fits the crime.
Comment by ZM — August 18, 2010 @ 11:27 am
i can’t imagine she’s trying to ruin them. that would be purely malicious. i imagine she’s just trying to make a point.
and i don’t think $37 million is all that much money considering where it’s coming from. it’s all relative. *shrug*
Comment by chelle — August 18, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
I will try to be clearer. I don’t think the crimes warrant a 37 million dollar sting even if that works out as 5% wages/earnings. 37 million dollars is a lot of money whatever way you slice it and I think that it says something like, “sexual harrasment is worth this much money.”
I know that in reality this will be absorbed by those penalised and they will move on and hopefully gain some wisdom. I think the damage to reputations is far more important than the amount of dollars dug out. I wonder if anyone will hire this dirtbag to do anything important in the future?
Could Ms. Fraser-Kirk have elected to keep the money rather than donating it to women’s charitys? I think she would have been legally entitled to do so. I think the reason she is choosing to donate the money is because it is an unreasonably large amount for what was done and might make her look greedy or malicious.
Comment by ZM — August 18, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
Don’t want to put a damper on the discussion but
1. for that amount of money the Comp. will really dig into her past for any bit (little or otherwise) they can find. There has already been a suggestion (in the media) that she has done something a little similar before.
2. maybe she has claimed such a huge amount in the hope the Comp. will settle out of court with a smaller amount without any trouble.
3. what ever she happens to get/receive the people who will ultimately pay are the customers who will pay the higher prices of goods the Comp. will put on.
4. Her timing of the release of the news of the suit seems suspect to me (I’m always suspicious) as it came on the opening of the Companies opening season show.
Comment by Pop — August 18, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
It’s not an easy thing to monetarily quantify any form of emotional or physical abuse, especially if you have not experienced it yourself.
Comment by Dennis — August 18, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
If that happened in Germany, that CEO would maybe have to pay a couple thousand EUR to the woman and possibly a (much) higher fee to the prosecutors.
Never ever would she be able to claim for this amount.
The highest amount that has ever been sentenced in Germany is around 0.5 million or maybe 0.6 million EUR. In these cases, we are talking about literally destroying somebody´s life (e.g. after a severe car accident where someone breaks every bone, loses all his memory and ability to work etc.).
I´m not saying that these amounts are sufficient (they aren´t) but 37 millions in this case is just beyond any imagination.
Hmm, maybe this is how they found the sum they are claiming for:
Lawyer (with an evil look): “We are going to sue the company for 37 THOUSAND dollars!”
Another (one-eyed) lawyer: “Don´t you think we should maybe ask for more than 37000 dollars? This is not exactly a lot of money these days. The company makes 9 billion dollars a year.”
Lawyer (with an even more evil look, bending his little finger into the corner of his mouth): “Ok then. We will sue the company for THIRTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS!!!”
Comment by van Trinkmeister — August 18, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
Pop, I think there is no way she will take 37 million, it will end up lower, but still it will be millions which is just way too high.
Dennis, I’m not sure about the need to experience it yourself to understand her need to punish and make an example.
Herr Trinkmeister, I think thet should have said, “THIRTY SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS.” Maybe they also should have set up a giant friggin’ laser beam.
Comment by Zombie Master — August 19, 2010 @ 8:12 am
I think you misunderstand my comment. To be more direct … I dont think anyone who has not experienced a similar emotional trauma has any right to say whether its to much money or not.
Comment by Dennis — August 19, 2010 @ 10:14 am
I think I understand what you mean, I just disagree. I believe I have every right to say that 37 million dollars is a ridiculous amount of money for emotional trauma. I have experienced emotional trauma. It is not alien to me.
I know I am not Ms. Fraser-Kirk and I wasn’t sexually harrassed by Mr. McInnes, so I cannot say how traumatic it was for her and I don’t think anyone can, even if they were sexually harrassed by someone; everyone handles things differently. As a rational human though I can scream, “Bullshit” when I see someone that is doing something ridiculous.
Comment by Zombie Master — August 19, 2010 @ 11:27 am
i disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that someone has to go through a “similar” traumatic experience to be able to comment on whether they think another person’s payout is fair for their traumatic experience.
besides the fact that no one in the world could actually appropriately compare something so subjective (nor do i believe anyone has the right to), there is also the fact that money doesn’t actually repair the trauma.
the only way a payout makes someone feel better (besides using the money for actual expenses related to the experience, such as counselling, lost wages etc) is because of a sense of vindication, and nobody could say how much money would make someone else feel vindicated.
the $37 million isn’t to pay for the trauma she went through. it is to teach a lesson to someone who has done something they shouldn’t have done.
Comment by michelle — August 19, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
i also disagree with the idea that $37 million is a lot of money, full stop.
what money is worth to an entity is entirely subjective.
i think it is a lot of money to me. and probably to every single person i know. but to a company like DJs? it’s not even in the same ballpark.
and i don’t know a single person who i would trust to actually be in a position to judge whether or not that amount of money is appropriate or not. because while anyone can think and say whatever they want about anything, that doesn’t necessarily make their opinion informed.
so you may be right – it may be too much money. but i don’t think it is, and your arguments have not convinced me that i’m wrong.
but how much do any of us really know about the situation, or DJs, or the legal system, or any of this? because i have a suspicion we are all completely talking out of our arses.
Comment by michelle — August 19, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
I don’t think I need to convince you that you are wrong Chelle. But I am curious why you think it is an okay amount of money. I worry that it will set the course for future actions.
As to talking out of my arse, maybe I am, but I believe in the spirit of what I am saying, even if I don’t have a full grasp of the legalities or exaggerations that are going on.
Comment by Zombie Master — August 19, 2010 @ 3:09 pm
ZM see number 2 of my comment.
Comment by Pop — August 19, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
Women who are raped and assaulted in this country (not ’sexually harassed’ as this woman was) will generally receive in the $10,000’s or low $100,000’s as compensation.
Members of the stolen generation, who have suffered mental illness, physical suffering, sexual or other forms of abuse, either get nothing, or amounts that are nowhere near those of the average rape victim.
Is $37 million a lot of money. Pffffttt!
Comment by Adam — August 19, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
Well lets break it down and look at all the different ways that the ongoing harrasment she was subjected too affected her physically and emotionally and if it has adversly affected her personal and professional life. and then go ahead and put a price tag on it.
How about the people who think $37 million is too much go first.
Comment by Dennis — August 20, 2010 @ 3:45 am
Putting a reasonable price on unreasonable acts is a very difficult thing to do. However, as shown by Ms. Fraser-Kirk, putting an unreasonable price on unreasonable acts seems to be fairly straightforward.
Comment by Zombie Master — August 20, 2010 @ 7:59 am
Money can´t pay her pain away, so you can theoretically put in any amount imaginable.
I think the amount should be in some sort of a perspective, e.g. how much pain does it take to make a million $ by working. A teacher will hear a lot of kids screaming before he makes 1 million and a hairdresser has to cut a lot of hair until he makes a million (if ever).
I know you can´t compare different kinds of pain, but I still think the amount that is paid as damage should be put in relation.
Comment by van Trinkmeister — August 20, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
> “I know you can´t compare different kinds of pain, but I still think the amount that is paid as damage should be put in relation.”
Absolutely agree with this comment. What remains then is just what aspects of the situation people choose to focus on.
Is 5% unreasonable? Or are people just hung up on the $37 million price tag because that amount of money is unfathomable to them?
Comment by michelle — August 23, 2010 @ 11:51 am
> “Putting a reasonable price on unreasonable acts is a very difficult thing to do. However, as shown by Ms. Fraser-Kirk, putting an unreasonable price on unreasonable acts seems to be fairly straightforward.”
Maybe. Or maybe it’s not an unreasonable price. It is all a matter of perspective and circumstance.
Comment by michelle — August 23, 2010 @ 11:51 am
> “But I am curious why you think it is an okay amount of money. I worry that it will set the course for future actions.”
I am potentially considering as reasonable not so much the amount of money, but more the percentage. I think if someone who made $40k a year was sued for $37 million, it would be ridiculous. But a percentage is indicative to me of a thought process that relates to punishing the specific person in their specific circumstance, not just setting a bar that’s too high for others to ever reach.
In other words, it’s not that I particularly think that $37 million is a reasonable amount of money, but I do think that perhaps 5% is a reasonable percentage of money for someone in this situation to be fined. As far as I’m concerned, there’s a world of difference.
I imagine I am less worried about the possibility of a precedent being set than you are – I figure if someone’s going to be fined 5% of their income, that’s a lot more reasonable to me than a blanket fine that they may or may not be able to pay without going bankrupt.
Quite simply, if someone is fined something that means nothing to them at all, how does being fined teach them anything at all?
I don’t know how they calculate things like this. Perhaps this is going to be laughed out of court, I don’t know. But if there is even a possibility that he could walk away from this and feel that there were no significant repercussions, he could do it again. Or another person watching the coverage could feel they are able to do the same thing.
I very strongly believe it is this woman’s responsibility to do whatever she thinks is necessary, whatever she is strong enough to do, to protect herself (and others in similar positions in the future). And I guess this is what she thinks is necessary. I am not going to begrudge her that in the slightest.
(As an aside, please realise that if this money was going to her, and not being donated to charity, my views would be a little different. I am considering this entirely as a fine, not as some sort of payoff for her having allegedly been violated.)
I am lucky. I have never been put in the sort of position this woman was allegedly put in. So I am not speaking from personal experience, and this triggers no emotional pain for me. But I am very passionate in my belief that the strong have a responsibility to protect the weak, whether it’s adults / children, humans / pets, or employers / employees. And this guy allegedly preyed on someone in a weaker position than him. If everything is as it is reported, then he let her down, and he let our society down. Additionally, his company let them both down by not more clearly establishing that this sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable. Now she’s standing up and saying she’s not going to take it, she’s gonna do what she can to ensure he learns a lesson. That’s important because this world is full to the brim of people who will take advantage of people they deem weaker than them, unless someone stands up to them. And I think fining someone an amount that’s going to hurt them might sometimes be the only way.
Maybe nothing will come of it. But maybe it’s a few more people who will think a bit more carefully about their actions, and a few more people who subsequently don’t get hurt, in the future.
Apologies for the length. Hopefully now my viewpoint is a little clearer to understand.
Comment by michelle — August 23, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
Adam, I don’t believe she is asking for this money for compensation. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think this is entirely as punishment to him for him behaving inappropriately. And with hope, it is something that is going to benefit potentially hundreds of people by being donated to charity.
If the article read to me like she was seeking this amount for compensation alone, I would feel differently regarding the amount being asked for.
Comment by michelle — August 23, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
I believe I understand you. I’m glad you took the time to respond like that. I agree with almost everything you said.
Comment by Zombie Master — August 23, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
yay! it’s nice to be understood. [it doesn't happen so often
]
Comment by michelle — August 26, 2010 @ 1:48 pm