September 23, 2005
The Reasonable Woman Standard
There is a concept in law commonly referred to "the reasonable person standard" which basically refers to an understanding that any “reasonable person” could agree on. This concept is an attempt to describe social norms which cannot be precisely described in law due their infinite variety. The real beauty of this concept was its inclusiveness. It included all sexes, races, orientations and beliefs. Now our courts have decided this is not enough and have developed the "reasonable woman standard" to address male employer behavior in the workplace.
On September 2, 2005, in E.E.O.C. v. National Education Association, (No. 04-35029), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the “reasonable woman” standard applies to workplace abusive conduct, even if there is no sexual content to the behavior. This decision significantly expands the types of behaviors that may furnish a basis for a claim of discrimination.Beyond the obvious humor we "reasonable people" see in the very idea of a "reasonable woman" standard. I guess we can now expect to see the "reasonable black", "reasonable gay" and "reasonable atheist" standards to be adopted in dealing with future case law. This is a case decision with its very own punch line built into its conclusion.
While there was evidence that the same director raised his voice with men on occasion, and once frightened a male subordinate, male employees seemed to deal with that abuse with banter, and did not express the same fear of the director, did not cry, become panicked or feel physically threatened, avoid contact with the director, call the police, or ultimately resign, as did one woman.Taken seriously we are constantly told that men and women should be treated equally. Now we are told that women cannot be treated equally because they are unable to handle criticism a man would be subjected to under the same circumstances. Here we are required to apply affirmative action to workplace discipline by administering female sensitive corrective action. No doubt management training will soon require sensitivity training on how to discipline female employees to a "reasonable woman" standard, assuming one can be defined.
This is going to open up a huge can of worms since the “reasonable woman” standard will logically exclude men being capable of even understanding what it means. How do women ever expect to be taken seriously as equals if they continue to fall back on these cliché behaviors for special protection? As far as I am concerned, the moment we start trying to develop “reasonable woman” guidelines is the very moment “reason” was eliminated from the search.
Carnival of the Trackbacks XXX
Posted by Sid at September 23, 2005 04:08 PM | Sexuality
Comments
hey its the 9th circut it took us decades to get death penaltys thru there. I dont have any facts but my feeling is that the 9th is about as left as an appealate court gets.
Posted by: Xraxnd at September 24, 2005 04:10 PM
Yea they are. Many refer to them as the 9th Circus Court of Appeals.
Posted by: Sid at September 24, 2005 04:15 PM
Thats where W needs to get some super hard core folks to clean house.
Posted by: Xraxnd at September 24, 2005 07:40 PM
