The telling part of the GWU policy is:|
This provision explicitly prohibits any behavior that is intended to or has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment because of an individual's sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, pregnancy, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors protected by law.It shows that sexual harassment in the workplace is one of their big concerns. And rightly so. Awards have been as large as $30 Million. And it embarasses the institution, which creates all sorts of havoc by driving people and even financial donors away.
The standard of proof in civil law is lower than that in criminal. And note that the material need only be harassing, offensive, or improper, rather than obscene. To convert this into a workplace sexual harassment issue only requires that an employee find the material on GW facilities and find it offensive.
The U. would err on the side of caution given the potential danger. If the "Hot Babe" package was being distributed from their facilities, they'd pull the plug. In order to appear to be proactive regarding harassing, offensive, or improper material, they'd take action against the person involved.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
And you have evidence that the inclusion of such an image in a bulk archive, which is present in a merely passive manner, runs afoul of this provision? It seems to me that a hostile workplace is not created by the presence of an archive or a single image in that archive. But if you have a legal opinion to offer on this question, I would be glad to hear it.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature