Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Lem]

There has been a bit of proof. In the text exchanges posted, a superior did seem to ask a woman who worked for him to leave her job because of their romantic entanglement. If that is an accurate reading, then regardless of any impropriety on the part of the woman, that would constitute sexual harassment on the part of the superior at my university.

If I understand the chain of events and your point above, then it was the asking to leave part where JD made a crucial error and potentially crossed the line into harassment. (??)

Yes. Of course, i have no idea if we are seeing the full exchange between R and JD, and also this was 10 years ago for them, but in my most recent training module, it was emphasized repeatedly that the power differential was an inviolable barrier. There is literally no justification ever for engaging in such an unequal relationship. I have to say, even I thought it was extreme, but i get the concept of protection for those in subordinate positions.

Prior to that, it appears to have been her chasing him. Would JD have had a legitimate harassment claim at that point, not the other way around?

At my University, he would have been far better off to report it, and yes if he truly hadn't done anything it would have gone the other way. It seems like the ship had already sailed on that point, however.

[jpatterson]

edit: Her “case.” You mean the one she withdrew? Oh.

This right here is a perfect example of why your bias is so apparent. You want to use the withdrawal as a ding against Rosebud, when common sense will tell you if you know you're going to lose on a technicality (number of employees in order to be held liable for sexual harassment), you don't waste lawyer fees moving forward.

I know I've picked a side here, but you don't get to act like you're looking at this objectively.

[jpatterson]

I’m convinced

Hey the Youtube comments on your "takedown" video are going real well for you guys. Congrats LOL

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’m assuming someone had the good sense to consult an employment lawyer before they requested that she resign and the fired her when she refused.

Well, according to one board member (who I won't name), Joanna and John tried to hire one lawyer to pressure Anne to resign and they refused because it would have been unethical and opened them up for exposure, so they had to go shopping.

Do you have proof for this allegation, or are you going to go 0-for-3?

It’s mind boggling to watch the mental gymnastics to avoid any evidence. It’s ironic jpatterson/Rosebud wants us to accept on faith what they’re asserting. There is no cult of personality on this board, but there is a pretty high standard for truth claims. They’re failing to meet the even the barest minimum of substantiating their claims, and the lashing out is indicative of a con man dissimulating in the hopes of distracting from his scam.

- Doc

[consiglieri]

I’m convinced

Hey the Youtube comments on your "takedown" video are going real well for you guys. Congrats LOL

You’ve been busy.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

edit: Her “case.” You mean the one she withdrew? Oh.

This right here is a perfect example of why your bias is so apparent. You want to use the withdrawal as a ding against Rosebud, when common sense will tell you if you know you're going to lose on a technicality (number of employees in order to be held liable for sexual harassment), you don't waste lawyer fees moving forward.

I know I've picked a side here, but you don't get to act like you're looking at this objectively.

She had a lawyer representing her with the NHHRC?

- Doc

[consiglieri]

I’m convinced

Hey the Youtube comments on your "takedown" video are going real well for you guys. Congrats LOL

What do you have against evidence anyway?

[jpatterson]

Do you have proof for this allegation, or are you going to go 0-for-3?

I sure do and it continues to make me chuckle that you think I would show you any evidence I have just because you want to see it widdy widdy bad.

[Kishkumen]

No, John and Rosebud were asked to resign with the option to reapply. There was no promise made of re-hiring.

Yes, and I think it would have been pretty stupid to hold that option out there if there were no intention to rehire. It seems to me that, based on what Rosebud has said, she did not like the terms of what they were offering. It was not that she feared she would not be rehired at all.

If you believe you're being sexually harassed any lawyer worth their salt will tell you not to resign.

I am guessing that had she retained control over her pet projects she would have cooperated. She only pushed sexual harassment allegations after she did not get her way.

It's obvious what John/Joanna were trying to do: get Rosebud to resign to get rid of her and torpedo her case.

To the contrary, it is obvious that she felt she was entitled to have future responsibilities that matched her previous responsibilities, and when she did not get her way she claimed her consensual affair was sexual harassment, just as she had threatened to do in the October email.

[jpatterson]

What do you have against evidence anyway?

Hey, I'd rather have evidence I keep to myself until the time is right than trot out a lackey who can't even get her facts straight.

Kills me that you fell for it.