Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

There may be nothing anyone can do about it now, but cheering on a person who used his power to harm the career of a subordinate because of a romantic relationship is a particularly empty victory.

The only person I am cheering on is consiglieri, and I don't think consiglieri was cheering on John Dehlin either. As is the norm for RFM, he was interested in getting to the facts, and I thought he did a great job. Rosebud is a liar, even if what she says about being sexually harassed is technically true according to #MeToo-era standards. No one here thinks John Dehlin is a great guy or that he did the right thing. At least that I am aware. Maybe there are a couple of people who have recently arrived who do think those things. But our regular cast of characters here are not "cheering on" John Dehlin.

What really sucks, in my opinion, is that being a garden variety schmuck is being elevated by Dehlin's enemies into being an absolute monster whose life must be destroyed in order for the world be right again.

[Kishkumen]

I have a different reading of the texts. It's a struggle between two people who fell in love with each other, started an emotional affair, and are dealing with the fallout. John clearly wants to leave before it gets physical, and Anne wants to move forward and make the relationship physical. Anne has publicly stated that her husband at the time was awful, while Margie was being extremely patient and loving with John. This clearly made it easier for John to leave, and harder for Anne to. Both realize and acknowledge to each other that working together after ending the affair will be extremely difficult. At the end, Anne reveals that she's been problem solving trying to figure out a place for herself within the company, just as John and Open Stories Foundation have been doing.


John says:

"Thus the continual, "Run away!" "

"I'm 100% sure that the best thing for you to do in your life is to never have anything to do with me again. And yet you won't leave, and I can't go. So you're choosing this."

This sounds to me like he's talking about breaking up their relationship, such that it is.

Then Anne tells John she loves him and needs him. John responds that they can't keep working together and avoid making the affair physical with sex.

As late as August 26 Anne is still using the term "us" to refer to her and John, as they figure out together how to move forward within the company after their breakup. She says she's in "problem solving mode" which implies to me that she, John, and Open Stories Foundation were for over a month searching for solutions to the same fundamental problem: how John and Anne can both still work together after mutually breaking up their mutual consented-to affair.

Very insightful post, and I think a great read on the situation. I agree that it was bad for John to engage in an affair with an employee. I have not been impressed over the years with his judgment. It is not his strong point. Moreover, I don't really admire what I see in the way he handles his affairs. That said, I think the urgency with which certain people are out to destroy him is even more disturbing than the fact that he is sloppy and kinda seedy. He reminds me of someone who probably worked for Bain Capital at some point in his career. Wait a minute!

Let's not forget that Open Stories Foundation had John resign from his Executive Director position over this. It also appears to me that Open Stories Foundation was perfectly happy to hire back Rosebud as an employee in such a way that she would have no further contact with John. I understand that she was enraged by the fact that the new terms of her employment were significantly reduced in scope from her old responsibilities, but I think the real underlying source of anger was the failure of her attempt to seduce a married man, separate him from his wife, take her place, and achieve her goal of being part of an ex-Mo power couple.

And this is where the technical sexual harassment, which is wrong and bad, starts to look more like a byproduct of Rosebud's objective from the outset, which I outlined above. I admit that this is fairly speculative, but I also think that we would be fools to ignore the character of her threat, which was immensely psychologically revealing: "I will destroy you and become a successful author and talk-show star in the process!"

[Kishkumen]

Was Dehlin her superior in a business relationship?

I actually don't know the answer to this, was the board in control of Open Stories Foundation at this point? She says she was on the board, equal to Joanna. Is there an organizational chart that exists from that time period?

The answer, drumdude, is yes. He was the Executive Director before he resigned, which most definitely made him Rosebud's superior.

[Symmachus]

I think Utah is an at will employment state, so, generally, an employee can be fired for any reason except as prohibited by law. Because there were fewer than 15 employees, the federal and state employment statutes don't apply. If they had more employees, I think she would have had a legitimate sexual harassment claim under retaliation provisions. I don't think the employer can take any adverse action based solely on the fact that the employee had an affair. Maybe if there was a clear policy it would fly. I don't think offering a lesser position and pressuring her to resign would have helped. And if she had told the board that John sexually harassed her and the board then took an adverse employment action, I think they'd be in deep weeds. If the Foundation had had more employees, we'd have a much different story.

Echoing Moksha's and the Reverend's comments somewhat, I'm generally curious about the law from your perspective. Scenario A, where a manager or supervisor uses either the promise of promotion or threat of retaliation in order to extract sexual favors from an employee seems clear-cut as a baseline, but what about when it's the other way around? Does the law treat differently a Scenario B, where an employee threatens retaliation (which would obviously be of a different kind) against someone higher in the organization in order to extract sexual favors? What makes Scenario A so egregious is that the subordinate has no remedy outside of a legal process. However, in Scenario B the remedy would be to get the rid of the employee. In Scenario B, is a company allowed to do that? If not, what would be their remedy in the law? Would this be a case of sexual harassment, or would a different set of laws apply?

I understand very the well the problem of the power dynamics here, but based on the text messages, this looks like Scenario B. Whatever the nature of their relationship previous to beginning of the text messages, I do not see how Dehlin was under obligation either to initiate or deepen a sexual relationship. Rosebud clearly wants him to, and he does not wish to. She then makes threats.

[Kishkumen]

I think Utah is an at will employment state, so, generally, an employee can be fired for any reason except as prohibited by law. Because there were fewer than 15 employees, the federal and state employment statutes don't apply. If they had more employees, I think she would have had a legitimate sexual harassment claim under retaliation provisions. I don't think the employer can take any adverse action based solely on the fact that the employee had an affair. Maybe if there was a clear policy it would fly. I don't think offering a lesser position and pressuring her to resign would have helped. And if she had told the board that John sexually harassed her and the board then took an adverse employment action, I think they'd be in deep weeds. If the Foundation had had more employees, we'd have a much different story.

Agreed.

[Kishkumen]

Echoing Moksha's and the Reverend's comments somewhat, I'm generally curious about the law from your perspective. Scenario A, where a manager or supervisor uses either the promise of promotion or threat of retaliation in order to extract sexual favors from an employee seems clear-cut as a baseline, but what about when it's the other way around? Does the law treat differently a Scenario B, where an employee threatens retaliation (which would obviously be of a different kind) against someone higher in the organization in order to extract sexual favors? What makes Scenario A so egregious is that the subordinate has no remedy outside of a legal process. However, in Scenario B the remedy would be to get the rid of the employee. In Scenario B, is a company allowed to do that? If not, what would be their remedy in the law? Would this be a case of sexual harassment, or would a different set of laws apply?

I understand very the well the problem of the power dynamics here, but based on the text messages, this looks like Scenario B. Whatever the nature of their relationship previous to beginning of the text messages, I do not see how Dehlin was under obligation either to initiate or deepen a sexual relationship. Rosebud clearly wants him to, and he does not wish to. She then makes threats.

Her threats, however, come after her firing. It is not clear to me that she ever threatened John until she was out of plays. Until she was asked to resign, she was still hopeful that John would consummate the relationship and she would get what she wanted. When it was clear that she would no longer be in a position where she could pursue John, and she was being left with very little benefit from her efforts on the Open Stories Foundation end, and she was then fired, that is when she pulled out her knife and started demanding that they give her back her Open Stories Foundation goodies.

[Kishkumen]

The problem is the firing after she wouldn't take a reduced position, especially if she had told the board she'd been harassed. That's a no no.

Thank you for the clarity and precision on the legal end.

[Kishkumen]

So, that’s shot, the playing the victim card thing she’s doing. She’s clearly a sociopath who thought she could sleep her way into a financial and social upgrade, a fantasy where she and John would be the Osteens of the ex-Mo scene. That bit about her demanding John sleep with her was just so gross and transparently manipulative. So stupid gross. Blech. Yuck. Gross.

I have to hand it to you, DocCam: you really have a way with words. This is perfectly rendered in accuracy, tone, and rhetoric for this situation.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This whole thing reads like the knock-off version of Michael Chrichton’s novel Disclosure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_(1994_film)

- Doc

[master_dc]

Lem, I would like your insight into the scenario symmachus brought up, where does the sexual harassment issue land when the subordinate is begging for sex from her superior? I believe the situation is more complex then the narrative from the Text messages we have access to. I would imagine the proper action from the superior would be to immediately report the texts to other senior members, and let them handle the future work arrangements?

What a mess this all is, once again, don’t eat where you Sh!t