Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[dastardly stem]

It's a bit disappointing that Open Stories Foundation decided NOT to implement a ban on work relationships in their new policies after this event. In an ideal world both Dehlin and Rosebud would have been fired under a no-romantic-relationships policy in 2012. John would have had to publicly admit fault, and Open Stories Foundation would be defunct at that point. He could have tried to rebuild his podcast under another name dealing with an audience that knew what he had done.

Sounds like they would have been fired if they didn't agree to resign and get brought back as contractors to fix the issue and move forward to avoid the issue. That seems to be the agreement they each made with Joanna...but it's hard to be sure since we're piecing it together with sporadic text messages. It seems apparent both Anne and John were on board to resign and if they did not, they'd be fired. Anne was voluntarily stepping away, apparently, but allowed to continue her work until she could run off with this circle the wagons stuff.

John was certainly in a superior position because there was no foundation without him. It seems like something was discovered by Anne about the resigning and bringing back as contractors at the last minute that caused her to decide not to go along with it...then they fired her. My guess is she came to the realization this was all a way to keep John and less a way to keep her, but was used to pacify her.

I don't know that John demanding she leave was sexual harassment in that she had agreed to resign by that time, and she was the one, according to the records we have, that was proposing a sexual relationship with him, even after he asked her to stop. If she were a man she would have rightly been fired after the unwanted advances. I guarantee if I sent messages to a woman I worked with proposing sex and she declined and I persisted, I'd be fired and rightly so.

The messages that continued through the end of the year don't support a sexual harassment situation.

Its tough, of course, to be too certain since there were many more texts messages passed back and forth. Some might be incriminating towards John. We'd never know.

I still didn't listen to RFM and Bill's show. I can't see how the guests have much to add. Sounds like they couldn't get much out of Anne in terms of substance. And all that they could really consider was that fed to them by John. And Natasha was only involved after Anne was fired. The later investigation apparently had no new additional information anyway.

I spent way too much time on this. And James is a dick and can't possibly be taken seriously.

[Lem]

I don't know that John demanding she leave was sexual harassment in that she had agreed to resign by that time,

Interesting. Was that in one of the texts? The letter from a lawyer representing the board that asked her to resign was sent end of August, If I recall correctly, so clearly she hadn't resigned prior to that point.

[Dr Exiled]

I spent way too much time on this. And James is a dick and can't possibly be taken seriously.

I spent too much time going down the rosebud rabbit hole too. She knows she will get some interest by making claims but never delivers the goods in the end. I guess "I have a secret" works to a certain extent as far as getting attention. However, her credibility is sacrificed in doing so. She is a cancer that won't go away and her friend James should know better, if it is James all the time. Perhaps his new name should be JBud? or maybe JBroBud?

[Kishkumen]

Sounds like they would have been fired if they didn't agree to resign and get brought back as contractors to fix the issue and move forward to avoid the issue. That seems to be the agreement they each made with Joanna...but it's hard to be sure since we're piecing it together with sporadic text messages. It seems apparent both Anne and John were on board to resign and if they did not, they'd be fired. Anne was voluntarily stepping away, apparently, but allowed to continue her work until she could run off with this circle the wagons stuff.

I don't know that Rosebud ever agreed to resign at any time.

John was certainly in a superior position because there was no foundation without him. It seems like something was discovered by Anne about the resigning and bringing back as contractors at the last minute that caused her to decide not to go along with it...then they fired her. My guess is she came to the realization this was all a way to keep John and less a way to keep her, but was used to pacify her.

First, John was her superior because he was the Executive Director, not just because there was no Open Stories Foundation without him. When he resigned, he resigned from the Executive Director position. This means that when he was carrying on with Rosebud, he was Executive Director of the Open Stories Foundation carrying on with Rosebud.

The other part is intriguing. Was she cooperative regarding the plan to resign together with John until she discovered that the terms of his rehiring as an independent contractor were very lopsidedly favorable to John in a way they obviously were not to her? I think that would make a difference in the perceptions of some of us. It is interesting to think that she was all set to go along with this plan until she felt like she was being robbed of her future opportunities, as she imagined them, while John was coming out getting more money than he had before.

That would certainly make a person very angry.

I don't know that John demanding she leave was sexual harassment in that she had agreed to resign by that time, and she was the one, according to the records we have, that was proposing a sexual relationship with him, even after he asked her to stop. If she were a man she would have rightly been fired after the unwanted advances. I guarantee if I sent messages to a woman I worked with proposing sex and she declined and I persisted, I'd be fired and rightly so.

But you are assuming she had agreed to resign. You have no evidence of that. Or am I mistaken? Any attempt to pressure her into resigning and certainly the act of terminating her employment would have been actionable had Open Stories Foundation been a larger organization. It would not matter necessarily that she was the one trying to get him into bed. Your hypothetical is interesting, but does it include you both being in a consensual relationship up to that point?

One of the problems one runs into in these situations is that the law is always a blunt instrument that is brought to situations that defy easy categorization. We can talk about what was legal and what was right, and the two do not always correspond very well. John could be in a consensual relationship with Rosebud and it would not necessarily be sexual harassment, but he certainly could not pressure her to resign or collude in firing her and have it not be ethically wrong. Had the Open Stories Foundation had more employees at the time, John would have been in hot water. And I think he should have been.

The messages that continued through the end of the year don't support a sexual harassment situation.

To the end of 2012? Which messages are those? I have focused so much on the threat of October 27th that I have missed any discussion of later communications that do what you claim.

Its tough, of course, to be too certain since there were many more texts messages passed back and forth. Some might be incriminating towards John. We'd never know.

If Rosebud unleashes James, and they are not bluffing, we may know.

And James is a dick and can't possibly be taken seriously.

James obviously hates Dehlin at this point. Maybe if we had been in his position we would too. Would you want to work with John? I sure as hell would not. I mean, I am fine listening to his podcast and interacting with him casually, but there is no way in hell that I would be employed in the same workplace as him with him in any position of power. He is way too volatile and unprofessional. Can we forgive James for making a rookie mistake in a new world of internet influencers? I am inclined to. He is behaving like a prick here, but that is because he is so obsessed with his righteousness as a white knight hero saving everyone from John.

[Res Ipsa]

I spent way too much time on this. And James is a dick and can't possibly be taken seriously.

I spent too much time going down the rosebud rabbit hole too. She knows she will get some interest by making claims but never delivers the goods in the end. I guess "I have a secret" works to a certain extent as far as getting attention. However, her credibility is sacrificed in doing so. She is a cancer that won't go away and her friend James should know better, if it is James all the time. Perhaps his new name should be JBud? or maybe JBroBud?

Yeah, me too. It's tough not to look at a train wreck.

[Lem]

I spent way too much time on this. And James is a dick and can't possibly be taken seriously.

I spent too much time going down the rosebud rabbit hole too. She knows she will get some interest by making claims but never delivers the goods in the end. I guess "I have a secret" works to a certain extent as far as getting attention. However, her credibility is sacrificed in doing so. She is a cancer that won't go away and her friend James should know better, if it is James all the time. Perhaps his new name should be JBud? or maybe JBroBud?

I agree Rosebud, including all her permutations, are thoroughly unreliable. But the text messages documented in this thread apparently show a superior telling a subordinate he wants her 'gone' due to his romantic entanglement with her. That abuse of power is sexual harassment no matter how unsavory anyone finds the victim, and that conclusion does not depend in any way on her flaky recitations, but only on Dehlin's texts. Again, I think it's probably too late to do anything about it, including legally, because Open Stories Foundation is too small an outfit to be held responsible. Even though the victim is so easy to disparage, that doesn't mean we shouldn't look carefully at what Dehlin did.

[dastardly stem]

I don't know that John demanding she leave was sexual harassment in that she had agreed to resign by that time,

Interesting. Was that in one of the texts? The letter from a lawyer representing the board that asked her to resign was sent end of August, If I recall correctly, so clearly she hadn't resigned prior to that point.

Here's my reading. On August 9 they had some text discussion which is when Anne gave some last pushes for sex. John has already declined and ends that day of texts trying to clarify he wants no business with her and wants to set up clear boundaries with work. That happens to be the day they also indicated John went to Joanna. By August 11 the text strings make clear each have had a conversation with Joanna.

Anne says: "Joanna will talk to you. 2 things: 1)you never contact me or me you, 2) I help with the transition and then go away. So maybe one last phone conversation if you want. otherwise, that's it. She will call to talk to you."

John responds: "Is that your decision or her?"

On Augutst 26th--long string of her talking to herself:

Anne: "And for what it's worth, she (Joanna) didn't do a thorough investigation. The negative behaviors I texted her about were <blacked out>, not yours (John's). There was not a name attached with...."

The texts seem a little spotty in that there could be others interspersed that John took out because they look bad on him. But its hard to say. Text conversations can come off broken since they are often accompanied by other forms of communication.

[Lem]

Interesting. Was that in one of the texts? The letter from a lawyer representing the board that asked her to resign was sent end of August, If I recall correctly, so clearly she hadn't resigned prior to that point.

Here's my reading. On August 9 they had some text discussion which is when Anne gave some last pushes for sex. John has already declined and ends that day of texts trying to clarify he wants no business with her and wants to set up clear boundaries with work.

i appreciate your reading, but to me, his Aug. 9th texts go far beyond setting boundaries with work.

John: I want to be clear about something. This isn't because you said something that hurt my feelings today. It is because I've believed for over a year that working together would hurt you, me, and our families. And it has.

John: It's been beautiful, and harmful. And it's harming me now. And I believe it's harming you and our families now. And I really, sincerely want/need us to stop working together.

John: I hope you can understand. It's not because I'm ungrateful for all you've done.

John: It's because this is hurting me. And I believe it's hurting us. And definitely our families. Please, please go. Please don't make me keep asking. Please just go this time. For good. Please.

And then, a couple of weeks later, a lawyer representing the Open Stories Foundation board informs her she has been terminated. Around the same time, If I recall correctly, Dehlin is artificially let go and re-hired.

Obviously we don't have every single text, but Dehlin's communications seem very clear. He wants a subordinate to leave her job because of a romantic relationship he had with her.

[Aristotle Smith]

--

[Res Ipsa]

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.

Ah, thank you for that clarification. It helps me to clarify my question. Lem's comments about the power dynamics are instructive, but I'm just wondering if they apply in this situation, and especially which side of that power dynamic the law is weighted towards. Is it still sexual harassment if the pressure to initiate/continue a sexual relationship is not coming from the one with power to fire/remove but rather from someone lower in the organizations hierarchy? What, in short, was the Open Stories Foundation supposed to do here in terms of the law?

I think that what Open Stories Foundation did was legal because it had only two employees. The text of the statute is not limited to supervisors who harass an employee over whom they have authority. The statute itself doesn't mention the power dynamic issue, but it may be used in the case law that applies the statute. As a practical matter, I think that it's much easier for the employee in the subordinate position to convince a jury that the sexual contact was not consensual.

If the harassment/non-discrimination laws did apply, the person in the supervisory position would have a tough time with a "quid pro quo" harassment case, because the subordinate employee has no ability to affect the employment circumstances of the supervisor. However, the employer (the Foundation) also has a duty to provide a non-hostile work environment. So, the supervisor could report the harassment to the employer (in this case, the Board). The employer would then need to investigate and determine whether the supervisor was being harassed. If so, the subordinate employee could be directed to stop. If the behavior doesn't stop, the subordinate employee could be determinate. But the employer better document the hell out of its investigation and any action that affects the subordinate employee's employment terms or status. And if the employer has written policies in place, it needs to follow its policies.

So, if the harassment/discrimination laws applied, Open Stories Foundation should have a written policy on sexual harassment that sets out the rules and the procedures to follow. The rules need to comply with the statutes, and have to be followed when a complaint is made. The policy can be stricter than the statutes. So, making supervisor-subordinate relationships a fireable offense for the supervisor sounds like good protection for the employer.

Just spitballing now, but directors have fiduciary duties to the organization. That is, they can't put their own interests ahead of the organization. I think John should have informed the other Board members as soon as the relationship started and resigned from the Board. Even then, given the actual power relationships involved, it would be hard for the Board to argue that John wouldn't have been in a position to affect Rosebud's terms of employment.