Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Lem]

Lem,

Exactly. Let’s think of it this way. What would’ve happened had John Dehlin acted in a professional manner?

That’s the bottom line.

- Doc

Good point. Let's assume Dehlin acts professionally. Either 1) he doesn't send the first inappropriate text to Rosebud, or 2) he receives an inappropriate text from Rosebud, reports it, and has no further contact. The Board handles it. End of story.

[Tavares Standfield]

Tavares, old friend. You have been missed!

Reverend -- it is good to be back. As I mentioned on the old board, I was called to serve and have done so with honor. Now it is time to return to normal life but I will always promote John, Mormon Stories, and all of the good work they continue to do.

[Dr Exiled]

Do you think Rosebud is responsible for continuing to pursue JD after he asked to have it stop?

Absolutely. Her behavior was abominable. Reading her texts was shocking.

It does not change the apparent situation that after engaging in a romantic and/or sexual relationship, in an attempt to end it a superior arranged for a subordinate to lose their job.

These scenarios of whether the victim's actions mitigate the claim of sexual harassment mimic almost exactly several of the scenarios we had to go through in our most recent module on sexual harassment. Every single time, the simple answer was "sexual harassment is wrong, regardless of the victim's behavior."

There is an "unwanted" component to it, allowing for consensual banter under law. However, company/organization policy can alter the landscape and maybe this is what you are talking about, perhaps a no tolerance company/organization policy for your work?

In our case, the two love birds consented and then JD backed off when Rosebud wanted more. Nevertheless, if Open Stories Foundation could prove that Rosebud kept pursuing the relationship when JD wanted it stopped, that could be cause to terminate Rosebud regardless of the power dynamic. She doesn't get a free pass just because a more powerful person was involved, unless company policy has a no tolerance policy and most do. Open Stories Foundation didn't.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks for the welcome. I think.

I got lucky because I looked at the statute to see if the limit was there. Otherwise, I’d have probably missed it too.

Does a common law wrongful termination in Utah have to be based on breach of contract or statute or violation of public policy? I’ve never gotten into the weeds in this area of law.

I don't practice in Utah but looked up a Utah SC case. It said, basically, that one can hire or fire except if it is against law and public policy violations are against law. There is a prima facie case that has to be made by the plaintiff and then the defendant can rebut. Assuming sexual misconduct fits into the public policy box (I didn't look to see if it did but is does in Nevada where I am), Open Stories Foundation could use what we have to show that Rosebud was the pursuer for control purposes and that would be pretty good evidence to rebut her prima facie case, assuming she could make one.

Sorry, for some reason I thought you were in Utah. That makes sense. I think we in Washington have the same public policy exception, but the statute is the public policy.

[Lem]

Absolutely. Her behavior was abominable. Reading her texts was shocking.

It does not change the apparent situation that after engaging in a romantic and/or sexual relationship, in an attempt to end it a superior arranged for a subordinate to lose their job.

These scenarios of whether the victim's actions mitigate the claim of sexual harassment mimic almost exactly several of the scenarios we had to go through in our most recent module on sexual harassment. Every single time, the simple answer was "sexual harassment is wrong, regardless of the victim's behavior."

There is an "unwanted" component to it, allowing for consensual banter under law. However, company/organization policy can alter the landscape and maybe this is what you are talking about, perhaps a no tolerance company/organization policy for your work?

In our case, the two love birds consented and then JD backed off when Rosebud wanted more. Nevertheless, if Open Stories Foundation could prove that Rosebud kept pursuing the relationship when JD wanted it stopped, that could be cause to terminate Rosebud regardless of the power dynamic. She doesn't get a free pass just because a more powerful person was involved, unless company policy has a no tolerance policy and most do. Open Stories Foundation didn't.

Yes, good point. It seems however that Dehlin's way to "back off when Rosebud wanted more" was to arrange for his subordinate to be fired. I understand Open Stories Foundation didn't have a no tolerance policy in place, unfortunately.

She doesn't get a free pass just because a more powerful person was involved, unless company policy has a no tolerance policy

Interesting take. I understand your point, but calling it a "free pass" when a subordinate is protected from someone more powerful misses the point of the negative impact power dynamics can have.

[Maureen]

"I've believed for over a year that working together would hurt you, me, and our families."

Really? Then how did Rosebud come to be hired less than a year ago? Was John, Executive Director of Open Stories Foundation, not involved in that decision? Unbelievable. And so he hires someone knowing that their relationship is dangerous? Is he being honest here? Is he lying to himself? Or did he really allow her to be hired knowing this would be a problem?

From what I remember with Mormonism Live is that Natasha mentioned that Anne (Rosebud) worked as a volunteer but because she was putting in a lot of hours the decision was made to give her a wage, so therefore she became an employee.

M.

[Kishkumen]

From what I remember with Mormonism Live is that Natasha mentioned that Anne (Rosebud) worked as a volunteer but because she was putting in a lot of hours the decision was made to give her a wage, so therefore she became an employee.

M.

Thank you, Maureen. Yes, it is true that she started out as a volunteer who was offered a job because of her unusual dedication and competence. That seems to have been around January of 2012. John says, however, that he knew he and Rosebud would be having problems a full year before late July of 2012. So, he seems not to have done anything to keep her from being hired—that we know of. Did he want her hired? Did he ever object to her hire? His actions and intentions in regard to her hiring matter if he did truly anticipate problems between them months before she was hired.

[The Stig]

Interesting take. I understand your point, but calling it a "free pass" when a subordinate is protected from someone more powerful misses the point of the negative impact power dynamics can have.

I understand the bright-line test, here, and I don't disagree with you. That being said, it's not clear to me that she considered herself a subordinate. If she believed herself (and conducted herself as) a peer, would that change the dynamic and the conclusion of sexual harassment, in your mind?

[Dr Moore]

Interesting take. I understand your point, but calling it a "free pass" when a subordinate is protected from someone more powerful misses the point of the negative impact power dynamics can have.

I understand the bright-line test, here, and I don't disagree with you. That being said, it's not clear to me that she considered herself a subordinate. If she believed herself (and conducted herself as) a peer, would that change the dynamic and the conclusion of sexual harassment, in your mind?

This could be a key point. Her texts and emails seem to envision a sort of entrepreneurial partnership, at the core. It may have started out that way, in fact. Small companies almost always require partners to wear different hats. Some of those hats may seem bigger than others, but that doesn't mean superior-subordinate power structures apply day-to-day. I don't know whether that's applicable in this situation, but it does seem clear that JD had his individual contributor domain (podcast) separate and apart from Rosebud's (gatherings).

[Lem]

Interesting take. I understand your point, but calling it a "free pass" when a subordinate is protected from someone more powerful misses the point of the negative impact power dynamics can have.

I understand the bright-line test, here, and I don't disagree with you. That being said, it's not clear to me that she considered herself a subordinate. If she believed herself (and conducted herself as) a peer, would that change the dynamic and the conclusion of sexual harassment, in your mind?

Of course I don't know all the details, but in that hypothetical, I would say no. Rosebud is not really a credible source. Her opinion of herself, in that context, is irrelevant to the situation.

Don't get me wrong, I think she was unprofessional and behaved inappropriately, and continues to do so to this day. And I don't rule out that people can be duped by the 'crazy,' and find themselves in a very bad situation.

BUT, since the topic here is the allegations against Dehlin, i am focusing on that. I am ONLY basing my opinion about sexual harassment on the texts I have read that Dehlin posted. It is a harsh position, I understand, but I think the key point here is to assign the responsibility to the superior who improperly influenced a subordinate's employment because of an improper relationship they had.