Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

Is there any place where she actually directly blames John for her franchise disaster? I thought it seems more loose, like "I had to get a job, since I unfairly lost my job and this disaster never would have happened if I hadn't unfairly lost my job...."

It wasn’t clear. So much of what she has said hasn’t been. On Facebook she wrote that problems with her name were the reason she went with a franchise and this was John’s fault somehow. I refuse to connect the dots for her.

[Esme]

I also don't get why she thinks JD wants to attach her name to him forever as some way to destroy her. I think the LAST thing John wants is for her name to be attached to his forever.

But I can get why it's upsetting for her to see that the top Google results for her name are "Rosebud John Dehlin affair" while his top results are his many projects.

If his and her names are attached forever, it seems to negatively affect her much more than him.

[Lem]

No, I don't believe that sexual harassment needs to be an unfortunate but necessary "part of joining a startup."

Neither do I. But the law does seem pretty clear that those who mix romance with work in a startup environment do so entirely at their own risk. Both parties.

As I understand it, Dehlin had been podcasting for 6 years when Rosebud joined first as a volunteer and later paid, for a total of less than a year.

Your article points out that small firms bear a disproportionate burden in learning the intricacies of sexual harassment, which I agree is burdensome. But we are discussing a (then) six year old non-profit, with the ability to have a full board making decisions in this arena. Such decisions for non-profits have been spelled out quite clearly for a very long time, so the excuse that the firm is too small to put in the effort is not relevant, in my opinion.

Technically, yes, Rosebud was unable to bring a case. That does not obviate the conclusion that sexual harassment occurred, a conclusion the board also came to, based on the sexual harassment policy they formed later.

[Dr Moore]

Another suggestive data point is her fight with the franchiser she got involved with. She broke the contract because she claimed they were doing business illegally. Now she owes them over a quarter mill, but she writes a book about it and blames the whole thing on JD. Fits the pattern quite well.

Is there any place where she actually directly blames John for her franchise disaster? I thought it seems more loose, like "I had to get a job, since I unfairly lost my job and this disaster never would have happened if I hadn't unfairly lost my job...."

She is doing Facebook fund raisers and noting personal bankruptcy based on this failed franchise venture as the reason to donate directly to her kids' educations, rather than to her directly.

Evidently the judgment against her endures through bankruptcy court for some amount time, in case she gets a job or comes into money. I'm gathering she is staying with someone and not working, waiting out the clock to avoid wage garnishment. One can't help but note the timing of all this resurgence in Rosebud sympathy. Personal bankruptcy. Raising money for kids to attend school. Definitely feels like a desperation move. It must be horrible to be in her position right now. But, I can think of more constructive desperation moves. I guess she feels this is the most likely to lead to a cash prize, but sadly I think she's hitting strike three on nascent money-making ventures.

[master_dc]

Another suggestive data point is her fight with the franchiser she got involved with. She broke the contract because she claimed they were doing business illegally. Now she owes them over a quarter mill, but she writes a book about it and blames the whole thing on JD. Fits the pattern quite well.

Is there any place where she actually directly blames John for her franchise disaster? I thought it seems more loose, like "I had to get a job, since I unfairly lost my job and this disaster never would have happened if I hadn't unfairly lost my job...."

She mentions it in her interview, but it was a convoluted mess, hard to track what she was saying. She mentioned she was able to identify the scam because of her time with JD, and how he liked to record people when they didn’t know and use it as leverage

[Dr Moore]

Technically, yes, Rosebud was unable to bring a case. That does not obviate the conclusion that sexual harassment occurred, a conclusion the board also came to, based on the sexual harassment policy they formed later.

Fair enough. It's all in the definition of the phrase and I think you make a compelling case that she experienced harm from the affair, that the affair is disproportionately John's fault (whether 51% or 99%, doesn't matter). And even so, it's all revisionist history for her to come forward now and ask for a payday. I think once the consensual affair did its damage and was over, John did what he had to in order to survive. The board acted as best it could within legal boundaries. And Rosebud got a donut. Sucks. But there is nothing left to do for her, for John, or for the Open Stories Foundation board. It's over and done. No winners. I wish Rosebud had someone among her sympathizers who could give better advice and save her from herself at this point.

[Lem]

...It's over and done. No winners. I wish Rosebud had someone among her sympathizers who could give better advice and save her from herself at this point.

no argument there.

[Dr Moore]

Well thanks, Dr. Moore. You have once again done Cassius University proud in your research on Rosebud’s baseless and meritless accusations against JD. Hopefully she learns not to use sexual harassment claims cynically for the purposes of grifting money and pursuing a vendetta. But who knows? Maybe she is raking in the donations and all of us are fools for our concern.

You are too kind, reverend. My small corner basement of Cassius is but a playpen to explore the heartlessness of capitalism mingled with the philosophies of menschen.

[Kishkumen]

Fair enough. It's all in the definition of the phrase and I think you make a compelling case that she experienced harm from the affair, that the affair is disproportionately John's fault (whether 51% or 99%, doesn't matter). And even so, it's all revisionist history for her to come forward now and ask for a payday. I think once the consensual affair did its damage and was over, John did what he had to in order to survive. The board acted as best it could within legal boundaries. And Rosebud got a donut. Sucks. But there is nothing left to do for her, for John, or for the Open Stories Foundation board. It's over and done. No winners. I wish Rosebud had someone among her sympathizers who could give better advice and save her from herself at this point.

Something tells me that the JD Hate Brigade is not going to be a good source of wisdom on this.

[Dr Exiled]

So sexual harassment can take place only within a work environment?

Counsellor, isn't there a legal definition of "sexual harassment" which specifically applies to workplace environments? That would be the operative definition for this thread, would it not?

And then only from the top down?

The bar is much lower for top-down, and most companies have a written policy proscribing ANY relations between a manager and a subordinate, no matter how many levels down that subordinate may be.

But this "bar" does not apply to companies under 15 employees, unless those companies have a sexual harassment policy in place. Open Stories Foundation did not.

Here is a district court case out of Utah that ruled that even though there might have been sexual harassment in the workplace, the employee was fired for legitimate reasons (poor performance). Bowen v. Valley Camp of Utah, Inc., 639 F. Supp. 1199 (D. Utah 1986). In it, the Court cites the definition of sexual harassment as "[a]ctivity which constitutes sexual harassment includes "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and often verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature." Quoting 29 C.F.R. 1604.11(a) (1985).

I think your second point is salient. The law doesn't automatically hold employers liable if there is a power differential and a consensual relationship between consenting managers/employees. However, as relationship break-ups can be messy and divorces as well, some companies don't want to risk the problems and have a no tolerance policy.