Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

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

A convoluted mess that includes a further dig at JD for his sinister ways. What a surprise!

[Dr Moore]

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.

Totally correct. Look at the recent ouster of Easterbrook as CEO of McDonalds for a contemporary example. He lied about a consensual affair with an employee, a violation of policy since every employee was a subordinate. The affair was a violation, I mean. The lying, well that made it easy to fire and sue.

[Kishkumen]

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.

Well, the heartlessness of capitalism is at the heart of the discussion of Mormonism in all its manifestations. That is why you are crucial to our programs. Looks like no one in this fracas was disinterested in the capitalist angle.

[Kishkumen]

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.

Totally correct. Look at the recent ouster of Easterbrook as CEO of McDonalds for a contemporary example. He lied about a consensual affair with an employee, a violation of policy since every employee was a subordinate. The affair was a violation, I mean. The lying, well that made it easy to fire and sue.

A no-tolerance policy is the way to go. Establish it at the outset and hold to it with an iron grip.

[Dr Moore]

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.

The article considers whether revenue, instead of employee count, might not be a better threshold. While more revenue reduces the relative burden of compliance, the problem is that predicting revenue year-to-year is far less reliable than predicting employee counts. Or so it was deemed in setting Title VII definitions of an "employer."

Since #MeToo, the landscape has fundamentally changed and I bet that is true even for Title VII-exempted small businesses. It's getting better, but still a long ways to go. I think we do have to be careful to avoid presentism on 2012 in this regard. Or else, I would imagine we might have a million cases of sexual harassment to re-adjudicate. (which might be ethically right, but is practically a non starter, unfortunately)

[Lem]

Or else, I would imagine we might have a million cases of sexual harassment to re-adjudicate. (which might be ethically right, but is practically a non starter, unfortunately)

it's been my position all along that there was no way to resolve this after the fact, other than to call it what it is. Open Stories Foundation now has a policy in place that makes it very clear Dehlin's behavior and the Board's non-response then would be considered inappropriate now. That seems to be the most resolution one can expect from this, but it doesn't seem yet that Rosebud agrees with this, so there may still be rounds of this to go, sadly.

[Jersey Girl]

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.

And that is not limited to a start up venture. The thing that I keep coming back to is that they mutually decided to work together when romantic ties were already in place beforehand. I guess that is my main sticking point here and I am not sure how to get past that.

[Jersey Girl]

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.

That right there. I think she viewed Open Stories Foundation as a cash prize and a relationship with JD as her insurance for securing it. Probably sounds horrible of me to say, but that's what I think based on her patterns of behavior. I'm not saying that she wasn't willing to work for Open Stories Foundation because obviously she did. I'm saying that I think she thought she was setting herself up for a future with both Open Stories Foundation and JD. And it blew up in her face. His, too, for that matter.

But what has she spent the last ten years building besides an ongoing case of the butt for JD? Perhaps she has other projects that I know nothing about.

[Esme]

Documentation has all been removed from Rosebud's website, citing redaction errors, including the fact that JD's wife's name was not redacted.

[Jersey Girl]

Have you all ever seen her youtube channel?