More Follow-ups to the Legal Questions (see posts below)
First from an attorney in Ohio who has a great quote in his signature that reads, "Your tour guide to Ohio's finest correctional accomodations! I can design a stay to meet your deeds!":
I'm not a Catholic employment lawyer, but I am a Catholic prosecutor, so I think I can offer a response that is either realistic,
or cynical, depending on how you view it, since similar situations can come up in a criminal context.
Sure, the writer offers an accurate statement. However, that's assuming the relationship ends well. If it does not, how difficult
might it be to imagine the situation turning nasty and alleging precisely the opposite (i.e. sexual harassment)? That is exactly
why that sort of sexual relationship is a risky affair.
Another offering from the Catholic Employment Lawyer:
After I sent my "legal" e-mail to you, I read the full text of Weakland's letter to Marcoux. I was wrong in agreeing with the "stunned" writer -- I felt very sorry for Weakland and came away believing Marcoux is a golddigger or worse.
Since I'd said in my now-posted e-mail that I agreed with everything else the letter writer said, I figured I'd better let you know for the record that I now agree with you. (Also with Catholic Blog for Lovers)
And From the Original Attorney who Disagreed with Me:
I have a law degree and three peer-reviewed publications on federal antitrust law, and spent 15 years doing little else but
civil litigation of all kinds.
The employment law on "hostile work environment" is not as cut and dried as the poster who criticized me suggests it is.
A corporate employee who is a lawyer and who has the power to write employee reviews of paralegals who report to him, and who carries on a clandestine adulterous affair with an employee he reviews, has created a hostile work environment. When his superiors let it go on despite their knowledge, they have ratified a hostile work environment.
Obviously, the case is more clear and easier to win when the lawyer makes advances on an employee who rejects him, and then she has a less than enthusiastic review next time around.
And you know what happens when a claim like that is asserted and investigated (at least in the context of well-run Fortune 500
corporations with lots to lose)? The perp gets fired or reprimanded, and the complainant gets a settlement, at the price of... a non-disclosure agreement. Where have we also seen that?
In regard to this last comment, I suspect the attorney means the church, except the perp in this case neither is "fired or reprimanded" but given a glowing recommendation--there in lies the problem!