Anonymous ID: ff0fb6 June 15, 2021, 6:37 a.m. No.13908650   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>8675 >>8698

 

Did a federal judge just lay the groundwork to legalize sexual harassment? It sure looks that way.

 

The following op-ed is written by a retired Chief of Police and current contributing writer to Law Enforcement Today.

 

HOUSTON, TX- In a scathing dismissal of a lawsuit brought forth by employees of a Houston hospital who are required to get the still-experimental COVID-19 shot, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes may have set the stage to actually permit sexual harassment. More on that shortly.

 

Law Enforcement Today Menu

Developing Story

Did a federal judge just lay the groundwork to legalize sexual harassment? It sure looks that way. (Op-ed)

Posted by: Pat Droney|June 14, 2021 |CategoriesEditorial, Featured, Must Reads

Share:

The following op-ed is written by a retired Chief of Police and current contributing writer to Law Enforcement Today.

 

—

 

HOUSTON, TX- In a scathing dismissal of a lawsuit brought forth by employees of a Houston hospital who are required to get the still-experimental COVID-19 shot, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes may have set the stage to actually permit sexual harassment. More on that shortly.

 

Last week, the Houston Methodist Hospital system suspended 178 employees without pay for refusing to get the shot. Out of that number, 117 sued seeking to overturn the mandate and also over their suspension and threatened termination.

 

Hughes deemed lead plaintiff Jennifer Bridges’ contention that the vaccines are “experimental and dangerous” (they are) to be false and irrelevant, as reported in Headlines USA and other outlets, including the Baltimore Sun.

 

In her suit, Bridges’ attorneys had compared the vaccination requirement to forced medical experiments conducted by the Nazis on concentration camp detainees during the Holocaust, a claim which Hughes called “reprehensible.”

 

Moreover, he dismissed the contention that requiring vaccinations as a condition of employment was coercion, as Bridges had claimed.

 

The following is where, in our opinion, Hughes goes off the rails and actually sets the stage for legalization of sexual harassment.

 

“Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else. If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired. [emphasis added]

 

“Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for renumeration. That is all part of the bargain,” Hughes wrote.

 

A male manager tells a female employee that she must dress a certain way (let’s say wear short skirts) in exchange for an increase in pay. Based on Hughes’ ruling, that would appear to be permitted. And if the female employee refused? Hughes’ ruling says that by refusing the manager’s “other directive,” the worker could be fired. Does this ruling now legalize sexual harassment? It would seem that a savvy lawyer might be able to make the argument.

 

How about another scenario? A company owner has a policy that all female employees have to be between 5’2 and 5’6” and weigh between 105 and 115 pounds as a condition of employment. No such requirements as far as height/weight apply to male employees. There is no legitimate reason for such a height/weight requirement other than the owner wants his female employees to have “a certain look.”

 

The owner noted that one of his female employees has “packed on” a little bit of weight. He directs his HR manager to tell the female employee to lose weight or she’ll be terminated. Yet another case of a company’s “other directive” Hughes said is permissible as a condition of employment.

 

Absurd? Perhaps. But read Hughes’ ruling again. He makes no differentiation between an employer requiring a COVID shot as a condition of employment and “other directives” as a condition of employment. “Other directives” is pretty vague and open-ended.

 

Did Hughes just in essence legalize sexual harassment? That may be for another court to decide at some point.

 

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/federal-judge-in-houston/?