Hello monkeys,
Read an article on Bloomberg with a similar title as this thread: It’s Probably Not Okay to Send Naked Pictures on LinkedIn
Thought it was funny enough to share with you monkeys:
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday night in Los Angeles, a mid-level financial industry professional identified only as Jane Doe alleged that a recruitment conversation on LinkedIn took a turn for the inappropriate when she received sexual messages from a banker—using his corporate account—who had been trying to recruit her. One of the messages included a photograph of his genitals.Doe argues that an employer is responsible for employee behavior on the platform. LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace, similar to going into the office or attending a corporate networking event, the theory of the case goes. If you wouldn’t flirt on a conference call, don’t do it on LinkedIn. If you do, you and your company could pay the price.
Here's the story:
From December 2015 and March of this year, Doe, who works for a Fortune 500 company in California, and [name redacted], identified in the complaint as a managing director at SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Inc., a unit of SunTrust Banks Inc., exchanged several dozen messages.The two met when Doe, at a previous employer, worked on a deal that involved [name's] company, Doe said in an interview. Name initially messaged Doe about potential job opportunities. When Doe expressed interest in hearing more, the messages shifted from professional, she alleged. “So what are you doing up so late?! Here’s my number if you wanna play,” wrote Name, according to court filings.
He later added that it could be a “late night secret” before sending a graphic photograph, she alleged. After Doe didn’t reply, he wrote “Ugh, I guess I screwed up :( bummer dude.”
Some questions pop to my mind:
- Do you really think that the company should be held liable for the employee's act?
- Any other funny (yet inappropriate) things like this that have happened at your workplace?
- For women specifically: Have you ever been treated inappropriately through LinkedIn? What did you do?
10/10 do NOT send nudes on LI, that's what snapchat is for
Agreed
Snapchat is being used to send pictures of cute kittens and coffee cups. Not sure how said things fit in with Snapchat's original purpose.
Yeah...this dude is probably going to be labeled as a sex offender from now on. SMH, idiot!
Agreed :)
Another "weiner" gone wild, oh come on.
People are incredibly awkward
I am curious if the perpetrator here would be perceived the same way if the genders were reversed...
No, the company should not fucking be held liable for his behavior. The fact that this is even a question in anyone's mind is reflective of the pathetic state of things.
The guy is a moron, he should be held liable for his own behavior. How is the company in any way, shape, or form responsible for any of these messages?
If the conversation really progressed that way, he's not too good at his game - who the hell responds to "why are you up so late" with a naked picture. What an idiot.
I'm sure he'll be fired and disgraced for life now, which I think is punishment enough.
FratLord Was this you?
My game is nowhere near that shitty.
"It's not okay to send nudes on LinkedIn"
Lmao
With the way LinkedIN is transforming into Facebook it was only a matter of time before this happened. The idea that SunTrust should be liable for this beta sending a dick pic is absurd though.
I'm genuinely curious about the law (civil law I guess) on this one. Is it actually ILLEGAL sexual harassment to sexually harass someone outside of the office who is not a fellow employee or a subordinate? At a bar, for example, you can say all the lewd, repulsive things you want and there are no legal ramifications to that.
pretty sure it became illegal sexual harassment once he sent that pic
I think that with the picture, there's now actual, concrete evidence that can be used against him in court. So there's that
Yeah, but the larger question is, is sexual harassment in itself illegal or is the context of the sexual harassment what makes something illegal, i.e. at the office place? To my example, I've never heard of someone being sued for sexual harassment for lewd comments at a bar or at the grocery store. Another example about context--you can discriminate against Hispanics by refusing to be their friend in your personal life, but you can't refuse to employ Hispanics because of their race.
Shiiiiit. I was not aware of this rule. It won't happen again, I promise!
How's SunTrust these days?
Shouldn't you be saying something like this: We need to UPEND and DISRUPT how we think of LinkedIN by posting nothing but DICK PICS!!!
Do I think the company should be held responsible, no, but I am not a lawyer/victim looking for an out of court settlement.
I worked with a guy that sent a dick pic to a coworker and myself. Why this seemingly straight man felt the need to send a pic of his cock to two male coworkers is still a mystery. Up until this point I liked the guy, after that it was a little weird. Ultimately, the guy was cut.
Yeah I am still curious if this would be considered sexual harassment if this were done by a girl. Equality?
If you can prove injury, I would say yes. A guy might have trouble proving exactly how traumatic the experience was though.
I would love to see a case like this go to court only to have the guy's web search records get subpoenaed to prove he looks at naked pictures of women on his computer all the time and therefore was not traumatized.
This is not a good line of reasoning - by your very logic anyone that's seen naked people before has been desensitized and can't possibly be harassed - so you'd have a hard time proving actual injury in any case whatsoever.
Also, I'm going to have to argue that "injury" in this case would have to be extremely loosely defined...I'm not a big fan of calling an unwanted naked picture "traumatizing" unless we're talking about Rosie O'Donnell.
Why would looking at a naked women for a man be great and looking at a naked man for a woman be traumatizing. Women at least say they are attracted to men...
Australians don't have sex, they mate
+1 SB, nice one there :-)
This dude was representing the company on LinkedIn and seemingly having a hiring conversation (at first). Whether or not he's on company property at the time is irrelevant. Company should be held liable if they don't dish some repercussions on the employee in question, once they are made aware of the incident. Kind of a no brainer IMHO. If he did the same thing to a random girl he met at a club with no hiring or firm context, then the company is not liable, though of course it still reflects poorly on the employee
I aced the ethics portion of the CFA by the way. COME AT ME BROS
I agree, I think he's acting as an agent of the company when he's trying to recruit her.
It's definitely a borderline case and I would need more details but that's my impression based on limited information.
As to the bar/grocery store situation, I think it has to do with reasonable expectations. A reasonable person expects to be hit on at a bar. Not so much in a grocery store and definitely not in a business context.
That is my expert legal analysis based on watching a lot of Law & Order.
In what way does holding the company liable change the facts of this case? I'm not interested in what the law says, I'm interested in what logic and rational morality have to say here. The company certainly doesn't condone this behavior, I'm willing to bet you quite a lot of money (any amount you'd like) that they didn't advise him to do this, and I seriously doubt this is part of their standard operating procedure. In addition, I'm not aware of a single large company that doesn't force everyone to take part in mind-numbing, moronic "harassment training" to avoid this exact thing. So I'm not sure what more they could do. Was he representing the company? Sure, in a way. But they have no control over an individual's actions, there is no possible way to construe the facts to make it seem that way either. Holding a company liable for the actions of an employee when they violate every known rule, practice and guideline set forth by the company makes no sense, and it's why our legal system is now out of control - liability is seemingly unlimited now. There is no critical thinking involved, just money-chasing.
Did you read what I wrote? The company should not be liable if they punish the employee after the fact, otherwise they should be. The purpose of the punishment is twofold: 1) dissuade other employees from doing the same, and 2) prove through their actions (empty words are meaningless) that they don't actually condone such behavior
Evidently he's still employed by SRH. Guy must seriously be a big swinging dick...
Soluta nostrum reiciendis est est aut. Et dolores et sunt sed nobis. Eos iure aut velit hic. Qui in et quia eum maiores animi quibusdam non. Aut modi ut magnam quia quod qui. Atque eum sequi dolor voluptas autem.
Omnis dicta tempore aut repellat. Repellat non dolorem asperiores impedit beatae et. Reiciendis recusandae temporibus qui ipsum rerum. Sint assumenda sint accusamus est. Est ut doloribus repellat. Porro eaque aut perspiciatis voluptatem officiis soluta pariatur. Distinctio omnis et rerum vero cum.
Consequatur sit accusamus quaerat. Dignissimos nisi omnis maxime excepturi. Aut qui aperiam nam enim. Quidem quaerat ea nihil et recusandae alias adipisci.
Recusandae consectetur earum odit et molestiae vel. Nihil deleniti ratione alias fugiat molestias recusandae. Eius totam eos occaecati adipisci incidunt assumenda qui.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Facere ut rerum et maiores et. Dolore est qui quo alias ut facilis. Doloremque molestiae est necessitatibus excepturi dolore consequatur eligendi.
Non praesentium deserunt ut architecto sed. Odit natus tempore est temporibus. Consequatur aperiam quasi rerum velit. Earum et iste voluptatem excepturi voluptatem non ut.
Ex sapiente dolorum sunt autem inventore quo incidunt. Non est rerum aliquam occaecati nisi ut incidunt. Provident sint eos ipsa officia.
Incidunt eos officia inventore ipsum. Hic vel est odit corrupti id. Nostrum eos modi velit animi velit vel eos. Magni velit repellendus non. Dolores impedit numquam rem quidem alias delectus cum. Totam ipsa temporibus quis porro. Velit sunt quia reiciendis repudiandae quia eum.