ReportWire

Tag: harassment

  • Does Light Consist of “Object[s]”?

    [ad_1]

    In HAC v. ER, decided in August by the Michigan Court of Appeals (Judges Sima Patel, Michael Riordan, and Brock Swartzle), petitioner had tried to get personal protection orders against his neighbors; the trial court rejected petitioner’s claims, and the court of appeals affirmed.

    Under the relevant Michigan law, such orders are generally issued when there’s a finding of “stalking,” which is defined as “continuing harassment,” which in turn covers certain kinds of “continuing unconsented contact.” Unconsented conduct is defined to include, among other things, “Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual.”

    Petitioner alleged various incidents of alleged harassment; the court mostly concluded that he hadn’t introduced enough evidence supporting each, but the analysis as to one category of incidents struck me as more legally interesting:

    [T]he petition against ER [also] alleged that respondents “installed powerful spot lights that are aimed [at] [petitioner’s] house,” causing petitioner to “[b]lack out my windows so [he] can [s]leep.” In his petition against AR, petitioner alleged that the spot lights “are aimed at [his] house.” Petitioner testified that the exterior flood lights have shined on his home for the past five or six months before he filed the petitions. Specifically, the flood lights shine toward the windows of his home during the nighttime, or “[a]ll night, from dark.” On at least one occasion, petitioner texted respondents to cease shining the lights toward his home. On another occasion, petitioner asked them in-person to “direct [the lights] away from [his] house.”

    At an unknown time and date, a “zoning officer” visited petitioner’s house after petitioner complained that respondents were violating the lighting ordinance. Petitioner stated that the lights were still shining on his home as of the night of February 22, 2024. Several photographs were admitted into evidence, which showed the lights at respondents’ house, how the lights shine on petitioner’s home, and poster board and cardboard covering petitioner’s windows….

    [P]etitioner contends that the light from respondents’ flood lights “consist[s] of ‘packets of energy’ which, while different in kind than a physical object, is no less an ‘object’ than any other object.” However, except for providing one dictionary definition of “light,” petitioner offers no other authority or rationale in support of this argument, so we consider it abandoned. In any event, we agree with the trial court that such allegations, if true, might constitute some type of “ordinance violations” but do not necessarily rise to the level of requiring a PPO….

    The key here, I think, isn’t that light isn’t an object as a matter of physics; rather, it’s not an object as a matter of law.

    Say petitioner was upset at his neighbors barbecuing meat, and even claims that they are deliberately doing it to upset him. Smells certainly do stem from objects in the physical sense: If I smell something, it’s because molecules from that thing reach the inside of my nose. Molecules from the barbecue therefore end up on the neighbor’s property, and the barbecuers surely know that this will happen (and might even intend it).

    But that doesn’t count as trespass, and it wouldn’t count for purposes of the protective order, either. On the other hand, if a tree on my land­—a macroscopic feature rather than a microscopic one­—grows over my neighbor’s property, that is a trespass. The law draws a distinction here on the basis of practical and intuitive distinctions, not based on scientific ones.

    If the smell unreasonably interferes with my neighbor’s use or enjoyment of his property, it can be a nuisance­—barbecuing probably won’t be seen as unreasonable interference, though running a pig farm might­—lighting that unreasonably interferes with a neighbor’s use or enjoyment of his property can be a nuisance as well. But nuisance a separate tort, which requires a showing of unreasonable interference rather than mere physical presence. And, unlike placing an object on a neighbor’s property, it probably wouldn’t count as “continuing unconsented contact” for purposes of the statute.

    [ad_2]

    Eugene Volokh

    Source link

  • Where is Trump’s concern for conditions in federal detention centers? (Letters)

    [ad_1]

    Trump administration’s concern for Colorado inmates contradicts actions

    Re: “DOJ investigating state’s prisons,” Dec. 9 news story

    I read with great interest that President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice is “investigating whether Colorado prisons are violating the constitutional rights of the state’s adult inmates and youth detainees through excessive force, inadequate medical care and nutrition …”

    I find it fascinating and ironic that this same DOJ has chronically overlooked similar issues in regard to the handling of the migrants who have been systematically grabbed without warrants, and imprisoned without due process in facilities that have been documented as being overpopulated, unsanitary, and with inadequate nutrition or medical care. I’ve only heard of a few, if any, interventions to undo these chronic civil rights violations.

    David Thomas, Denver

    Name-calling sign of the president’s immaturity

    Re: “Federal court denies latest request to leave prison,” Dec. 9 news story

    In the article, President Donald Trump refers to Colorado Gov. Jared Polis as a “sleazebag.” Trump seems to have numerous undesirable traits, but one of his favorites seems to be derogatory name-calling. He seems to have a less-than-complimentary name for anyone who is not loyal to him, anyone he disagrees with, such as journalists, etc. According to artificial intelligence, this form of name-calling is most prevalent among children, which seems to fall in line with his level of maturity, sophistication and intelligence!

    Steve Nash, Centennial

    The 11-2 Broncos are an underdog?

    Further proof that the NFL/Vegas betting has no respect for the Broncos. The Broncos currently own the number one seed in the AFC, have not lost at home this year, and are on a 10-game winning streak. Still, Denver is the underdog in next week’s home game against Green Bay.

    Leroy M. Martinez, Denver

    Senator’s tragic death reminds us to do good in our lives

    Re: “State Sen. Winter killed in I-25 crash,” Nov. 28 news story

    Life can change within a second. The entire trajectory of someone’s future can be altered in the blink of an eye. I would’ve never believed that the section of the highway, Interstate 25, I travel on so often, the one that blurs by in a moment, could ever be remembered as something so tragic. That highway is now a distressing symbol of how life is a gift and can be snatched away at any random moment.

    Recently, two accidents occurred on the northbound I-25 near Dry Creek. Faith Winter, a Colorado senator, was killed, and three others were injured. However, it is important to remember Sen. Winter not the way she passed but how she lived.

    Reporter Katie Langford reminded us about how Sen. Winter fought to make Colorado a better place her entire life. She strongly advocated for and brought paid family leave to the state of Colorado, passed an important transportation bill to improve roads and public transportation, and fought against workplace sexual harassment, making impactful changes wherever she went.

    Sen. Winter made history and brought positive changes to many Coloradans and she will be honored and remembered in our hearts for years to come.

    Life is so short and unpredictable. Those who realize the importance of living each day like it’s your last and doing good in the world never really pass away. They live in everyone’s hearts, and the memory of them lasts for a lifetime.

    Swatiswagatika Nayak, Castle Pines

    Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

    To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

    [ad_2]

    DP Opinion

    Source link

  • South Lake Tahoe mayor resigns after church embezzlement admission

    [ad_1]

    Tamara Wallace has resigned as the mayor of South Lake Tahoe after her recent admission that she stole money from a church where she worked as an administrator.In a letter to local media earlier this month that included the confession, Wallace said she had been recovering from a suicide attempt and reflecting on the traumatic experiences in her life. She said she aimed to pay back “every cent I have taken.”The El Dorado County district attorney said it was investigating the stolen funds and Wallace’s confession.Wallace submitted her resignation on Monday night, which was effective immediately, the city said. In her letter, Wallace also urged South Lake Tahoe Pro Tem Cody Bass to resign, following his recent arrest. Bass was arrested on Sept. 25 in connection with an alleged assault and threats at a bar where he had been banned. Deputies reviewed surveillance footage and determined Bass was the aggressor. He’s charged with misdemeanor assault, trespassing and harassment.In a previous statement to KCRA 3, Bass said, “I can guarantee my community I did nothing wrong, I believe in due process, bring on the trial.”The city of South Lake Tahoe said its next council meeting is set for Oct. 21. The agenda will include a “council reorganization to select a mayor and mayor pro tem” and “methods for filling the vacant city council seat,” the city said.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Tamara Wallace has resigned as the mayor of South Lake Tahoe after her recent admission that she stole money from a church where she worked as an administrator.

    In a letter to local media earlier this month that included the confession, Wallace said she had been recovering from a suicide attempt and reflecting on the traumatic experiences in her life. She said she aimed to pay back “every cent I have taken.”

    The El Dorado County district attorney said it was investigating the stolen funds and Wallace’s confession.

    Wallace submitted her resignation on Monday night, which was effective immediately, the city said.

    In her letter, Wallace also urged South Lake Tahoe Pro Tem Cody Bass to resign, following his recent arrest.

    Bass was arrested on Sept. 25 in connection with an alleged assault and threats at a bar where he had been banned.

    Deputies reviewed surveillance footage and determined Bass was the aggressor. He’s charged with misdemeanor assault, trespassing and harassment.

    In a previous statement to KCRA 3, Bass said, “I can guarantee my community I did nothing wrong, I believe in due process, bring on the trial.”

    The city of South Lake Tahoe said its next council meeting is set for Oct. 21.

    The agenda will include a “council reorganization to select a mayor and mayor pro tem” and “methods for filling the vacant city council seat,” the city said.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • South Lake Tahoe mayor pro tem arrested for assault at bar

    [ad_1]

    South Lake Tahoe’s mayor pro tem was arrested in connection with an incident at a bar in September.Cody Bass was arrested on Sept. 25 after allegedly approaching an employee at Lake Tahoe AleWorx in Stateline, Nevada.Despite Bass being banned from the business, he allegedly threatened to “have people kill” the the bar employee, Reno’s KRNV-TV reported. Arrest documents said Bass left the bar then returned 20 minutes later and allegedly cocked his arm as if to hit the employee, who kicked him in self-defense, according to KRNV. Deputies reviewed surveillance footage and determined Bass was the aggressor. He’s charged with misdemeanor assault, trespassing and harassment. The incident happened days before South Lake Tahoe’s mayor also made headlines. Local media published a letter Sunday by Mayor Tamara Wallace, in which she confessed to stealing from a church where she worked as an administrator. Wallace said she has been recovering from a suicide attempt and reflecting on the traumatic experiences in her life. She said she aimed to pay back “every cent I have taken.”“Sorry is not a strong enough word to explain the depths of my regret and shame,” Wallace wrote in the letter.The El Dorado County district attorney said it was investigating the stolen funds and Wallace’s confession.The city of South Lake Tahoe said in statements to KCRA 3 that it was aware of both investigations into the actions of its mayor and mayor pro tem. It said the DA’s office was handling the cases, which have not led to “fiscal harm” or impacted essential services for residents.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    South Lake Tahoe’s mayor pro tem was arrested in connection with an incident at a bar in September.

    Cody Bass was arrested on Sept. 25 after allegedly approaching an employee at Lake Tahoe AleWorx in Stateline, Nevada.

    Despite Bass being banned from the business, he allegedly threatened to “have people kill” the the bar employee, Reno’s KRNV-TV reported.

    Arrest documents said Bass left the bar then returned 20 minutes later and allegedly cocked his arm as if to hit the employee, who kicked him in self-defense, according to KRNV.

    Deputies reviewed surveillance footage and determined Bass was the aggressor. He’s charged with misdemeanor assault, trespassing and harassment.

    The incident happened days before South Lake Tahoe’s mayor also made headlines.

    Local media published a letter Sunday by Mayor Tamara Wallace, in which she confessed to stealing from a church where she worked as an administrator.

    Wallace said she has been recovering from a suicide attempt and reflecting on the traumatic experiences in her life. She said she aimed to pay back “every cent I have taken.”

    “Sorry is not a strong enough word to explain the depths of my regret and shame,” Wallace wrote in the letter.

    The El Dorado County district attorney said it was investigating the stolen funds and Wallace’s confession.

    The city of South Lake Tahoe said in statements to KCRA 3 that it was aware of both investigations into the actions of its mayor and mayor pro tem.

    It said the DA’s office was handling the cases, which have not led to “fiscal harm” or impacted essential services for residents.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tyler Robinson blocked from contacting Charlie Kirk’s widow

    [ad_1]

    A Utah judge has issued a pretrial protective order barring Tyler James Robinson, the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk, from contacting Kirk’s widow, Erika.

    The order was filed in Utah’s Fourth Judicial District Court in Provo on September 16, and remains in effect until further order of the court.

    Why It Matters

    The protective order against Robinson is significant not only as a safeguard for Erika Kirk but also because it highlights broader issues surrounding political violence, public safety, and the justice system’s handling of high-profile cases.

    With prosecutors pursuing the death penalty and Turning Point USA‘s future now closely tied to how Erika Kirk carries forward her late husband’s mission, the case underscores the intersection of criminal justice, politics, and the risks facing public figures in today’s polarized climate.

    Pretrial protective order barring Tyler James Robinson, the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk, from contacting Kirk’s widow, Erika, Provo, Utah Sept. 16, 2025. (District Court Of Utah)

    District Court Of Utah

    What To Know

    Protective Order Details

    The order identifies Erika Kirk as the protected party and prohibits Tyler Robinson from engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, or “any other conduct that would place the protected person or designated family or household members in reasonable fear of bodily injury.”

    The court found that Robinson “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the protected person,” according to the filing signed by Judge Tony F. Graf.

    The terms further bar Robinson from contacting Erika Kirk directly or indirectly, including through phone, email, text, social media, or mail.

    Although incarcerated, he is also prohibited from visiting her residence, workplace, or school, and must remain away from her in any location where they may encounter one another.

    Violation of the order could lead to further arrest and new criminal charges, the filing states.

    Case Background

    Robinson, 22, was charged earlier the same day with aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, and committing a violent offense in the presence of a child. Prosecutors also filed two counts each of obstruction of justice and witness tampering, according to Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray.

    The charges stem from the September 10 shooting at Utah Valley University, where Kirk, 30, was speaking at a Turning Point USA rally. Prosecutors allege Robinson used a high-powered bolt-action rifle in the attack.

    The hearing on September 16 marked Robinson’s first court appearance since the incident.

    Judge Graf told the court he would issue the protective order in favor of Erika Kirk, following the prosecution’s request for her safety.

    Robinson has not yet entered a plea and does not currently have legal representation. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    Graf said a public defender is expected to be appointed before Robinson’s next hearing on September 29.

    Responses and Public Statements

    Following her husband’s death, Erika Kirk issued a statement pledging to continue his work through Turning Point USA’s American Comeback Tour.

    “The evil doers responsible for my husband’s assassination have no idea what they have done,” she said. “If you thought that my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea … you have no idea what you have just unleashed. You have no idea the fire you ignited within this wife.”

    Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, had been a high-profile figure in conservative politics. His killing drew national attention, with allies and critics alike weighing in on the implications for political discourse and public safety.

    Legal Implications

    Under Utah law, violation of a protective order in a felony case can be prosecuted as a third-degree felony, while violations linked to misdemeanor charges may result in a class A misdemeanor.

    The order also carries federal implications, making it unlawful for Robinson to possess or purchase firearms or ammunition while it is in effect.

    The filing emphasizes that “the parties cannot change or dismiss this order. Only the court has the authority to change or dismiss this order.”

    What People Are Saying

    Judge Tony F. Graf in the order: “[Tyler Robinson] represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the protected person.”

    Erika Kirk said: “The evil doers responsible for my husband’s assassination have no idea what they have done.”

    What Happens Next

    Robinson is scheduled to return to court on September 29, when a public defender is expected to be appointed, and the case will move toward an arraignment.

    The pretrial protective order barring him from contacting Erika Kirk remains in effect, and prosecutors have signaled their intent to seek the death penalty on the aggravated murder charge.

    No trial date has been set, and because capital cases often involve lengthy pretrial proceedings, the legal process could extend for months or longer, ensuring the case continues to draw national attention given its political and public safety implications.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Directly behind us’: Texas woman goes on a walk on Lady Bird Lake Trail. Then she ends up having to run for her life

    [ad_1]

    An Austin, Texas woman says a walk on the Lady Bird Lake Trail turned frightening after she and a friend were followed for miles by a man.

    In a TikTok video with more than 254,000 views, Michaela Diehl (@michdiehll) described how what was meant to be a 10-mile walk quickly became dangerous.

    Diehl said she and her friend paused near Noble Joe Coffee about two miles in to decide which path to take when a man appeared behind them and began giving directions. Though unsettled by his sudden presence, they told him they planned to complete the full loop, a detail Diehl later called a mistake.

    The man then walked ahead but continued trailing them. For at least three miles, Diehl said, he mirrored their pace: stopping when they stopped, speeding up when they did, and at times getting so close that they had to move away or try to escape him. 

    The women tried running briefly to create distance, but he reappeared. Then they tried to run to create distance again. He appeared. Diehl said they avoided confronting him out of fear that the situation could escalate. However, no matter how hard they tried, they couldn’t de-escalate the situation. A majority of the walk, then, was in “silence” out of fear. 

    The Austin women try to escape the man

    When they reached the trailhead, the man lingered nearby, attempting to do pullups with some equipment as he watched them to the side. Diehl said she mentioned meeting her father for lunch in an effort to deter him, and the women were eventually able to return to their car safely. 

    “You cannot trust anybody’s intentions,” Diehl said in the video. “Just be safe and be aware of the trails. Do not tell anyone anything.”

    Earlier, Diehl posted a separate clip taken during the walk that shows the man visible in several frames. Though she joked that Austin City Limits had trained them to endure the chase, she emphasized that the experience felt incredibly dangerous. 

    People were outraged on her behalf

    Social media users were in an uproar after seeing Diehl’s post, with many commenting about their own experiences on the Lady Bird Lake Trail. Others offered her advice on how she should have handled the situation.

    “Be vocal,” one person wrote. “Say, ‘Why are you following us? You are making us uncomfortable. Please get away from us.’ I am from Austin and have been here for 18 years. You have to be loud and obnoxious so people can hear you. Do not let those men scare you like that. Scare them.”

    Another commenter suggested self-defense. “A visible pocketknife or something even heavier and deadlier is an exceptional deterrent. Plenty of bodies have been found in Lady Bird Lake, and Texas allows you to carry things that would deter and protect you,” the person wrote.

    Others simply empathized with Diehl, emphasizing the fear of the situation.

    “‘Why didn’t you just…’ bro, [are] you all serious? This is such a scary situation to be in. If you have advice to give, there is a right and wrong way to give it. Stop trying to put the blame on victims, my gosh,” one person said.

    @michdiehll if you walk the trail in Austin or walk anywhere pls stay aware — storytime from my walk on Saturday 9/6 #lifeupdate #storytime #safety #austintx #atx ♬ original sound – Michaela Diehl

    The Mary Sue has reached out to Diehl by email for more information.

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    Image of Rachel Joy Thomas

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Joy Thomas

    Source link

  • ‘This was only the beginning’: Singer gets job in production cast for major cruise line. Then band leader starts telling her inappropriate things

    [ad_1]

    A former cruise ship singer reveals the harsh realities around harassment on the ocean. She’s demanding that the industry address what she calls a systemic issue.

    TikTok user Lauren (@laurenheav) told the story in a video posted earlier this week.

    “I was 24 and I was a singer in the production cast for a major cruise line,” she says to start the video. At this point in her life, she said, “I was still very green and extremely nice and would just laugh things off if they were awkward and didn’t know how to deal with uncomfortable situations.”

    Unfortunately, Lauren said she was exposed to many such situations over the course of her time in that job. One issue she had involved a band leader that she calls Jerry (that’s not his real name). 

    Harassment on the Cruise Ships

    “Jerry was American and he’d been with the company for a very long time,” she says. “During sound checks or rehearsals, Jerry liked to find me alone and say really inappropriate things to me about this far away from my face.” 

    Lauren was so uncomfortable that she couldn’t respond and reporting it to her direct superiors didn’t result in any punishment for Jerry. That is until one day another woman on the ship overheard the behavior and called him out. After that, Lauren had the courage to report the behavior to the Human Resources department. That finally resulted in an end to the harassment.

    In the caption, Lauren wrote, “As a woman working at sea, I’ve been on the receiving end of more sexual harassment than I care to count. From strangers, from co-workers, supervisors, and even from a boss. It’s ugly, it’s exhausting, and it’s real. I’m not saying this for sympathy. I’m saying it because silence keeps the cycle going.”

    Viewers are infuriated for her

    In the comments section, viewers reacted to Lauren’s traumatic experience working on a cruise line.

    “I don’t understand men who can’t realize that women at work are there to earn a living,” one commenter wrote. “Women should get the same respect and dignity as any man, not looked at like someone to disrespect and play with. A job is serious business, not playtime for some jerk.”

    “Make more friends with other ladies and band together,” suggested a second person. “Someone you can talk to and feel safe. Sorry this happened to you.”

    As reported by The Washington Post, incidents of sexual assaults on cruise ships are on the rise. A Florida attorney interviewed by the newspaper blamed cruise line companies for not doing more to prevent these crimes. 

    According to one 2022 survey, the employee side of the equation is rampant with bullying, discrimination, and harassment. The law firm HFW recommends a top-down “zero tolerance” approach from industry leaders, enabling a “speak up” culture to allow for reporting of harassment, and enhanced background screenings to ensure people who’ve done this before aren’t hired. It also suggests that cruise lines update their anti-harassment and digital communications policies.

    @laurenheav As a woman working at sea, I’ve been on the receiving end of more sexual harassment than I care to count. From strangers, from coworkers, supervisors and even from a boss. It’s ugly, it’s exhausting, and it’s real. I’m not saying this for sympathy. I’m saying it because silence keeps the cycle going. #cruise #fyp #foryou #foryoupage ♬ original sound – Lauren | Travel & Lifestyle

    The Mary Sue contacted Lauren via TikTok comment and email for comment.

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    Image of Nina Hernandez

    Nina Hernandez

    Nina Hernandez is a writer, journalist, music critic, and culture commentator based in Austin, Texas. Her work has appeared in the Daily Dot, Rolling Stone, the A.V. Club, Eater Austin, CultureMap San Antonio, and the Austin Chronicle. You can email her at: [email protected]

    [ad_2]

    Nina Hernandez

    Source link

  • ‘BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU LEAVE’: Texas woman goes to Raising Cane’s. Then someone slips her a warning note

    [ad_1]

    A woman picking up food at a Raising Cane’s in Texas said she was caught off guard when another customer slipped her a handwritten note. It warned her that a man nearby was watching her.

    In a TikTok video with more than 77,000 views, Amarilys Valentín (@amarilysv3) showed the piece of paper. It included a small map of the restaurant. The drawing pointed out where the man was sitting so she would know who had his eyes on her.

    In a follow-up clip, she filmed the table where the man had been—right next to where she had originally been sitting.

    In her caption, Valentín told viewers what happened after she arrived.

    “My loves [should] always be aware of their surroundings,” she wrote. “Nowadays society is so damaged that you can’t trust anything or anyone. It’s amazing that even going to a fast food restaurant alone is unsafe. We have to start taking care of ourselves.”

    She said the woman’s concern felt genuine.

    “I don’t know if the lady (a little angel who fell from heaven) who gave me the note or a family member is going to see this but I thank her again because she really reflected concern in her face,” Valentín wrote. “There are still good people in this world.”

    In the comments, Valentín expanded on her gratitude.

    When a person said, “I’m glad they gave you the note, scary world we live in,” she responded, “I’m super thankful cuz not many people warns others in these situations.”

    Not everyone saw the exchange the same way. Some suggested the stranger may have overreacted.

    Commenters have mixed takes on the encounter

    One commenter wrote, “And that’s why men no longer approach women in public. Cause if you do you must be a creeper. Maybe he just thought she was pretty and would love to know her.”

    Another weighed in with sarcasm, “Oh no he’s looking at you.”

    Others pointed out the contrast between feeling unsafe in person and comfortable sharing the experience online.

    “[Worried] about someone looking at you in person, but posting on TikTok where thousands look at you is not an issue. Society nowadays is crazy,” one person said.

    Still, some sided with the original note-giver, arguing that vigilance was the safer choice for women. Researchers estimate that around 20% of women in the United States have been assaulted in some way. Strangers accounted for 5% of all assault encounters according to the ASU Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. 

    “The world we live in is scary.. you dont know peoples intentions… out of all things to look at…… he keeps eyeing her… a devil can be dressed in sheep’s clothes too,” one user wrote.

    For Valentín, the encounter was a reminder of how women often rely on each other for protection in everyday spaces, one which she put out online for other women to remember and share.

    The Mary Sue has reached out to Valentín for more information.

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    Image of Rachel Joy Thomas

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Joy Thomas

    Source link

  • Snapchat to pay $15M to settle discrimination, harassment lawsuit in California

    Snapchat to pay $15M to settle discrimination, harassment lawsuit in California

    [ad_1]

    SANTA MONICA, Calif. — Snapchat Inc. will pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit brought by California’s civil rights agency that claimed the company discriminated against female employees, failed to prevent workplace sexual harassment and retaliated against women who complained.

    The settlement with Snapchat Inc., which owns the popular disappearing-message app by the same name, covers women who worked for the company in California between 2014 and 2024, the California Civil Rights Department announced Wednesday. The settlement is subject to court approval.

    The agreement resolves a more than three-year investigation over claims that the Santa Monica, California-based company discriminated against female employees when it came to pay and promotions, the department said in a statement.

    The bulk of the settlement money will go to employees who faced discrimination at Snapchat Inc., California officials said.

    “In California, we’re proud of the work of our state’s innovators who are a driving force of our nation’s economy,” said Kevin Kish, director of California’s civil rights agency. “This settlement with Snapchat demonstrates a shared commitment to a California where all workers have a fair chance at the American Dream. Women are entitled to equality in every job, in every workplace, and in every industry.”

    Snapchat Inc. said it disagrees with the agency’s claims but that it decided to settle to avoid costly and lengthy litigation.

    “We care deeply about our commitment to maintain a fair and inclusive environment at Snap, and do not believe we have any ongoing systemic pay equity, discrimination, harassment, or retaliation issues against women,” the company said in a statement.

    Snapchat Inc. grew from 250 employees in 2015 to over 5,000 in 2022. But the growth didn’t translate to advancement for female employees who “were told to wait their turn, were actively discouraged from applying for promotions, or lost promotion opportunities to less qualified male colleagues,” California officials said.

    In particular, women in engineering roles, which account for about 70% of Snap’s workforce, found barriers when trying to advance from entry-level positions, according to the complaint.

    California’s civil rights agency also said in its lawsuit that women were sexually harassed and that when they spoke up, they faced retaliation that included negative performance reviews and termination. Male managers routinely promoted male employees over more qualified women, the agency said.

    “Women were told, both implicitly and explicitly, that they were second-class citizens at Snap,” the agency said in its lawsuit.

    The settlement will require the company to hire an independent consultant to evaluate its compensation and promotion policies and retain an outside auditor of its sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination compliance. The company will also have to train its staff on preventing discrimination, retaliation and sexual harassment in the workplace, officials said.

    Snapchat Inc. also agreed to provide information to all employees about their right to report harassment or discrimination without fear of retaliation.

    Copyright © 2024 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link

  • The Narcissistic Culture of “Image” and Excessive Self-Monitoring

    The Narcissistic Culture of “Image” and Excessive Self-Monitoring

    [ad_1]

    In a world obsessed with public image and attention-seeking, learn about the cultural forces propelling society to become more narcissistic – and how this influences us to be in a constant state of self-scrutiny.



    The idea that our culture is becoming more narcissistic and self-centered is not new.

    Historian and social critic Christopher Lasch’s book The Culture of Narcissism was first published in 1979. By that time, the 1970s were already dubbed the “Me-generation.” Americans were increasingly shifting focus to concepts like “self-liberation,” “self-expression,” and “self-actualization,” while untethering themselves from past traditions and social responsibilities.

    Interestingly, Lasch traces the narcissistic roots in America back way further, starting with the early days of the Protestant work ethic and its singular focus on labor, money, and wealth-building, including the old “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mantra.

    This early thread of American hyper-individualism continues into the New Age movement at the turn of the 20th century with its focus on personal happiness and spiritual fulfillment, as well as the popularity of Ayn Rand’s “virtue of selfishness,” and the rise of celebrity-worship and fame-seeking that still characterizes much of American life today whether it be in politics, sports, art, or entertainment.

    Things appear to be getting worse. The book was written over 40 years ago, but a lot of the observations in it seem strangely prophetic when looking at the world today. Lasch accurately describes how narcissistic trends have evolved on a societal and cultural level, and you can perfectly extend his theories to explain our modern culture.

    Before you continue reading, remember this is a cultural analysis of narcissistic tendencies and it isn’t focused on clinical or psychological definitions of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

    Many people act more narcissistic because that’s what our society rewards and that’s how people think they need to act to get ahead in today’s world.

    One can even look at certain narcissistic tendencies as a survival strategy in an otherwise competitive, atomized, isolated – “every man for himself” – world.

    Now let’s dive into how our modern culture amplifies and rewards narcissism.

    The narcissist craves an audience

    First, the most defining characteristic of a narcissist is that they depend on the attention and validation of others to feel good about themselves.

    Contrary to the popular myth that the narcissist suffers from excessive self-love, the truth is they are deeply insecure and lack true confidence and self-esteem. The main reason they brag, show off, or puff-up-their-chests is only to appear strong when deep down they feel weak.

    As a result the narcissist is obsessed with their image and appearance. They feel they need to “win people over” to be accepted and liked by others, and this requires a carefully manufactured persona they create for the public.

    This deeply rooted “need for attention” plays a central theme in Lasch’s analysis:

      “Narcissism represents a psychological dimension of dependence. Notwithstanding his occasional illusions of omnipotence, the narcissist depends on others to validate his self-esteem. He cannot live without an admiring audience. His apparent freedom from family ties and institutional constraints does not free him to stand alone or to glory in his individuality. On the contrary, it contributes to his insecurity, which he can overcome only by seeing his ‘grandiose self’ reflected in the attention of others, or by attaching himself to those who radiate celebrity, power, and charisma.”

    Without an audience to appreciate them, the narcissist struggles to find their self-worth. They don’t believe in themselves – they need “proof” they are a good or important person through the eyes of others.

    To the narcissist, any attention is better than none at all; even negative attention like gossip, drama, and criticism feeds into their egos by letting them know they are still front and center.

    In a society that rewards attention for the sake of attention (including fame and notoriety), the narcissist grows and thrives. Who knows, that next scandal with a famous celebrity may be their big breakthrough – whatever gets them into the limelight!

    Image-centrism: The society of the spectacle

    One major contributor to the rise of narcissistic tendencies is that our culture is becoming more image-centric.

    Popular ideas on what true “happiness,” “success,” “fame,” “beauty,” and “achievement” look like are based on outward images and appearances increasingly fed into our culture through photographs, movies, television, and advertising:

      “[One] influence is the mechanical reproduction of culture, the proliferation of visual and audial images in the ‘society of the spectacle.’ We live in a swirl of images and echoes that arrest experience and play it back in slow motion. Cameras and recording machines not only transcribe experience but alter its quality, giving to much of modern life the character of an enormous echo chamber, a hall of mirrors. Life presents itself as a succession of images or electronic signals, of impressions recorded and reproduced by means of photography, motion pictures, television, and sophisticated recording devices.”

    This book was written before the internet and social media which have only increased our “image-centrism” tenfold. Selfies, avatars, memes, filters, photoshop, and AI have all continued to add more layers to this hyper-reality between manipulated images and how we choose to present ourselves.

    This constant barrage of cultural images shapes our beliefs and map of reality. It subconsciously puts ideas in our heads about what “happiness,” “success,” and “beauty” are supposed to look like.

    Once these social images are set in our minds, we naturally feel the desire to live up to them.

    Narcissists can often be the most sensitive to these social images because they fear their true self isn’t good enough, so they take society’s picture of “success” and try to mirror that image back to others.

    On the surface, the narcissist is a crowd-pleaser. They don’t trust their own judgement, so if society says this is what “happiness” or “success” looks like, then they will try to mimic it the best they can.

    Everyone has an audience now

    Technology, internet, social media, cameras, and recording devices have created a world where everyone feels like they have an audience all-the-time.

    Family photo albums and home videos were early stages in turning “private moments” into “public consumption,” but now we have people over-sharing every meal, date, and shopping spree on their social media feeds.

    Lasch correctly identifies this trend back in the 1960s-70s, including a mention of the popular show Candid Camera, which was one of the first “hidden camera” TV shows:

      “Modern life is so thoroughly mediated by electronic images that we cannot help responding to others as if their actions – and our own – were being recorded and simultaneously transmitted to an unseen audience or stored up for close scrutiny at some later time. ‘Smile you’re on candid camera!’ The intrusion into everyday life of this all-seeing eye no longer takes us by surprise or catches us with our defenses down. We need no reminder to smile, a smile is permanently graven on our features, and we already know from which of several angles it photographs to best advantage.”

    Life is recorded and shared now more than ever before. Today everyone has an audience and many people can’t help but see themselves as the “main character” of their own carefully edited movie.

    Unfortunately, we have this audience whether we like it or not. Every time we are out in public, someone may whip out their phones, capture an embarrassing moment, and upload it to the internet for millions to watch. You never know when you may go “viral” for the wrong reasons. The rise of online shaming, doxing, and harassment puts people in a perpetual state of high alert.

    That’s a stressful thought, but it perfectly represents this state of hyper-surveillance we are all in, where there’s always a potential audience and you feel constant pressure to showcase the “best version of yourself” in every waking moment, because you never know who is watching.

    Self-image and excessive self-monitoring

    In a world that rewards people solely based on the “image” they present, we naturally become more self-conscious of the image we are projecting to others.

    This leads to a state of endless self-monitoring and self-surveillance. We see ourselves through the eyes of others and try to fit their image of what we are supposed to be. No matter what we choose to do with our lives, the most pressing questions become, “How will this make me look?” or “What will people think of me?”

    While people naturally want to present themselves in the best way possible and form strong first impressions, an excessive degree of self-filtering and self-management can cause us to lose our sense of identity for the sake of superficial acceptance, internet fame, or corporate climbing.

    At worst, we increasingly depend on this these manufactured images to understand ourselves and reality:

      “The proliferation of recorded images undermines our sense of reality. As Susan Sontag observes in her study of photography, ‘Reality has come to seem more and more like what we are shown by cameras.’ We distrust our perceptions until the camera verifies them. Photographic images provide us with the proof of our existence, without which we would find it difficult even to reconstruct a personal history…

      Among the ‘many narcissistic uses’ that Sontag attributes to the camera, ‘’self-surveillance’ ranks among the most important, not only because it provides the technical means of ceaseless self-scrutiny but because it renders the sense of selfhood dependent on the consumption of images of the self, at the same time calling into question the reality of the external world.”

    If you didn’t share your meal on social media, did you really eat it? If you didn’t update your relationship status online, are you really dating someone?

    For many people, the internet world has become “more real” than the real world. People don’t go out and do adventurous things to live their lives, but to “create content” for their following.

    Who looks like their living their best life? Who is experiencing the most FOMO on the internet? In a narcissistic world, we start seeing our “digital self” in competition with everyone else – and the only thing that matters is that it looks like we are having a good time.

    More and more, we consume and understand ourselves through these technologies and images. We depend on photo galleries, reel clips, and social media posts to chronicle our life story and present the best version of ourselves to the world. If the internet didn’t exist, then neither would we.

    In the sci-fi movie The Final Cut people have their entire lives recorded through their eyes; then after they die, their happy memories are spliced together to give a “final edit” of the person’s life. Many of us are perpetually scrutinizing and editing this “final cut” of our own lives.

    The invention of new insecurities

    Everything is being observed, recorded, and measured, so we have more tools than ever to compare ourselves against others.

    This leads to the invention of all types of new insecurities. We are more aware of the ways we’re different from others, whether it’s our jobs, homes, relationships, health, appearances, or lifestyles. We can always find new ways we don’t “measure up” to the ideal.

    New technologies create new ways to compare. Before you know it, you have people in heated competitions over who can do the most steps on their Fitbit, or consume the least amount of calories in a week, or receives the most likes on their gym posts. The internet becomes a never-ending competition.

    Of course, measuring your progress can be a valuable tool for motivation and reaching goals. The problem is when we use these numbers to measure up against others vs. measure up against our past self. Always remember that everyone is on a completely different path.

    It’s well-known that social comparison is one of the ultimate traps when it comes to happiness and well-being. You’ll always be able to find someone who has it better than you in some area of life, and with the internet that’s usually an easy search.

    These endless comparisons touch on all aspects of life and heighten self-scrutiny and self-criticism. Finding and dwelling on even “minor differences” can spiral into a cycle of self-pity and self-hate. If we don’t remove ourselves from these comparisons, then we have no choice but to try to live up to them and beat ourselves up when we fail.

    Conclusion

    The goal of this article was to describe some of the key forces that are making society more narcissistic and self-centered.

    Different cultural beliefs and attitudes incentive certain personality traits over others. Our current world seems to continue moving down a more narcissistic path, especially with the increased focus on “image” (or “personal brand”) that we build for ourselves through the internet and social media.

    Most of the ideas in this article are based on the book The Culture of Narcissism which, despite being written over 40 years, is an insightful look into how these social forces continue to grow and evolve.

    Do you feel like our current society is getting more narcissistic? How have these social forces influenced the way you live?


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • Tweet Accusing Man of Rape Led to Gag Order Against the Accuser

    Tweet Accusing Man of Rape Led to Gag Order Against the Accuser

    [ad_1]

    Yesterday’s Illinois Appellate Court decision in McClellan v. Hull, written by Justice Sharon Oden Johnson, joined by Justices Michael Hyman and Carl A. Walker reverses the order (which had been issued by Judge Debra A. Seaton), though without reaching the First Amendment question.

    The quick factual backstory: McClellan and Hull met on Facebook, and then met twice in person and had sex on the second time. McClellan says it was consensual, Hull says that McClellan raped her. Four weeks after that, in April 2021, Hull Tweeted “that she was raped by him, he was a predator, she wanted justice for herself and sought to warn others of his sick nature” (McClellan’s paraphrase).

    McClellan claimed that this was “harassment” that entitled him to an Emergency Order of Protection under the Domestic Violence Act, and the court agreed. The court issued the Emergency Order, which “ordered Hull to have no contact by any means with McClellan.” The Emergency Order was extended several times and then replaced by a longer-term Order of Protection. And at one of the hearings,

    [T]he circuit court stated that it was not relevant whether there was a sexual assault; under the statute, it had to decide the relationship between the parties and whether Hull’s social media messages were defamatory…. [T]he circuit court found that McClellan’s allegations regarding abuse fell under the harassment prong of the Domestic Violence Act for defamation based on the accusations of rape in a social media post….

    The court then stated that both parties were prohibited from posting about each other or the case on social media, and noted that there was a criminal case pending [apparently a case against McClellan based on Hull’s allegations]. The court then amended the EOP to include the prohibition….

    Hull had also asked for a Civil No Contact Order against McClellan, and the court refused to issue such an order:

    At the hearing on Hull’s petition, the parties agreed to use the evidence presented during the OP hearing and both parties’ counsel presented argument. The circuit court found that Hull’s testimony was full of contradictions and that it was clear from the testimony presented by both parties that the parties engaged in consensual contact of kissing, removal of Hull’s clothes and oral sex. The court further found that based on the testimony presented, when Hull pushed McClellan away during vaginal sex, he stopped, they got dressed and McClellan took Hull home.

    The court considered evidence presented by Hull that she did not like McClellan yet met up with him twice. The court concluded that it did not know what occurred in the car but found that Hull’s credibility was at issue and it was not clear by a preponderance of the evidence that non-consensual sex occurred.

    The appellate court affirmed the denial of the Civil No Contact Order, reasoning that the trial judge could have reasonably concluded that Hull hadn’t proved her case, but held that the Orders of Protection issued at McClellan’s request were unjustified: The statute authorizes such orders only when they stem from a family relationship, a shared household, or a “dating relationship,” and the interaction between Hull and McClellan didn’t qualify as a dating relationship:

    The Domestic Violence Act added the phrase “dating relationship” in 1993, and explains that it does not include a casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts. In Alison C., the second district of this court found that one of the purposes of the Domestic Violence Act was to prevent abuse between persons involved in intimate relationships and that the legislature intended for a “dating relationship” to refer to a serious courtship, one that was more serious and intimate than casual. The second district further clarified that it was not enough to establish an intimate relationship; there must be a dating relationship. In People v. Howard, a domestic battery case, the third district of this court concluded that although the defendant had numerous sexual encounters, it was not enough to show that defendant and the victim had an intimate relationship. The Howard court noted a dating relationship means a serious courtship which must be, at minimum, an established relationship with a significant romantic focus. The parties’ numerous sexual encounters were an established relationship that was physical in nature but was not a romantic dating relationship.

    The second district of this court further clarified that its definition in Alison C. of a dating relationship was to distinguish “serious courtship” from casual, nascent, or potential relationships. The court found that a degree of romantic reciprocity should be present and that if one person is merely the object of desire, then even if a social relationship exists between the parties, there is no dating relationship. This district applied the same definition that a dating relationship was a serious courtship that at least needed to be an established relationship with a significant romantic focus….

    We also take issue with the circuit court’s finding that sending nude photos, kissing and engaging in oral sex established the existence of a dating relationship….

    My thought on the First Amendment question: Courts have generally held that the First Amendment allows narrow injunctions banning repeating statements that have been found, at trial, to be defamatory. This isn’t a uniform view, and the Supreme Court hasn’t endorsed (or rejected) it, but it’s the majority view (see Anti-Libel Injunctions).

    But an injunction categorically banning someone from posting about another person online (even when it’s a mutual injunction applied to both people) is unconstitutionally overbroad (see Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment Cases)). That’s mandated by Supreme Court precedent, and appellate courts almost uniformly follow that, including in Illinois (see Flood v. Wilk (Ill. Ct. App. 2019)).

    And beyond that, preliminary injunctions, issued before a trial on the merits, are unconstitutional prior restraints—even if limited to repetition of statements that the judge thinks are likely defamatory—because they are issued prior to a final determination that the speech is indeed unconstitutionally unprotected.

    In the words of the California Supreme Court in Balboa Village Island Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, the most infuential recent decision allowing permanent (post-trial) injunctions against libel,

    In determining whether an injunction restraining defamation may be issued, … it is crucial to distinguish requests for preventive relief prior to trial and post-trial remedies to prevent repetition of statements judicially determined to be defamatory…. The attempt to enjoin the initial distribution of a defamatory matter meets several barriers, the most impervious being the constitutional prohibitions against prior restraints on free speech and press…. In contrast, an injunction against continued distribution of a publication which a jury has determined to be defamatory may be more readily granted.

    Likewise, when the Kentucky Supreme Court authorized permanent injunctions against libel, it expressly rejected preliminary injunctions:

    [T]he speech alleged to be false and defamatory by the Respondents has not been finally adjudicated to be, in fact, false. Only upon such a determination could the speech be ascertained to be constitutionally unprotected, and therefore subject to injunction against future repetition …. [W]hile the rule may temporarily delay relief for those ultimately found to be innocent victims of slander and libel, it prevents the unwarranted suppression of speech of those who are ultimately shown to have committed no defamation, and thereby protects important constitutional values.

    The Nebraska Supreme Court took the same view:

    A jury has yet to determine whether Sullivan’s allegations about Dillon and his business practices are false or misleading representations of fact. For these reasons, we conclude that the temporary restraining order, as well as the permanent injunction restraining Sullivan’s speech, constitute unconstitutional prior restraints in derogation of Sullivan’s right to speak.

    To be sure, plaintiffs will often understandably want quick pretrial relief, rather than going through a jury trial, which take can months or years from filing the lawsuit, and will cost a lot of money. But I don’t think such pretrial restraint of speech, based on one judge’s determination of likelihood of success on the merits, is consistent with the First Amendment.

    Finally, it’s true that under Illinois law, “harassment” is defined as “knowing conduct which is not necessary to accomplish a purpose that is reasonable under the circumstances; would cause a reasonable person emotional distress; and does cause emotional distress to the petitioner,” and that’s broad enough to include false and defamatory statements. But relabeling speech as “harassment” or “harassment by defamation” rather than just defamation shouldn’t avoid the First Amendment constraints on such orders. I’ve observed this tendency of “harassment” bans unduly restricting speech before, and the trial court order illustrates that; I’m sorry that the court didn’t discuss the First Amendment problems here, which can easily recur in other cases.

    [ad_2]

    Eugene Volokh

    Source link

  • Free Speech and “Harassment Restraining Orders”

    Free Speech and “Harassment Restraining Orders”

    [ad_1]

    I was on the California Appellate Law Podcast discussing this, though my analysis isn’t limited to California. An excerpt from the podcast summary:

    Prof. Eugene Volokh joined us to discuss restraining orders, how many of them violate the First Amendment as unlawful prior restraints, and how you can spot the First Amendment problems. The purpose of a restraining orders is to get a person to stop harassing you, but “harassment” can be a pretty vague term—and the same goes for “bullying,” “cyberbullying,” “hate speech,” etc.—especially when no physical violence threatened or happening. The result is that many restraining orders not only prevent the subject from speaking TO the plaintiff, but from speaking ABOUT the plaintiff, and last INDEFINITELY….

    [Some] items discussed in the episode:

    The post Free Speech and "Harassment Restraining Orders" appeared first on Reason.com.

    [ad_2]

    Eugene Volokh

    Source link

  • Activision Blizzard to pay $55 million to settle California civil-rights lawsuit

    Activision Blizzard to pay $55 million to settle California civil-rights lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    Videogame maker Activision Blizzard has agreed to pay nearly $55 million to settle a California civil-rights lawsuit brought over complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination and pay disparities by women employees that helped trigger the company’s acquisition by Microsoft.

    The settlement, announced by the California Civil Rights Department on Friday evening, resolves the lawsuit filed against the “Call of Duty” videogame studio by the agency in 2021 over claims that it “discriminated against women at the company, including by denying promotion opportunities and paying them less than men for doing substantially similar work,” CRD said.

    The agreement, subject to court approval, will see Activision pay nearly $46 million into a settlement fund dedicated to compensating women employees and contract workers at the company, plus more than $9 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. Additionally, Activision will take steps “to help ensure fair pay and promotion practices at the company,” including retaining an independent consultant to evaluate its compensation and promotion policies.

    Yet the settlement also sees CRD withdraw its initial claims alleging a culture of widespread, systemic workplace sexual harassment at Activision, according to a copy of the agreement provided to MarketWatch. The document notes that the department is filing an amended complaint that removes the sexual-harassment allegations against the company and focuses on the gender-based pay and promotion claims.

    CRD made no note of its prior sexual-harassment claims against Activision in its announcement Friday. A spokesperson for the department said the statement “largely speaks for itself with respect to the historic nature of this more than $50 million settlement agreement, which will bring direct relief and compensation to women who were harmed by the company’s discriminatory practices.

    Representatives for Activision declined to comment.

    The Wall Street Journal first reported the news of the settlement Friday.

    The California agency’s complaint was one of several high-profile investigations by both state and federal regulators in recent years into alleged workplace misconduct at Activision and failures by its leadership to respond appropriately. 

    While Activision repeatedly denied the allegations, they ramped up pressure on the Santa Monica, Calif.-based company and its CEO, Bobby Kotick, and eventually led to a $68.7 billion takeover bid by Microsoft
    MSFT,
    +1.31%

    in January 2022. The acquisition closed this October after receiving approval by U.K. and E.U. antitrust regulators, though the U.S. Federal Trade Commission continues to challenge the deal in court. Kotick is expected to leave the company, which he led for more than three decades, at the end of this year.

    The settlement would be the second-largest ever for the California Civil Rights Department, according to the Journal, after its $100 million agreement with another Los Angeles-area videogame developer, Riot Games, to resolve gender-discrimination allegations in 2021. The agency had initially sought a much-larger settlement with Activision, the publication reported, citing how the state had estimated the company’s liability at nearly $1 billion to some 2,500 employees with potential claims.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McDonald’s has received 400 harassment complaints from its workers in the last 4 months—and its U.K. boss calls it ‘truly horrific’

    McDonald’s has received 400 harassment complaints from its workers in the last 4 months—and its U.K. boss calls it ‘truly horrific’

    [ad_1]

    McDonald’s is sprinkled all across the U.K. and employs thousands of Brits in its locations—and this week, concerns about the safety of those workers came to a head.  

    The boss of McDonald’s in the U.K. said that the company has received over 400 complaints of sexual harassment in four months—sometimes up to two a week—during a Business and Trade Select Committee meeting on Tuesday.

    Alistair Macrow, who runs McDonald’s U.K. & Ireland, told MPs that the experiences of some of the fast food chain’s workers were “truly horrific” and “very hard to listen to.”

    “These cases… are absolutely horrendous. What I would like to be clear about is that we will tackle them and make sure that we do everything we can to eradicate them from the business,” Macrow said. 

    The U.K. chief’s statement comes after an initial investigation by the BBC in July shed light on McDonald’s staff who were routinely harassed, bullied or sexually assaulted while at work. The report said that over 100 current and recent workers had allegedly been on the receiving end of such behaviors, following which the company kicked off an investigation. At the time, McDonald’s apologized and said it had “fallen short.”

    So far, the company has investigated 157 of the 407 cases of varying nature, Macrow told MPs. Some of those resulted in terminations while others led to disciplinary action. Of the sexual harassment cases, it’s unclear if the workers reported them to the police.      

    ​​”I am absolutely determined to root out any of these behaviours, identify individuals who are responsible for them and make sure that they are eradicated from our business,” Macrow said. 

    McDonald’s has over 170,000 workers across its 1,450 restaurants in the U.K.—89% of those locations are franchises, Macrow said. 

    Workers of the 21st Century

    Complaints about harassment or forms of abuse had been cropping up for several years, Ian Hodson, the national president at the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, told the Business and Trade Select Committee on Tuesday. He was first alerted of the growing number of claims five years ago, and said the group had spoken to workers across its London stores.

    “We need to make sure that this is the opportunity to make employers accountable for protecting people when they go to work,” Hodson said. “In the 21st century in the U.K., it should not happen. When a global corporation, the second biggest employer in the world, which makes billions and billions of pounds, can’t protect their workforce, it’s awful.”

    The BBC’s investigation has spurred more McDonald’s workers to pursue legal action through law firm Leigh Day last week. 

    McDonald’s didn’t immediately return Fortune’s request for comment.

    Subscribe to the new Fortune CEO Weekly Europe newsletter to get corner office insights on the biggest business stories in Europe. Sign up before it launches Nov. 29.

    [ad_2]

    Prarthana Prakash

    Source link

  • Flight attendants claim United took them off Dodgers’ charter flights for not being ‘white, young, thin’

    Flight attendants claim United took them off Dodgers’ charter flights for not being ‘white, young, thin’

    [ad_1]

    Two United Airlines flight attendants claim in a lawsuit that they were passed over for the plum assignment of working on charter flights for the Dodgers because the players prefer a “certain look” of “white, young, thin women who are predominately blond and blue-eyed.”

    In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Dawn Todd and Darby Quezada alleged harassment and/or discrimination based on race, national origin, religion and age in regard to the staffing of United’s charter flights for the Dodgers and their treatment by coworkers on those flights. Todd, 50, is Black, and Quezada, 44, is of Mexican, Black and Jewish descent.

    The Dodgers are not named as defendants in the lawsuit. A team spokesperson told The Times that the Dodgers do not comment on any pending litigation.

    United responded to questions from The Times with a statement.

    “United fosters an environment of inclusion and does not tolerate discrimination of any kind,” the company wrote in an email. “We believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.”

    According to the lawsuit, Todd and Quezada both have worked for United for more than 15 years and had spent more than a decade trying to join the airline’s program that staffs the Dodgers’ flights. Such assignments can bring attendants up to three times the compensation of typical assignments because of longer flight times and other perks.

    “Plaintiffs had the necessary experience and qualifications,” the lawsuit states, “but their requests were dismissed and rejected because Plaintiffs were not white.”

    Two other United flight attendants sued the airline in 2020 for allegedly staffing teams’ flights with “young, white, female, and predominately blond/blue-eyed” flight attendants. The case was settled out of court in March 2021.

    That led the way for Todd and Quesada to become members of the Dodgers charter flight program, according to the current lawsuit, but only “after extensive interviews.”

    According to the lawsuit, “things changed again in 2022 when several white United flight attendants were added to the ‘dedicated crew.’ But, unlike Todd and Quezada, these white United flight attendants did not have to interview for these coveted positions. …

    “Instead, these white flight attendants were blatantly selected by United’s management … because of how they looked: they are white, young, thin women who are predominately blond and blue-eyed. When Todd and Quezada asked United why certain flight attendants were added … without having to interview like they did, Todd and Quezada were told that these white flight attendants fit a ‘certain look’ that the Dodgers players liked.”

    The lawsuit states that Todd and Quezada started receiving fewer assignments to Dodgers flights ended up being demoted within the program, and Quezada eventually was removed “without any justification.”

    Todd and Quezada are seeking a jury trial and an unspecified amount in damages.

    [ad_2]

    Chuck Schilken

    Source link

  • A Business Owners Guide to Taming Trolls on Social Media | Entrepreneur

    A Business Owners Guide to Taming Trolls on Social Media | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Working in an online space or being a public figure means you will be dealing with trolls. Even the most beloved public figures have people who inexplicably harass them. A Pew survey from a few years ago shows that 41% of Americans have experienced online harassment. I’d be willing to bet that when you talk about public figures, that number goes up to around 100%, as trolling has become so common in online culture.

    As somebody who talks openly about turning $583 into over $10 million to over one million subscribers on YouTube, and as the owner of Warrior Trading, I’m enough of a public figure that I’ve dealt with my fair share of trolls. I’d like to share with you what I’ve found is the best way to disarm the trolls. But first, I think it’s essential to establish some baseline assumptions.

    Related: 3 Options for Dealing With Internet Trolls

    Who are the trolls?

    My definition of a troll is someone who posts/comments/ or otherwise publicly communicates hateful, derogatory or defamatory messages on social media pages in a persistent and harassing way.

    To understand how to respond to trolling, we must understand the mindset of a troll. Trolling is so pervasive there have been numerous studies on the topic. Studies show that individuals who regularly engage in this type of behavior online are maladjusted and often suffer from various personality disorders in their real lives.

    Looking at the behavior of trolling through this lens, that it is a symptom of a deeper psychological struggle that somebody is experiencing, has helped me take the comments a bit less personally.

    Naturally, some comments will be easier to brush off than others, but trolling can be deeply triggering and painful for anybody who grew up with self-esteem issues. So much so that we routinely hear about influences saying they must take mental health breaks from social media. I recognize that I don’t have it nearly as bad as others, but as a small business owner, I also can’t afford to take breaks.

    Here’s how I’ve handled trolling:

    Don’t feed the trolls

    We must remember that the goal of a troll is to elicit a reaction and a response. The moment you start engaging, they’ve won. I would say 99.9% of trolling doesn’t warrant a response. The best practice with most trolling is to mute, block and delete.

    For business owners, it’s essential to know that up-and-coming businesses in your space may try to leverage your name to amplify their own voice. It’s called “trend jacking”. For example, Mr. Beast is the #1 content creator on YouTube. I often see new content creators struggling to gain an audience using “Mr. Beast’s” name or his picture to try to piggyback off his audience. If you make a salacious post about Mr. Beast, it will probably get a lot of views, right? In fact, one of the easiest ways for anyone to spur engagement on social media is to trigger emotion with divisive, exaggerated, salacious and triggering content. Tabloids still sell copies in the grocery store, right? Even though most people know it’s not credible, it’s a form of entertainment.

    Related: Why the Most Successful People Have the Most Haters

    Hire a professional “Troll Patrol” to deal with the most offensive comments

    It’s important to engage on social media with your most loyal subscribers. It’s not only good for the algorithm; it’s what creates that brand loyalty. It’s also worth noting that these subscribers will come to your rescue and be some of your fiercest defenders when you become the victim of trolling. As my business has grown, I have hired people to clear trolls/spam comments before I sit down to answer comments.

    That way, I can spend my time responding to the good comments and engaging with my fans without losing any mental bandwidth to negativity. It took me a long time to figure out that I needed to do this, but it is necessary. If you are the face of your business or it’s something you’ve put your blood, sweat, and tears into, it’s hard to have a level head when it comes to responding to trolls.

    Have an easy and nonpublic way for customers to give you feedback

    There are certainly people who exhibit trolling behavior who are not malicious but merely frustrated. For businesses, you need to have a way for your customers to obtain (good) customer service and also give feedback. When customers feel ignored, they often take their grievances to social media to make themselves heard. I’ve invested heavily in customer service for my business, and I think it is enormously important. My team is also trained to take public grievances offline ASAP and find a solution for the customer via email if possible. The saying “the customer is always right” is good to remember.

    Have a good lawyer on standby when things cross the line

    There is a fine line between trash-talking, trolling, harassment and defamation. As your business grows, or as your personal influence grows, you will likely face a troll that crosses the line. Now, the question is whether you respond publicly or privately. A public response gives the troll exactly what they want. A private direct response is how I respond. And I do it via legal counsel.

    When faced with a cease and desist letter written by your attorney, most trolls will realize the anonymity of the internet has not protected them from potential liability. This usually will stop the behavior. In the rare case it doesn’t, the legal system offers court-ordered restraining orders and permanent injunctions. Sadly, I’ve had to use these remedies at Warrior Trading. Most other large businesses do, too.

    I believe when somebody crosses the line, it’s better to be known for being aggressive than to be known as a pushover. But when considering this step, it’s essential to consider the time, effort and cost it will take and if it is worth it to your business. Luckily, my wife, Lauren Cameron, is meticulous about getting our lawyers what they need to do the job, and I do not have to waste my time on the craziness.

    The choice is yours

    Public figures, including entrepreneurs and business owners, will have detractors that create persistent, derogatory, misleading, false, nasty and malicious content on social media. To a certain extent, consider it a badge of honor that you have become significant enough to attract trolls. However, how an individual or business deals with these trolls, either engaging with them or ignoring them, will impact public perception of your brand and your personal image. This choice is yours to make and must be carefully calculated.

    [ad_2]

    Ross Cameron

    Source link

  • A New York City Law May Punish Commercial Landlords Who Behave Badly

    A New York City Law May Punish Commercial Landlords Who Behave Badly

    [ad_1]

    In any commercial lease, one major issue relates to the work that needs to be done to prepare a space for the tenant’s occupancy. Usually, the landlord will deliver the space pretty much as is, or with certain limited work completed. Then it’s up to the tenant to build out the space so it meets their needs.

    In that process, the tenant wants to make sure it can change its plans if necessary as it rethinks how it will use the space. At the same time, the landlord wants to make sure the tenant doesn’t do anything crazy.

    To resolve these conflicting concerns, the landlord will often pre-approve any of the tenant’s plans that are far enough along to be approved when the lease is signed. If the tenant wants to change anything, the tenant might need to go back to the landlord and get approval of the change.

    Usually the landlord agrees to be “reasonable” about approving the tenant’s change. That basically means the landlord must approve it if an ordinary landlord in the same position—with no particular axe to grind or weird idiosyncratic agenda—would approve it.

    Sometimes, though, the lease will say the landlord can withhold its consent “in Landlord’s sole and absolute discretion.” That language might suggest that the landlord could always disapprove anything and everything, with no obligation to be “reasonable,” thus preventing the tenant from making any changes at all.

    A pending New York City litigation suggests that a landlord can’t act quite as unreasonably as a lease might seem to allow. In that litigation, the lease said the landlord could disapprove plan changes in its sole and absolute discretion. The landlord apparently used that authority to disapprove practically everything the tenant ever wanted to change.

    Finally, the landlord came up with a new and different plan for the tenant’s work, which would have cost twice as much as the tenant’s original budget. Implicitly or explicitly, it became clear the landlord wouldn’t approve anything except the landlord’s new and different (and very expensive) plan. Eventually the landlord required the tenant to stop work.

    The tenant sued the landlord on various grounds, including based on a New York City law that prohibits “harassment” of commercial tenants. That law defines “commercial tenant harassment” with incredible breadth: it’s anything a landlord does or doesn’t do that “would reasonably cause a commercial tenant to vacate.” The law then lists some examples, including any “repeated or enduring acts or omissions that substantially interfere with the operation of a commercial tenant’s business.”

    The court had little trouble concluding that the landlord’s repeated disapprovals, if adequately proven, would constitute commercial tenant harassment because they continued over time and prevented the tenant from opening and operating its business. Eventually, they would lead the tenant to vacate the leased space. So the litigation proceeded, with the possibility that (among other things) a court might order the landlord to behave better.

    Moral of the story: in New York City, at least, if a lease says that a landlord can act unreasonably, or disapprove things in its sole and absolute discretion, the landlord shouldn’t necessarily believe it. That principle could apply to much more than approval of changes in the tenant’s construction plans. For example, if a tenant wanted to sell its business but a mean landlord disapproved a whole series of reasonable purchasers that the tenant proposed, could the tenant claim “commercial tenant harassment”?

    Other cases make it clear, however, that ordinary one-off disagreements about a lease or a tenant’s activities don’t rise to “commercial tenant harassment.” The New York City law also says a landlord’s efforts to collect rent and enforce its remedies for nonpayment don’t constitute harassment. Finally, a tenant typically cannot recover more than $50,000 from a landlord guilty of “commercial tenant harassment.” Therefore, tenants shouldn’t necessarily rejoice over having an all-purpose weapon for use against landlords.

    The writer tips his hat to Michelle Maratto Itkowitz for bringing this case to his attention.

    [ad_2]

    Joshua Stein, Contributor

    Source link

  • Tesla sued for racial discrimination, retaliation by EEOC

    Tesla sued for racial discrimination, retaliation by EEOC

    [ad_1]

    Tesla Inc. was sued Thursday by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which alleges the EV maker violated federal law by “tolerating widespread and ongoing racial harassment of its Black employees” at its Fremont, Calif., plant, and by retaliating against those opposing the harassment.

    Black employees at the Fremont factory, Tesla’s
    TSLA,
    +2.44%

    first assembly plant and for years its only vehicle-manufacturing facility in the U.S., “have routinely endured racial abuse, pervasive stereotyping and hostility” as well as having racial slurs hurled at them, the lawsuit alleges.

    “Slurs were used casually and openly in high-traffic areas and at worker hubs,” the EEOC said. Black employees “regularly” saw graffiti with slurs, swastikas, threats and nooses throughout the facility, including on desks, in bathroom stalls and elevators, according to the suit.

    Tesla, which disbanded its media relations team during the pandemic, did not immediately return a request for comment. In August, SpaceX, another one of Tesla’s Chief Executive Elon Musk’s companies, was sued by the Justice Department over its hiring practices.

    Employees who spoke up against the racial hostility suffered retaliations that included being fired or transferred, the EEOC said.

    The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after attempts at reaching a settlement before the litigation. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as back pay for the affected workers. It also seeks changes to Tesla’s employment practices to prevent discrimination in the future, the EEOC said.

    A Black Tesla employee was awarded $137 million in 2021 by a jury that agreed he was subjected to racial harassment at the Fremont factory, but in April 2022 a judge reduced the award to $15 million.

    Shares of Tesla have doubled so far this year, compared with an advance of around 12% for the S&P 500 index
    SPX.

    The first Model S rolled out of the Fremont factory in 2012, and the plant now makes Model S, Model 3, Model X and Model Y vehicles, with capacity to make more than a million vehicles a year as well as energy products and battery cells.

    Tesla opened up its second U.S. vehicle-making factory in the Austin, Texas, area in the spring of 2022.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Idaho Murders: As a Small Town Grapples With Sinister Rumors, Media’s True-Crime Obsession Grows

    Idaho Murders: As a Small Town Grapples With Sinister Rumors, Media’s True-Crime Obsession Grows

    [ad_1]

    When I asked how he’d shoot it, he clarified, “If there wasn’t a murder, you mean?”

    “Yeah.”

    Entin waved for me to follow him over to it. He anchored the pretend live shot with serious enthusiasm: “The trash is so high—let me stand next to the trash. Let me show you.” 

    He positioned his body next to the dumpster for scale. “If I stand here, it’s literally above my head. I’m five feet eight, and the trash is above my head.” 

    Dramatically, he concluded, “And if it wasn’t this cold, imagine what this would smell like.” 

    Even when the news is garbage, Entin is a star.

    On December 29, a source alerted Entin that the Moscow PD would be holding an important press conference the next day. Entin felt like something big was about to “erupt.” The next morning, at 8:02 a.m., he received a Twitter DM from someone in Pennsylvania law enforcement, saying that a “Bryan Kohberger” was in custody in connection with the case. After some back and forth, Entin was able to confirm it. 

    At 8:26 a.m., Entin tweeted: “An arrest has been made in the Moscow, Idaho quadruple homicide I have learned.” Sixteen minutes later: “Arrest happened early this morning in Pennsylvania.” At 9:06 a.m.: “Arrest paperwork filed in Monroe County, Pennsylvania shows 28 year old Bryan Christopher Kohberger is being held for extradition in a homicide investigation in Moscow, Idaho. On my way to Pennsylvania now.” At 9:09 a.m., he tweeted Kohberger’s mug shot. By 11 a.m. he was on a plane. When Entin landed, the tip had made national news.

    Later, stationed outside the Kohbergers’ gated community, Entin received another Twitter message from a woman claiming to be one of their neighbors. She offered to drive him through the gates. They met at a gas station, where Entin tucked aside his fear of being kidnapped, because she seemed like a “nice lady.” Entin got in the car. She dropped him outside the Kohberger house, which had been raided less than 24 hours before. Entin went live on Twitter. He knocked on the door, its pane busted out by police in the raid. Behind it came a muffled voice, demanding to know who Entin was. Entin introduced himself as a journalist. The voice told him to go away. He did.

    Over the next few days, Entin barely slept, fueled by an adrenaline rush as he chased down rumors and reported on the ones that were true. Later he received a text message from Kaylee Goncalves’s family, thanking him for his news coverage. Maybe it was exhaustion, but the text brought tears to Entin’s eyes. 

    “It just feels so good to know they think I’ve done a good job and been respectful. It’s truly so fucking incredible and has me feeling really raw.”

    Since Kohberger’s arrest, so-called “suspects,” like Jack Showalter, Jack DuCoeur (Goncalves’s ex-boyfriend), and Chapin’s fraternity brothers, have been exonerated by reality—though who knows what kind of psychological or professional toll this kind of experience exacts. One of the surviving roommates, Dylan Mortensen, however, continues to withstand a huge amount of abuse. Mortensen and the other surviving roommate, Bethany Funke—both named as victims in prosecutorial filings—were pilloried on social media, a friend of theirs told me, alleging that one self-appointed “detective” posted pictures of Mortensen and Funke every day, analyzing their “evil” expressions and accusing them of the crime. 

    Neuroscientists have found that when we interact with social media, it’s the anticipation of answers, not their existence, that stirs in us a need to keep clicking, scrolling, and posting—perhaps that’s why Kohberger’s arrest brings less closure to sleuths than one might anticipate.

    In our internet-addicted brains, it seems productive to skip past endings and repost whatever fresh allegations we’ve just read, misguided by the myth that social media is a tool for social justice. In reality, studies show that screens lower our empathy, increasing the tendency toward cruelty, which can camouflage online as heroism.

    In Justice on Demand: True Crime in the Digital Streaming Era, Dr. Tanya Horeck writes, “The notion that audiences can participate in true crime has, of course, always been a feature of the genre” because it offers a metaphorical seat in the jury box. What is different about today’s true crime audience, Horeck says, is their expectation that the genre literally be interactive—that “justice” is something that can be accessed through binge-watching.

    There is something deeply human about fascination with crime. The central enigma of murder is death, a painful reality that comes for us all, and one that we instinctively fight throughout our lives, differentiating ourselves from victims like Mortensen and her housemates by judging their choices and hunting their killers, as if that protects us from random acts of violence.

    But whatever we might learn at Bryan Kohberger’s trial, there can never be a tolerable explanation for what happened to Maddie Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. We want to believe in social media’s immense power to reverse or at least rectify injustices. The alternative is that we’ve bought into a massive conspiracy, surfing and shaming and buying, fooled by the idea that our addiction to screens is productive, virtuous. Never mind the destruction we leave in our wake.


    The Idaho Murders: How 4 College Kids Lived and Loved

    The brutal murders of four Idaho college students shocked millions. Through social media posts, court records, and other primary sources, author Kathleen Hale forensically reconstructs their lives before the crime, and the night they were killed.

    [ad_2]

    Kathleen Hale

    Source link

  • Stevie Case vs. the World: A Pioneering Gamer Opens Up About Industry Sexism

    Stevie Case vs. the World: A Pioneering Gamer Opens Up About Industry Sexism

    [ad_1]

    According to Case, a disturbing incident provided yet another reminder of her vulnerability as a woman in the male-dominated world of gaming.

    Since moving to Dallas, Case had become friends with an older guy in the industry who helped her navigate the nascent business and plan her career. But the man was “always just skirting the edge of inappropriate in a way that felt uncomfortable,” she says, making comments about how easily he could fall in love with her, despite the fact that he was married. He frequently told her to lose weight because it would help her image.

    Mindful of his power and influence, Case tried to shrug it off. One afternoon, Case alleges, he took her for lunch at his usual spot to talk business and strategy. Afterward, they headed out to his car so he could drive her home. Once the doors were shut, the mood changed. He asked her to pull down her pants, she says, and show him her vagina. He “commanded me, ‘Show me what you’ve got. I want to see it,’” Case says. “He just would not let up,” she says.

    As she sat frozen, she says, she thought, “If I’m not the cool girl who goes along, what am I going to give up? Am I going to be on the outside? That was my fear. It felt like one thing on this continuum of constantly being expected to expose myself or otherwise be on display. I just thought that’s how the world was. The story I told myself was: I’m strong and I am a survivor and I just do what I have to do.” So she did, pulling down her pants in the car in silence as he watched. “He didn’t touch me but I definitely felt, like, trapped,” she says, “It just felt like he was sort of leering at me.” Then she pulled her pants back up and said she had to go.

    In July 1997, Case scored her biggest win yet: a job as a game tester at Romero’s new studio, Ion Storm. With a multimillion-dollar publishing deal from Eidos, the British behemoth behind the best-selling Tomb Raider franchise, Romero had made it to the top of the industry, and downtown Dallas. Ion leased the 22,500-square-foot, glass-ceilinged penthouse of the Texas Commerce Building, and transformed it into what a press release called “the Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory of Gaming!” When Case stepped out of the emerald-green elevator doors onto the penthouse floor, she felt more like Dorothy entering Oz. As clouds floated above the glass ceiling, she passed vintage arcade games, a movie theater, a custom deathmatching arena with big shiny screens, and a snack room stacked with Bawls soda, Milk Duds, and Cup-O-Noodles. Throughout the maze of corrugated steel cubicles, at every oversized monitor, were her people: gamers, dozens of them. Though she was outnumbered by guys as usual, she felt as much a part of their team as ever. “I thought it was fucking awesome,” she says.

    But as the sun overhead turned to darkness, a harsher reality set in. With nearly 100 employees, millions spent on renovations, and no game release in sight, Romero’s team was working 12-hour days, six days a week. That explained the sleeping bags and pillows under the desks, which I saw myself when I was there profiling Romero for Salon. Case returned with a packed suitcase and camped under her desk for two weeks. She felt determined to prove herself, and land her dream job as a game designer.

    But the pressure kept building. For a year, Romero had been endlessly touting Daikatana’s impending release. This included a notorious ad in major gaming magazines that warned, “John Romero’s About to Make You His Bitch.” Romero’s spokesperson said he disavowed the ad at the time, saying it wasn’t his idea and that he regrets not preventing it. But the damage was done. It wasn’t the misogyny of the ad that bothered gamers so much. It was the macho posturing about an increasingly delayed game that was starting to feel like vaporware. The man who’d perfected the art of trash-talking in gaming now found himself being savaged by the gaming bloggers and press.

    Just before Thanksgiving 1998, Case and few others took Romero to P.F. Chang’s for an intervention of sorts. “We heard a rumor that your entire Daikatana team is going to leave tomorrow,” Case told him. The next day, they did—a devastating blow that made the haters hate even harder. But it had one silver lining: Case got promoted to a job designing levels for the game. “I was ecstatic,” she says. “I felt like this brotherhood of designers had accepted me.”

    Romero was interested in more than her design skills. Amid all the strife inside the company, they’d grown close. Both were gamers at heart, and both were familiar with life under siege. He was 31 now, with a newborn daughter, but his troubles at work spilled into tensions at home, and he and his wife soon separated.

    One night, he and Stevie went to dinner. “We were sitting on a curb after eating dinner or something, having some wine, and he kissed me,” she says. “That was it.” Case and Romero tried to keep their relationship secret at work while they raced to get Daikatana out the door. “He was supersmart, hilarious, goofy,” Case says, “The whole thing that made him a gamer—the intelligence, and the wit, and the playfulness—that was just so fun. I felt like it was somebody that got me very deeply, good and bad. Everything about who I was.”

    Their bond grew stronger in the face of mounting adversity. In January 1999, as I later reported in Masters of Doom, the Dallas Observer published a scathing exposé of Ion Storm’s work culture drawn from leaked internal emails. “The place where the ‘designer’s vision is king’ has turned into a toxic mix of prima donnas and personality cults,” the article declared. Then, in April, it emerged that the Columbine High School shooters had been avid fans of Doom. A national uproar over violent video games ensued.

    By the time Case and Romero showed up to that year’s Electronic Entertainment Expo, the annual gaming convention in Los Angeles, the baggy-jeaned KillCreek of before was no longer. Standing arm in arm with Romero, in his black leather pants, mesh black shirt, and long silver chain, Case had completed her transition from corn-fed tomboy to video-game vixen. Dressed in a tight baby-blue shirt and black pants, she’d dyed her hair blonde, dropped 50 pounds, and surgically enlarged her breasts. To the hordes of autograph-seeking fans at the expo, Romero and Case had become gaming’s It couple.

    [ad_2]

    David Kushner

    Source link