It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Stardock's Brad Wardell being sued for sexual harassment(56 posts)(56 posts)
(56 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted September 08, 2012
Post edited September 08, 2012 by lowyhong
Posted September 08, 2012
Stardock has been raping people with Elemental for some time now. Finally the law took some action.
Posted September 08, 2012
avatar
Red_Avatar: Erm holding someone by the waist is not groping.

From what was filed to court, I do think she took things out of proportions regardless of whether he's an asshole or not - that does not make him guilty of sexual harassment. The fact that the most she could mention, was him touching her hair (big deal) and her receiving Youtube vids, I don't think it was all that bad.
avatar
Kurina: Did you read the actual filings and list of complaints? I am guessing not, because the complaints filed against him go far beyond a simple touch of her hair and a YouTube email.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105042009/Complaint-and-Summons-12-30-10#page=7

He also has not really denied the fact he did many of these things, but is instead trying to justify it by taking her email out of context and portraying her as a party girl, implying she was asking for it to start with.
I read most of it and again, it came across as typical workplace banter from the less immature employees - or in this case, boss. And from what I gather, she let it all happen for years - as was said above, you have to respond to it, show you don't like it. She did it very late and when she did it, she did it in an incredibly rude and provocative way and considering that Brad IS still an idiot, I'm not surprised he responded like that and I'm sure she knew he'd be a prick about it as well.

In any case, the lawsuit for $25.000 smells like BS to me - if she felt that harassed she wouldn't let it happen for years and even the things in the mail seem incredibly weak. Touched her hair? Spoke ill of colleagues in front of her? Dear lord, that is certainly worth $25.000! *rolls eyes*. Seriously, was he a sexist pig, yes. Did he actually aim to sexually harass here? Not sure there - he's just that type of person I gather. Should she have reacted to it way earlier? Definitely. Is it worth such a high lawsuit? Definitely not.
avatar
scampywiak: The purity test includes questions like, “Have you engaged in group sex?”, “Have you engaged in intercourse with an unconscious person, while conscious?” and “Have you had anal intercourse?”

Sounds like pretty normal stuff to me.
avatar
orcishgamer: Not for your boss to demand the answers to, your SO, sure, but not your boss.
He didn't - that was Kotaku being a typical tabloid website. He sent her the list and asked for her score. Read carefully.
Post edited September 08, 2012 by Red_Avatar
Posted September 08, 2012
avatar
Red_Avatar: snip
Shhhh...

It's over. The internet has passed judgement. The court is adjourned.
Posted September 08, 2012
Interesting how much anger exists here against Frogboy. It seems to me that he has personally killed the pets of some the members here...
Post edited September 08, 2012 by viperfdl
Posted September 08, 2012
avatar
SimonG: Never heard of that guy anyway.
Lucky bastard... Anyway, whatever the court decides, won't change his image. His fuck-ups at the head of Stardock are too big to be forgiven for "at least he wasn't groping her!", and for "he was groping her!" to bring his reputation further down you'd need it to dive into magma, yet it won't even sink in water.
Posted September 08, 2012
To be fair, GalCiv 2 was grossly overrated anyway.
Posted September 08, 2012
This quartertothree.com thread is amazing to read. Wardell really is a total narcissist, like a classic case.
Posted September 08, 2012
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: There is a lot of borderline behavior that may or may not constitute sexual harassment. However, once an employee calls out such behavior as making them uncomfortable and asks that it stop, then any further behavior along those lines most certainly constitutes sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.
You pretty much nailed it. There's no clear definition what exact actions can be considered sexual harassment (touching someone's hair, telling him/her dirty jokes, telling someone how sexy he/she looks), but after he/she has made it clear (s)he doesn't want such attention anymore, it should be respected from there on, if at all possible.

Even if it was something seemingly ridiculous like "I don't want you to look at me when you pass me on the corridor" or "I feel uncomfortable if you take the same lift as me". The problem should be tried to resolve (with manager, if applicable), ie. why the other one feels uncomfortable in those situations and can something be done about it, and not try to thrown gasoline to the fire with "I couldn't give rat's ass how you feel, in fact now I'll make sure there will be more situations like that.".

That's even worse when your manager does that, because you're supposed to be able to trust their judgement. Also, in this case the manager even seemed acknowledge himself that his actions could be considered vulgar and sexist, but he just couldn't care less.

I have faced a few cases in the past which in retrospect could be maybe considered sexual harassment (towards me), mainly while I was younger working in a summer job. It is funny how interest from (older) ladies isn't necessarily that positive that porn movies make it seem.
Posted September 08, 2012
I disagree with some of that - I don't think someone can just start to complain about being looked at and consider it harassment - if that person has such personal and emotional issues, they should find a different job. If we got to cater to every small whim of some stuck up person, it would be the end of the world and it has gone too far as it is. She could easily resign and find a different job - others shouldn't have to bend over backwards to please her.

That's not to say there aren't real reasons to be uncomfortable but "don't speak ill of me about colleagues in front of me" is NOT one. And even touching hair seems incredibly mild to me.
Post edited September 08, 2012 by Red_Avatar
Posted September 08, 2012
purged with free-will by poster for crossing a line
Post edited September 08, 2012 by WhiteElk
Posted September 08, 2012
avatar
Red_Avatar: I disagree with some of that - I don't think someone can just start to complain about being looked at and consider it harassment - if that person has such personal and emotional issues, they should find a different job. If we got to cater to every small whim of some stuck up person, it would be the end of the world and it has gone too far as it is. She could easily resign and find a different job - others shouldn't have to bend over backwards to please her.

That's not to say there aren't real reasons to be uncomfortable but "don't speak ill of me about colleagues in front of me" is NOT one. And even touching hair seems incredibly mild to me.
I get the feeling you're not seeing all the context here. Some of this stuff is pretty inappropriate for a boss to female employees. Just telling them to 'buck up and get another job' is ridiculous.
Court records from the lawsuit show several troubling messages from Wardell to Miseta, as well as allegations of problematic in-person behaviour. Email messages included in the records go back as far as March 2008, and include a link to a sexually explicit YouTube video, a comment that Miseta was chosen to go to a conference “not just because you’re ‘hot’” and a 100-question “purity test” that he asked her to take and then send him her score. The purity test includes questions like, “Have you engaged in group sex?”, “Have you engaged in intercourse with an unconscious person, while conscious?” and “Have you had anal intercourse?”

Witness depositions included in the case documents refer to multiple comments from Wardell to female employees about their breast and bra sizes, and one incident where he asked Miseta to attend a media tour because “[her] nipples look better on TV”. They also describe a time on a media tour when Wardell’s visit to the hotel room Miseta and another female colleague were sharing made Miseta feel uncomfortable.

In May 2010, during a dinner on a media tour, Wardell touched Miseta’s hair. It was evidently the last straw for Miseta
Post edited September 08, 2012 by Pheace
Posted September 08, 2012
avatar
Pheace: I get the feeling you're not seeing all the context here. Some of this stuff is pretty inappropriate for a boss to female employees. Just telling them to 'buck up and get another job' is ridiculous.

Court records from the lawsuit show several troubling messages from Wardell to Miseta, as well as allegations of problematic in-person behaviour. Email messages included in the records go back as far as March 2008, and include a link to a sexually explicit YouTube video, a comment that Miseta was chosen to go to a conference “not just because you’re ‘hot’” and a 100-question “purity test” that he asked her to take and then send him her score. The purity test includes questions like, “Have you engaged in group sex?”, “Have you engaged in intercourse with an unconscious person, while conscious?” and “Have you had anal intercourse?”

Witness depositions included in the case documents refer to multiple comments from Wardell to female employees about their breast and bra sizes, and one incident where he asked Miseta to attend a media tour because “[her] nipples look better on TV”. They also describe a time on a media tour when Wardell’s visit to the hotel room Miseta and another female colleague were sharing made Miseta feel uncomfortable.

In May 2010, during a dinner on a media tour, Wardell touched Miseta’s hair. It was evidently the last straw for Miseta
Again, read all that carefully - it doesn't give many specific examples and keeps it very general. I can write such things about almost everyone I worked with. Heck, jokes about breasts and nipples - that's every day fare at the jobs I've been and the women usually join in. They're just body parts, seriously. Also, Youtube vids are not "sexually explicit", that list was just a list with a score, big deal. Even my father sent me one of those through Facebook before. And visiting a hotel room from your staff? *gasp* burn him on the stake! *rolls eyes*

Like I said, yes he's a dick head, but all those examples don't seem to warrant a 25.000$ lawsuit to me. She was being a bitch in her mail to him and he retaliated - that's the way I see it. She then left and sued him. Was she 25.000$ worth of mentally scarred? Oh PLEASE. People just need to grow a thicker skin - we're creating a generation of weak minded bitchy people who love to point the finger and complain. She should have stood up much earlier instead of waiting 2-3 years. If you condone it for that long, you send the message that you don't mind.
Post edited September 08, 2012 by Red_Avatar
Posted September 08, 2012
avatar
AnonAnom: I never imagined he could be such an egotistical jerk.
Um, really? Well I suppose being in North America you're not really exposed to that so much. The sexism is new (to me at least) but that's about it.
Posted September 08, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnNH7I07RY&feature=related
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Stardock's Brad Wardell being sued for sexual harassment(56 posts)(56 posts)
(56 posts)