Sexual harassment and tax problems for dehlin or not?

[Harry T. Clark]

Just now, juliann said:

Oh, wow. This is such an oldie but goodie. All victims of sexual harrassment should just move on. Like they used to have to do. The bosses who sacked them shouldn't have to put up with attempts at justice after a few years. 

What comes next? She dressed too provocatively? 

 

So, if a woman had a consensual relationship with her boss, still wants it to continue but the boss doesn't, doesn't want to leave his wife for her, but the boss fires her unlawfully, should she forever continue to harp on the firing?  Shouldn't the drama end at some point?

FYI, there are statutes of limitation where beyond that point, the victim cannot pursue any legal remedies.  This is a ten year old case. This isn't a case of rape.  Rosebud's consented and wanted it to continue, yet she gets fired, probably because Dehlin's wife required it.  It warrants some compensation, provided there isn't more out there that would sink her case, but that time has past.

What should Dehlin's punishment be in your mind?

[juliann]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, to make it even more weird, he is listed as "Executive Director" on the listing of board members, and she was also a board member at the time this came to light.  So, depending which role each was acting in at any given time, one may have 'technically' reported to the other since the Exec Dir. would have been responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the entity but he reported to the Board.  It's also worth noting that their romantic affair pre-dated her joining OSF.  It's very fluid and very confusing and a lot of finger pointing.  No clean hands in this thing, IMO.

What Calm said. The problem with this, and it has been one of the reasons MeToo was so needed, is that everything is thrown in but the kitchen sink to dilute the act that created the situation. It doesn't matter how long ago it was (other than legally and laws are being adjusted), it doesn't matter how "crazy" the victim was anymore than it matters what she wore. It doesn't matter how good of a business woman she was. Or if she "deserved" to be fired. Or that she hasn't "handled" the whole thing well or appropriately.

The fact is that a superior had a subordinate fired for his convenience after a sexual liason. Start of story. End of story. 

[Harry T. Clark]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you can have someone fired, are you really their equal?  It's kind of a weird dynamic.  

This is why I said that at the time, it probably warranted some compensation being paid to Rosebud.  More information is needed, but it looks like Dehlin certainly had the power position in the workplace dynamic, yet it was originally consensual and Rosebud wanted it to continue.  However, it looks like when the relationship ended she got fired based on the relationship.  Case law won't condemn a consensual relationship in the workplace per se.  However, it could lead to a case where as here, Dehlin basically broke off the relationship and then had Rosebud let go.  The OSF invited both Dehlin and Rosebud to resign and be rehired as independent contractors.  Rosebud refused, probably thinking that it was a ruse.  This is where I would want to see more information.  But it is more than ten years old and memories fade.  Rosebud, I believe, has text messages and so does Dehlin.  However, they won't release them.  So, we are left guessing.

[Kenngo1969]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am actually more interested in the tax issues...both the possible private inurement and the accusation he used foundation funds to fly her out to SL so he could privately meet with her. 
 

If no one is interested in the harassment charges for whatever reasons (including accusations of hypocrisy and misrepresentation in order to be excommunication for apostasy), I am fine with it not being discussed, but got to admit the dynamics where so many critics of the church are saying “time to move on” while they see similar things as still relevant to discuss in regards to the Church interest me.
 

 The “business plan” of being excommunicated for apostasy highly interests me. Wondering if he and others involved actually were planning out years in advance what they wanted the public narrative to be in order to maximize Dehlin’s appeal. 
 

Also am really wondering what difference whether or not they had intercourse makes when it was admitted there was a physical relationship besides that, even to the point of being in bed together.  ‘They had sex, but not real sex’ doesn’t make much sense to me and sounds like another famous disclaimer. 

Does what happened in Mr. Dehlin's and Rosebud's relationship depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is?   (Yes, I know this is no laughing matter, but in case you've been comatose for a few years, a la Rip Van Winkle and have never heard my usual disclaimer: If my two choices are - (1) laugh, or (2) scream ...)

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

probably because Dehlin's wife required it.

Not according to what Dehlin said, imo. His own personal feelings of hurting and attraction were a major contributor.

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

So, if a woman had a consensual relationship with her boss, still wants it to continue but the boss doesn't, doesn't want to leave his wife for her, but the boss fires her unlawfully, should she forever continue to harp on the firing?  Shouldn't the drama end at some point?

FYI, there are statutes of limitation where beyond that point, the victim cannot pursue any legal remedies.  This is a ten year old case. This isn't a case of rape.  Rosebud's consented and wanted it to continue, yet she gets fired, probably because Dehlin's wife required it.  It warrants some compensation, provided there isn't more out there that would sink her case, but that time has past.

What should Dehlin's punishment be in your mind?

One more time. "Consent" is irrelevant once she is fired for giving it.  (Assuming consent is meaningful in an unequal situation.) Why is that so hard to understand? 

An abuser should give such a victim a public apology at the very least. 

Ironically, Bill Gates is about to be dragged through something similar. I understand Dehlin likes to say how much money he would be making if he stayed at Microsoft. It is looking like the reason Gates left (or was forced from) the board of Microsoft was because of an affair with a subordinate. 

[Harry T. Clark]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Not according to what Dehlin said, imo. His own personal feelings of hurting and attraction were a major contributor.

I thought Rosebud sent some threatening email after the spouses knew what had happened and I am obviously guessing at Dehlin's wife's reaction.

What would you do if you were Dehlin's wife?  If not divorce him and you decided to stay together, obviously Rosebud would have to leave, right?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

But it is more than ten years old and memories fade. 

Dehlin claimed to have never committed sexual harassment and stated he should be fired from OSF if he had. Seems like he has made it a current topic with his own position on the subject. 

It comes across like his claims of being a temple worthy member at the time of his excommunication council...when he had committed adultery which even if it didn’t get him excommunicated, it would have lost him a temple recommend.

https://jamespatterson3.medium.com/its-past-time-for-the-open-stories-foundation-to-fire-john-dehlin-part-i-78b21595f5c

Edited May 17, 2021 by Calm

[ttribe]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because she agreed to leave if asked for personal reasons prior to being hired?  Or something else?  Or maybe you mean something besides the sexual harassment when saying “this thing”?

Because it seems to me to be pretty cut and dried on defining whether or not sexual harassment took place. He had her fired because their sexual relationship was over in his view and he no longer wanted to work with her.  Even if she said he was right to do so, isn’t that a fundamental definition of sexual harassment...to have conditions of employment tied to sexual favours of any kind?  As soon as Dehlin made that tie where it would be his decision on whether or not she continued to receive a salary, even if it was her idea, that is sexual harassment, is it not?

I made that comment about both of them for the following reasons (at least) - Because they were both cheating on their respective spouses.  Because he used his power and influence to work a 'solution' that was window dressing (both being fired and then 're-hired' as contractors) while never actually giving up any real sacrifice of his own.  Because his actions were manipulative.  Because I saw him try to gaslight her on at least one occasion during a message board interaction (elsewhere).  Because he locked her out of message board/FB Group administration and access when this should have been a board decision.  Because they were both stupid to place any faith in some 'promise' for her to 'go away' if the romantic element didn't work out.   Because she essentially threatened to blackmail OSF if she didn't get her way during the negotiations on the outcome of the decisions of then-Board President Joanna Brooks.  Because she attempted to convince JD to oust Joanna Brooks and put her (Rosebud) in charge of OSF.  Because she has carried on a 10-year campaign of half-truths and outright lies.  Because her latest 'release of documents' includes discussions between she and JD regarding the very private intimate matters and preferences of JD's wife.  Because she's now leveraging the latest attention to the matter (courtesy of Kwaku) to set up GoFundMe fundraisers for college money for her kids and to cover 'legal bills' which haven't actually been incurred.

As to the legal definition of sexual harassment, I'm expressing no opinions, but they both did, and continue to do, some very stupid and hurtful things to one another and to others.

Edited May 17, 2021 by ttribe

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I thought Rosebud sent some threatening email after the spouses knew what had happened and I am obviously guessing at Dehlin's wife's reaction.

What would you do if you were Dehlin's wife?  If not divorce him and you decided to stay together, obviously Rosebud would have to leave, right?

Just because his wife likely wanted her gone, Dehlin’s own reasons for wanting her gone do not become inconsequential.  You make it sound like she was only fired because DW insisted she be fired. Dehlin and Rosebud already had the agreement she would leave prior to their physical relationship being started.  DW unlikely had any clue of what was to come at that point (does anyone think he asked DW for permission?)

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

What Calm said. The problem with this, and it has been one of the reasons MeToo was so needed, is that everything is thrown in but the kitchen sink to dilute the act that created the situation. It doesn't matter how long ago it was (other than legally and laws are being adjusted), it doesn't matter how "crazy" the victim was anymore than it matters what she wore. It doesn't matter how good of a business woman she was. Or if she "deserved" to be fired. Or that she hasn't "handled" the whole thing well or appropriately.

The fact is that a superior had a subordinate fired for his convenience after a sexual liason. Start of story. End of story. 

I completely understand where you are coming from with this.  I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[Harry T. Clark]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

One more time. "Consent" is irrelevant once she is fired for giving it.  (Assuming consent is meaningful in an unequal situation.) Why is that so hard to understand? 

An abuser should give such a victim a public apology at the very least. 

Ironically, Bill Gates is about to be dragged through something similar. I understand Dehlin likes to say how much money he would be making if he stayed at Microsoft. It is looking like the reason Gates left (or was forced from) the board of Microsoft was because of an affair with a subordinate. 

Do you think consent is impossible in an unequal situation?  The law isn't there but company policy can be.

What of someone who throws themself at the boss in order to further their career and after a year, the boss relents.  Then say she is a complete disaster at work and the boss' wife is upset having found out about the relationship, isn't the answer from the wife's perspective, to fire the woman?  Sure, she might be entitled to some compensation, but she would have to go, right?

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Rosebud, I believe, has text messages and so does Dehlin.  However, they won't release them.  So, we are left guessing.

They may be. Did you read her text messages before they got pulled for better redaction?  I haven’t, so don’t know what was in them.  Have heard they lack substantiation of her claims of criminally nonconsensually being recorded (a crime in NH) for the purpose of blackmail...which surprises me if she is telling the truth on that. I would expect some blistering texts once she found out....though maybe at the time she didn’t want possible documentation.

[Harry T. Clark]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just because his wife likely wanted her gone, Dehlin’s own reasons for wanting her gone do not become inconsequential.  You make it sound like she was only fired because DW insisted she be fired. Dehlin and Rosebud already had the agreement she would leave prior to their physical relationship being started.  DW unlikely had any clue of what was to come at that point (does anyone think he asked DW for permission?)

Right, more information is needed on this and that probably is unlikely to occur.  However, the email from Rosebud where she talks about Ellen and makes threats seems to assume that both non-cheating spouses knew what was going on at that time.

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Do you think consent is impossible in an unequal situation?  The law isn't there but company policy can be.

What of someone who throws themself at the boss in order to further their career and after a year, the boss relents.  Then say she is a complete disaster at work and the boss' wife is upset having found out about the relationship, isn't the answer from the wife's perspective, to fire the woman?  Sure, she might be entitled to some compensation, but she would have to go, right?

The boss should be the first out the door. I'll ignore the trope about women sleeping their way to the glass ceiling while I decide if you are trolling. 

[Harry T. Clark]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

They may be. Did you read her text messages before they got pulled for better redaction?  I haven’t, so don’t know what was in them.  Have heard they lack substantiation of her claims of criminally nonconsensually being recorded (a crime in NH) for the purpose of blackmail...which surprises me if she is telling the truth on that. I would expect some blistering texts once she found out....though maybe at the time she didn’t want possible documentation.

I read some but not all.

[ttribe]

A poster over on another board just set up this index of the documents, along with links: http://mormonrosebud.wikidot.com/

Edited May 17, 2021 by ttribe

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Do you think consent is impossible in an unequal situation?  The law isn't there but company policy can be.

What of someone who throws themself at the boss in order to further their career and after a year, the boss relents.  Then say she is a complete disaster at work and the boss' wife is upset having found out about the relationship, isn't the answer from the wife's perspective, to fire the woman?  Sure, she might be entitled to some compensation, but she would have to go, right?

I would think divorce would be the more obvious choice. I would expect the wife to not like the woman but the person who broke a promise (or covenant) is the boss.

[Harry T. Clark]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

The boss should be the first out the door. I'll ignore the trope about women sleeping their way to the glass ceiling while I decide if you are trolling. 

What if the boss is the company as in this case with Dehlin?  Sure he could have been fired and that is probably why they concocted the scenario to have the both of them resign and get hired back as independent contractors.  Sort of trying to punish both equally.  However, if he hadn't been rehired, OSF probably would have been no more and OSF #2 or something similar would have been opened with Dehlin charge.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

What if the boss is the company as in this case with Dehlin?  Sure he could have been fired and that is probably why they concocted the scenario to have the both of them resign and get hired back as independent contractors.  Sort of trying to punish both equally.  However, if he hadn't been rehired, OSF probably would have been no more and OSF #2 or something similar would have been opened with Dehlin charge.

Whataboutism is kind of silly.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I thought Rosebud sent some threatening email after the spouses knew what had happened and I am obviously guessing at Dehlin's wife's reaction.

What would you do if you were Dehlin's wife?  If not divorce him and you decided to stay together, obviously Rosebud would have to leave, right?

Or Dehlin would have to leave.  

Dehlin's wife doesn't have to get the other woman fired to keep them apart, unless she's willing to throw other people under the bus to protect her husband.  If she did ask Dehlin to get RB fired then that is really sketchy, morally speaking.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Right, more information is needed on this and that probably is unlikely to occur.  However, the email from Rosebud where she talks about Ellen and makes threats seems to assume that both non-cheating spouses knew what was going on at that time.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if RB’s husband was insisting she no longer work there...but that wouldn’t make a difference to whether or not the boss wanted her gone and acted on it, so not seeing the relevance of your comments except perhaps to try and downplay what Dehlin did. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Sort of trying to punish both equally. 

Brooks and Dehlin come up with the independent contractor idea and intend to terminate both and then rehire...with Dehlin getting the much more lucrative income producing podcasts package while RB gets what is claimed to be a money pit of conferences and communities (the public explanation for discontinuing them).

Not seeing equal punishment there. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Not according to what Dehlin said, imo. His own personal feelings of hurting and attraction were a major contributor.

Yep, and he has a doctorate in psychology.

[Danzo]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

He was, as far as I remember when this happened, receiving a salary. He asked for additional donations to go towards his tuition and living expenses on top of what he was originally contracted to receive. 
 

That is why there is debate over whether this is private inurement or not.
 

Possibly relevant facts:  

1) He was warned before he did it that it was potentially problematic. I am assuming though his being aware of issues beforehand doesn’t make a difference legally, but only morally to some.

2) There was at least one donor whose expectations were not that his donations would go solely to Dehlin’s additional needs at that time (the quote I posted where the donor says Dehlin is gaslighting).  This would seem to indicate while he did solicit such funds openly, he did not ensure that all donors knew about the funneling of donations to him rather than the usual expenses for running conferences, podcasts, and such.

3) He also used OSF funds to pay for RB to come to SLC, ostensibly to introduce a podcast guest who was a stranger to her and which she could have done long distance. RB claims he used the funds therefore to bring her out for furthering their personal relationship (graphic details available elsewhere, but I don’t see it as necessary to be precise on this and some readers will not be expecting it, so choosing vagueness intentionally).  Would the IRS look at that and say ‘could have been done as well and cheaper long distance, so it was not for the foundation, but was a personal expense’?

Generally living expenses cannot be given without it being reported as a taxable fringe benefit, the same with the tuition money.  It would probably be a taxable fringe benefit.

I looked at a link to the 2018 form 990 ( I don't have time to go over the others.)

I looks like JDs salary is the major expense of the non profit.  I would be curious to know where the other salaries are going (related to John?) but the 990 doesn't say much on that.

When the IRS audit s a non profit they are usually looking for 3 things.

1.   Payroll reporting and tax issues.  This is usually the easiest fruit for an IRS audit since many non profits don't know how to do payroll.  Are they reporting all of the income to the employees?  The Tuition and living expenses should be reported on a W2 and the approprate FICA withheld.

2.  UBI.  Unrelated business income.  This is a bit of a stretch, but is the company involved in money making enterprises that fall outside the scope of its non profit status (maybe the seminars could be looked at that way if they were brazenly commercial). Also that JDs compensation is 75% of the proceeds of the seminar might make them look like money making for JD instead of the exempt purpose of the organization. 

3.  Exempt purpose.  Has the organization actually been furthering its exempt purpose? This the death penalty for a non profit.  It would be highly unlikly for them to loose their non profit status unless JD stopped making podcasts and just sat there and took money from the organization.