Sexual harassment and tax problems for dehlin or not?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is this codified in law somewhere? If someone is subjected to unwanted sexual advances, that’s harassment. If someone is fired for refusing sexual advances that’s harassment. Ending a consensual relationship? Nope. 
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frawleypollock/2019/10/22/the-right-way-to-hire-and-fire-your-ex-spouse/?sh=fa372df14eff

 

If it’s by definition harassment to fire someone because your sexual relationship ended why does Forbes advise you to do it here?

That forbes article seems to be specifically discussing spouses and divorce. 

Here's something put out by a law firm that says:

When Dating Crosses the Line to Sexual Harassment

The difficult job of managers, supervisors, and human resource experts is to ensure that consensual dating doesn't end in sexual harassment claims. Some businesses adopt policies against employee fraternization, hoping that prevention will shield them from the risks. Even when these policies are in place though, sexual relations outside the office can sometimes find their way into a person's work life.

Employers and employees alike should be on the lookout for certain tell-tale signs that a relationship has gone too far and become sexual harassment:

• Hiring decisions are based off of the existence or denial of a romantic relationship
• Conduct escalates to a point that a reasonable person would be offended
• Protests and complaints about the conduct are ignored or downplayed
• The targeted employee requests a transfer or time off of work

When these things begin to happen, it becomes more likely that you have gone beyond dating your employee and may be looking at a sexual harassment claim.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seeking, do you have a link to any other documentation from the podcast?  I may have missed others since I was relying on citations in various discussions I was skimming. 

It’s John btw. Hate my screen name:

https://mormonismlive.org/2021/04/mormonism-live-021-sexual-allegation-against-john-dehlin-goes-down-in-flames/

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

it’s by definition harassment to fire someone because your sexual relationship ended why does Forbes advise you to do it here?

It leaves it open as a possibility and places conditions on it to ensure appropriateness.  
 

My problem with Dehlin’s original approach was that her termination was centered from the beginning on his personal desires, rather than something that would be evaluated by all involved.  
 

Now it is possible that if RB’s recreation based on the email exchange she posted is inaccurate, her dismissal once originally framed as dependent on Dehlin’s personal desires may have been appropriately performed by the board as described by Helfer iirc. 
 

From Forbes:

Quote

In the event of divorce, come to an agreement as to whether your spouse will continue working for the company or leave. Depending on the position, the level of contribution, the amount of contact the two of you would need to have going forward, and any other considerations you’d like to weigh, you might agree that your spouse should stay on in his or her official capacity. Before you make this determination, be confident that this arrangement will not be detrimental to your work environment. Personal animosity can be palpable to those around you, no matter how well you may think you are hiding it. You don’t want to make your other employees uncomfortable and create a hostile work environment

 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s John btw. Hate my screen name:

https://mormonismlive.org/2021/04/mormonism-live-021-sexual-allegation-against-john-dehlin-goes-down-in-flames/

You may be able to get it changed...though you may lose rep points (the mod was kind enough to restore them when someone pointed it out...hopefully not me or my memory is screwed up as I have a warm fuzzy thought of another poster asking the mods).

I will try and remember “John”, but I may not trust my memory as there as I know so many by that name and may assume I am getting it wrong.  

Edited May 19, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

You may be able to get it changed...though you may lose rep points (the mod was kind enough to restore them when someone pointed it out...hopefully not me or my memory is screwed up as I have a warm fuzzy thought of another poster asking the mods).

I will try and remember “John”, but I may not trust my memory as there as I know so many by that name and may assume I am getting it wrong.  

Seeking absolutely fine, it just comes off as a humble brag. I asked the moderators once before and it appears that they have more important things to do (no animosity there. I think they do a great job here). I’d post under my actual name, but it’s unique enough that only my Dad and I share it on the planet, so for Google anonymity I’ve just stuck with this id  

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Foreplay and petting are sexual acts are they not, therefore even if limited to those, it would be appropriate to describe their relationship as sexual. 
 

If you disagree...sexting does not include intercourse, as do not a number of other sexual practices I wouldn’t get graphic about except to say orgasm, what many see as one of the end results of a sexual relationship,  does not require intercourse.  Pregnancy does not even require it as some have found out to their dismay.  There are individuals who cannot participate in intercourse as well.  To say that a relationship is only sexual if there is intercourse is ignoring the reality of many sexual relationships. 

We were defining what an affair was.  By definition an affair involve a sexual act.  Would petting or foreplay reach the definition of an affair, by definition it would not, but if I engaged in such activity, my wife would absolutely consider it an affair and a huge breach of trust.  So I guess it jut depends n who is doing the defining.

[Calm]

Quote

• Hiring decisions are based off of the existence or denial of a romantic relationship

This does not appear to be dependent on whether or not the targeted employee is agreeing or even pushing to be hired.  And if hiring decisions are problematic if based on a romantic relationship, then other business decisions would also fall in that category it seems to me, such as choosing the target employee for a project that puts them at the same location as the other employee or boss.

For me, a lot depends on how much the romantic relationship between the two affected Dehlin and others’ business decisions. 
 

Would Dehlin have suggested they work together and she get paid if the relationship hadn’t existed?  I reference here past complaints where it is alleged he took advantage of volunteers and even contracted individuals...hiring someone at that stage who was volunteering may have been unusual behaviour on Dehlin’s part, comparison of others who were hired and others who remained as volunteers would be needed to support or discredit a claim he hired her in part because of their relationship.

Would he have had the foundation pay for her travel and other expenses if the relationship hadn’t existed?

Might come up with some other questions if I go into  the various claims more and will add them here if I do, but bottom line for me is on this particular Forbes point is if her employment was intertwined with the relationship rather than independent of it.  If it was, seems to me that it was sexual harassment (employment dependent on sexual relationship in some fashion).
 

What I have read so far leads me to believe it was since Dehlin apparently thought it necessary to set up an ‘out’ from the beginning of the working relationship based on what was happening in the sexual relationship. 
 

I may change my mind if there is evidence there was independence. For example, if there is a solid reason for flying RB out to SL when her introduction of someone she wasn't even an acquaintance with Coe could have been done long distance.  The rationale that it would further her career to do it in person when it was a podcast and not an in person presentation seems too much a rationalization to me.  I don’t see her meeting Coe (was he there in person even?) as helping her reputation or future networking as he was not a major or even minor player in the community RB was working in. 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

it just comes off as a humble brag

Not to me...but then such is what I see as the foundation of most of my life, seeking satisfaction of my infinite curiosity put another way, but also seeking others’ understanding of myself...and realizing never going to get it to the degree desired.  
 

I see it as both a practical and intelligent effort and goal. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

It leaves it open as a possibility and places conditions on it to ensure appropriateness.  
 

My problem with Dehlin’s original approach was that her termination was centered from the beginning on his personal desires, rather than something that would be evaluated by all involved.  
 

Now it is possible that if RB’s recreation based on the email exchange she posted is inaccurate, her dismissal once originally framed as dependent on Dehlin’s personal desires may have been appropriately performed by the board as described by Helfer iirc. 
 

From Forbes:

 

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. This is why almost every mid-size company and up has rules against nepotism, cronyism and dating supervisors. It's why when OSF got around to implementing a formal policy they banned this type of thing. When you are starting a small business (and I would know) things work differently. Small businesses typical start and hire friends, family and children. I would know since my wife hired me, we use my sister-in-law for a part time accountant, my brother-in-laws CPA firm to file our taxes, friends in the neighborhood as part time labor as well as all of our children. This can get messy, but things start casual and evolve from there. 

That said, in this situation the decision to hiring and the decision to be hired with someone you are having an affair with at a small startup (200k in revenue with a 60k payroll and just the two of them as employees) shows extremely poor judgement on the account of both parties. They deserve each other and the mess they created together. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

We were defining what an affair was.  By definition an affair involve a sexual act.  Would petting or foreplay reach the definition of an affair, by definition it would not, but if I engaged in such activity, my wife would absolutely consider it an affair and a huge breach of trust.  So I guess it jut depends n who is doing the defining.

When you are getting each other off, it meets every definition of a "sexual act" (peruse the "other" board or listen to Rosebud's interview for details).  Affair: "a sexual relationship between two people, one or both of whom are married to someone else."

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

We were defining what an affair was.  By definition an affair involve a sexual act.  Would petting or foreplay reach the definition of an affair, by definition it would not

Maybe yours and maybe others even if they happened as part of a one night stand, but most I know call petting and foreplay sexual activities and if part of a long term romantic relationship, certainly evidence it was an affair.  
 

And we have the evidence of someone very familiar with definitions of sex (her profession being among other things a sex therapist) calling the relationship an “affair”.

 I have made my point and others have as well. You can continue to make this claim as long as you want, but so far your assertions do not change anything I can see and so I won’t be responding again in the future unless you come up with something more than “no it isn’t”.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That forbes article seems to be specifically discussing spouses and divorce. 

Sure, because most people aren't stupid enough to go work for / hire their illicit lovers. But is there a distinction made in the law somewhere that says you can't harass your spouse / ex-spouse. I'm not sure how marital status comes into play with the definition of sexual harassment. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Here's something put out by a law firm that says:

When Dating Crosses the Line to Sexual Harassment

The difficult job of managers, supervisors, and human resource experts is to ensure that consensual dating doesn't end in sexual harassment claims. Some businesses adopt policies against employee fraternization, hoping that prevention will shield them from the risks. Even when these policies are in place though, sexual relations outside the office can sometimes find their way into a person's work life.

Employers and employees alike should be on the lookout for certain tell-tale signs that a relationship has gone too far and become sexual harassment:

• Hiring decisions are based off of the existence or denial of a romantic relationship
• Conduct escalates to a point that a reasonable person would be offended
• Protests and complaints about the conduct are ignored or downplayed
• The targeted employee requests a transfer or time off of work

When these things begin to happen, it becomes more likely that you have gone beyond dating your employee and may be looking at a sexual harassment claim.

 "The difficult job of managers, supervisors, and human resource experts is to ensure that consensual dating doesn't end in sexual harassment claims. " This is a small startup with a non-functioning board, two employees (those involved in the affair). The OSF had a total of 200k in revenue and 80k in salary split between Dehlin and RB. http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/OSF-2012-PandL.pdf

Big firms don't look like startups. 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It would seem that when Dehlin found God, decided to end the affair, and endeavored to save his marriage, he had the following options:

1. Fire Rosebud
2. Quit OSF
3. Try to keep working with Rosebud professionally

Option #2 would have resulted in the dissolvement of OSF, with Rosebud losing her job anyway.

In all likelihood, option #3 would have resulted in the ending both of their marriages.

So which option would have been best?

Since Rosebud voluntarily entered into the affair to begin with, it is hard for me to label her the victim. 

You forgot #1, fire your subordinate after telling her she had to leave because it was too uncomfortable to work with her after having an affair....and get called out for sexual harrassment as per your own organizations current policy. Given the trashing of the victim going on here coupled with excuses for the boss, that seems to have been the win-win call. 

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sure, because most people aren't stupid enough to go work for / hire their illicit lovers. But is there a distinction made in the law somewhere that says you can't harass your spouse / ex-spouse. I'm not sure how marital status comes into play with the definition of sexual harassment. 

 "The difficult job of managers, supervisors, and human resource experts is to ensure that consensual dating doesn't end in sexual harassment claims. " This is a small startup with a non-functioning board, two employees (those involved in the affair). The OSF had a total of 200k in revenue and 80k in salary split between Dehlin and RB. http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/OSF-2012-PandL.pdf

Big firms don't look like startups. 

Sooooo....if I steal from a start up rather than a big firm it isn't stealing? We know this isn't legally actionable given the date it occured. That doesn't mean it wasn't harrassment as defined by the start ups current policy. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

One more time. She could be Godzilla and it makes utterly no difference whatsoever to whether there was sexual harrassment, which is what this is about. The current MS policy defines what happened as sexual harrassment. Unless you want to make the ridiculous case that it only became sexual harrassment when the current policy was approved, it was sexual harrassment. 

So keep the blame the victim smears out of it, please. 

Here is the statement in question http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Sexual-Harassment-Policy-Open-Stories-Foundation.pdf:

Quote

Open Stories Foundation considers sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by persons in a supervisory or authoritative role toward subordinates within the same department or chain of command, or by persons having authority over staffing or salary decisions, to be harassment for which disciplinary action will be taken.

If we assume that Dehlin and Rosebud were in a "supervisor"/"subordinate" role, the decision to hire Rosebud would be the instant "harassment" occurred not when she was fired. She was a "victim" of sexual harassment from her first day on the job.  To me this robs the word of all relevant meaning. Rosebud, a grown mature intelligent woman in a consensual relationship, made an informed decision to go work with her lover at a small business. And this very act makes her a victim. At some point the word loses all meaning. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sure, because most people aren't stupid enough to go work for / hire their illicit lovers. But is there a distinction made in the law somewhere that says you can't harass your spouse / ex-spouse. I'm not sure how marital status comes into play with the definition of sexual harassment. 

 "The difficult job of managers, supervisors, and human resource experts is to ensure that consensual dating doesn't end in sexual harassment claims. " This is a small startup with a non-functioning board, two employees (those involved in the affair). The OSF had a total of 200k in revenue and 80k in salary split between Dehlin and RB. http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/OSF-2012-PandL.pdf

Big firms don't look like startups. 

I do get what you are saying.  Small businesses and nonprofits regularly employ people in relationships of some kind or another with the boss/owner, and it's not sketchy even when they are romantic.  I agree with that.

Where I think the RB/JD saga enters harassment territory is specifically when John ties RB's employment to the relationship.  Meaning, he outright says that she only gets to keep her job as long as their romantic personal relationship continues to meet his personal needs.   He tells her that when he's done with that personal relationship, or if that personal relationship becomes uncomfortable for him, then she has to leave.

Tying someone's job to the existence of a personal romantic relationship, and not their asset to the company as an employee, seems like basic sexual harassment to me.

If your wife said, "you can only continue to have this legitimate job as long as having you here meets my personal romantic/sexual needs", then I think you'd have legal grounds with that, regardless of the nature of small start ups or the normal nepotism involved with them.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

Sooooo....if I steal from a start up rather than a big firm it isn't stealing? We know this isn't legally actionable given the date it occured.

It's not legally actionable because OSF is exempt from the law (due to its size - yes size matters). But even if it had more employees, the codified definition of harassment is not as expansive as the policy adopted by OSF several years after the fact. And the facts that exist in this case (such as they are) don't make a great case for harassment. Rosebud tacitly acknowledges as much when she perjured herself in her harassment complaint. She averred that she was fired for refusing Dehlin's sexual advances. 

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

That doesn't mean it wasn't harrassment as defined by the start ups current policy. 

Which was not in place at the time.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If your wife said, "you can only continue to have this legitimate job as long as having you here meets my personal romantic/sexual needs", then I think you'd have legal grounds with that, regardless of the nature of small start ups or the normal nepotism involved with them.

It's complicated, but yeah I hear you. That said, I think its pretty implied. If we were to split, we would most likely not have a great working relationship and I would most likely be looking for a new job. 

If I thought our relationship wasn't solid I never would have quit my old job. It's a risk that goes with the territory, but I'm a grown adult making a grown decision. Calling me a victim of sexual harassment (which I would be under OSF policy- I'm subjected to "sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by persons in a supervisory or authoritative role") is insulting to me.  

Edited May 19, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JamesBYoung]

After reading you all above, I am just so glad that I have never worked with or dated a significant other from a work place.

[rpn]

Dehlin was reported for fraud to the IRS at least three years ago when it was clear that the foundation was not in any way a charitable organization (since he didn't provide any charitable services, that donators actually bought content --- which means they couldn't lawfully claim any donation as a deduction either), but merely used the donations to fund his own lifestyle.    But then I saw that most of the anti-mormon groups operate in exactly the same way to the benefit of one or more of the founders/board. 

So while it is wrong and illegal to establish a 501(c)(3) like that of Dehlin and so many others, and no one who is contributing should be thinking donations are deductible if they also access content from the sites of those 501(c)(3) in name only sites,  I doubt IRS has the manpower to pursue them.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rpn said:

So while it is wrong and illegal to establish a 501(c)(3) like that of Dehlin and so many others, and no one who is contributing should be thinking donations are deductible if they also access content from the sites of those 501(c)(3) in name only sites,  I doubt IRS has the manpower to pursue them.

Would like the input from others on this. 
 

FAIR primarily produces content and now has two paid employees, bookstore manager and admin help and we qualify as a 501(c)(3). One major difference is the salaries are a small fraction last I heard of the revenue.  
 

Do you see us as illegal or is there something that sets us apart that allows us to qualify for 501 etc where Dehlin’s org does not?

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Huh?  What was the slight?  If the bold...”proxy” I was using that as to identify her special category of defender as she was not self appointed as happens with many on the Internet, but was there as a representative of John Dehlin, making her POV more relevant Imo to the discussion. 

Ok apologies.  I misinterpreted the intent.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok apologies.  I misinterpreted the intent.

All good, thanks for clarifying. 

[rpn]

501(c)(3)'s are supposed to operate on behalf of the  causes involving improvement of society (which may include the discussion of ideas), not on behalf of the persons who run them.    Whenever someone sets up a nominal 501(c)(3) (and state authorization) and the benefit of the donations innures to the founder, and boards are groupies of the founder who do not police, establish policies to prevent, and otherwise make sure it is the cause and not a person who benefits, then there is a problem.    What many of the critics did was set up 501(c)(3)'s intending to pay themselves all of most of the donations (without any correlation to what is produced and the time that is spent, and the progress of the cause. 

The other problem is advertising for donations, without giving receipts that state the value of what they are getting (which isn't deductible).   For instance, when OSF says that they provide content, then they should be noting the value of the content the donor gets, and subtracting that from the donation to determine what if any of it is deductible.  (Because if the higher standard deduction, I suspect there aren't many donors who are individually declaring donations to OSF and others like it for tax purposes these days.   But it is fundamentally wrong of a charitable organization to tell its donors that all of their donations are tax deductible when only that amount that is more than the value of what they receive is deductible.).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, rpn said:

The other problem is advertising for donations, without giving receipts that state the value of what they are getting (which isn't deductible).   For instance, when OSF says that they provide content, then they should be noting the value of the content the donor gets, and subtracting that from the donation to determine what if any of it is deductible

With respect it doesn’t appear you know what you are talking about. In all my years paying tithing, they never deducted the cost of the building, printed materials etc on my statement. I donate to NPR every year and they don’t deduct for the cost of their content either. It’s my understanding that parents right off mission expenses as tax deductible as well without having to deduct what their child receives for rent, food and medical care.