
Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise - cmod
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/25/lawsuit-sexual-harassment-victim-was-biz-rival-disguise/
======
wand3r
This world is getting so fucked up. We can't crucify people for "hitting on"
or other somewhat tame behavior because we have nothing left to throw at the
real offenders.

Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their
advantage or weaponizing allegations like this.

Sexual assualt is REAL and should be punished. We need to focus on a balance
between being human and being a predator. People are fucked up. You have
rapists, liars, sociopaths and ladder climbers and guys and girls who get
overwhelmed by greed, desperation or just stupidity and break their otherwise
decent character. The media makes it fucking impossible to tell people apart.

Great example was the 500 startups thing. I am prepared to believe that there
was some dodgy ass shit going on and he was being a scumbag; but it leaves a
bad taste in my mouth not knowing the full extent of what happened and
watching the accuser ride the publicity to raise a round.

This is so messy. Is this just how the game is played? Leverage on both sides
used as a weapon instead of just treating humans like humans.

Sad to see false accusations. Sad to see real ones. Sad to see people
capitalizing on this climate, and the most sad:

People who really really hurt (either reputation or physically) just getting
killed in the crossfire on top of the horrible events.

This is sick.

~~~
InclinedPlane
OK, this is not that hard, people need to understand the rules.

First, the heuristics. If it would be extraordinarily awkward and/or
conceivably career impacting for someone to decline a romantic advance then
that advance should not be made, period, because it represents exploiting a
power imbalance (even if unknowingly!) and throwing sex and romance into the
situation. The _only_ time in any scenario related to the workplace that
romance or sex should see the light of day is if _every_ party is fully
empowered to decline with not even the slightest hint of impact to the
workplace, career, employment, etc.

A good rule of thumb: unless a coworker is inarguably already a personal
friend outside of work then introducing even the hint of romance into an
otherwise entirely professional relationship could be not just awkward but
potentially compromising. In every situation, the balance of doubt should
always fall on the side of not engaging in romantic behavior with coworkers.
Another good rule of thumb: if there is a level or authority imbalance
(enormously more so if there is a direct superior/inferior relationship
between two coworkers) then everyone should tread ten times or a hundred times
more carefully than they would with any other relationship.

Whoever is making a move should be hyper conscious of any signs of discomfort
on the part of the recipient and should go the extra mile (or ten miles) to
provide many more easily available "outs" than normal. In normal dating
situations if an advance is not welcomed that's fine, two peers had an
interaction, someone made a minor mistake, and probably no one will get hurt.
In a dating situation with all the complexities, minefields, and pitfalls of a
work environment if an overture is made that is unwanted that almost certainly
means that the person making it fucked up royally. They failed to read the
other person, and they made them uncomfortable, and they complicated their
professional relationship.

The 500 startups thing is a near perfect case of the sort of sexual harassment
that many get away with because it has just the thinnest thread of
deniability[1]. People should _not_ be inviting themselves into the room or
home of a coworker, period. People should _not_ be trying to get cozy, let
alone try to date, people they have only casually met, _especially_ if there
is a power imbalance between them or if there is absolutely anything at stake
in the professional relationship.

If this sounds like a lot of restrictions, it is, but it's the only way to
make sure that people feel safe and comfortable in their workplace and in
their career. The workplace is not a dating service. If you happen to make a
friendship at work that turns into a romance, congratulations, but that's not
what it's for.

If the first, or only, thought you jump to when thinking about a workplace
where romantic overtures are a lot more difficult is "that sucks, how are
dudes even gonna get with any ladies ever?" instead of "it would be nice if we
could get to a workplace that wasn't so toxic it kept hemorrhaging female
talent by the day" then you are part of the problem.

[1] [https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-
blac...](https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-black-box-of-
inappropriateness/)

~~~
wisty
> People should not be inviting themselves into the room or home of a
> coworker, period. People should not be trying to get cozy, let alone try to
> date, people they have only casually met, especially if there is a power
> imbalance between them or if there is absolutely anything at stake in the
> professional relationship.

Yet the majority of marriages after college are formed exactly that way - a
guy asks an acquaintance (not generally a friend) from work on a date.

If women want to fix the fact that men do all the legwork in starting
relationships, and don't like that men do so in a way that offends them
personally (even though most women seem OK with the system) then they're free
to demand other women take up a bit of the slack.

~~~
jacalata
Do you have a source for the claim that the majority of post college
relationships are between colleagues?

~~~
imartin2k
It seems to be a substantial number at least.
[http://www.siop.org/Media/News/office_romance.aspx](http://www.siop.org/Media/News/office_romance.aspx)

~~~
jacalata
Mm, that doesn't look terribly convincing compared to a real study like this
one from Stanford which shows a much lower figure: (link in the article to the
full study if you can access it)
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/how-m...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/how-
much-life-has-changed-in-one-incredible-chart-about-dating/)

~~~
imartin2k
Thanks, I was doing a quick search but you found a better looking one, I
agree.

Nevertheless, even this shows that the work place is a significant factor to
meet a partner - even if it has lost relevancy. Which leads to the question
why. Is it because the other places somehow got more effective for that
purpose, or is it fear of being perceived as crossing boundaries which makes
people hesitant to try. Both (or other) explanations seem imaginable to me.

------
themgt
_Sonya Smallets, another San Francisco employment attorney, called the Fenox
case “very unusual.” Nevertheless, the threat of defamation suits can stifle
women from coming forward, even if they have legitimate accusations of sexual
harassment, she said.

“Obviously you don’t want people to be able to make up things about other
people and harm their reputations,” Smallets said, “but there’s also obviously
a concern that if you have women who are accusing powerful, wealthy men of
sexual harassment, that a defamation lawsuit can have a chilling effect.”_

This is just a ridiculous and offensive thing to say, and way to end the
article, given the circumstances and evidence. It would be akin to commenting
on a case with blatant evidence of harassment that "obviously there's a
concern that a harassment lawsuit can have a chilling effect on office
interpersonal relationships."

A situation where a man was blatantly lying to abuse the law and defame a
competitor isn't the moment to make the "chilling effect" argument.

------
mbesto
That's right, no one would ever abuse an online system for blacklisting VCs
accused of sexual harassment...smh

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14773434](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14773434)

~~~
strathmeyer
LOL a leader of YC once threatened to ruin my career and prevent me from ever
being hired because of a comment I made on an article that was linked here.
Now I know why.

~~~
dang
Another case of the linkless martyr.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14694045](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14694045)

No "leader of YC" I know would value their time so miserably as to spend it
that way (or be so dumb as to feed every troll forever).

~~~
DanBC
It's a repeat of this claim:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9892966](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9892966)

~~~
tptacek
That's not the same claim. I've had people contact "my employer" for HN
comments, for instance about Javascript cryptography. But nobody from YC has
ever done that. That would be silly.

------
jmcgough
Incidents like this and that Rolling Stone article do so much damage to real
victims of sexual harassment/assault.

~~~
qq66
Part of the problem is that the penalties for doing this are usually just
civil. I imagine people's behavior would be very different if the next person
who manufactured an allegation to attack a business competitor got a twenty-
year (or even two-year) jail sentence.

~~~
celeritascelery
Completely agree. Rape will land you jail for a long time (as it should) but
rape hoaxing has almost no consequences.

~~~
vkou
Let's suppose that false rape accusations are a wide-spread problem. They
aren't, they are far rarer then actual cases of rape, but let's suppose that
they are.

How exactly do you propose to deal with them, without a chilling effect on
reporting real rapes? It is a crime that is notoriously hard to convict, to
the point where most victims keep silent.

~~~
Pica_soO
If you accuse somebody of a crime s/he didnt commit- and it comes out, you
should suffer the same sentence - circumstances of the person you accused
would have received as sentence.

~~~
jpttsn
Sounds like eye-for-an-eye logic. Why the same?

Also, just for rape, or for any crime? If I falsely accuse the President of
treason, and he is found innocent, should I be convicted of treason?

~~~
int_19h
There is some logic to it, in a sense that, the more serious the false
accusation, the higher the potential damage to the victim - so penalty must
also be proportionally higher.

(Note that it didn't say "same crime", only "same sentence".)

~~~
jpttsn
It's clear to me that/why people want punishment to be more severe, and
proportional to the seriousness.

Perhaps I'm being too literal and the call for "same sentence" is just for
effect.

------
ruytlm
Honestly, this doesn't surprise me; seems fairly indicative of the culture.
Yes, this is an extreme case, but who hasn't seen things like leaving 1-star
reviews of competitors, or frivolous complaints to consume competitors'
resources?

This is what happens when a culture encourages people to use any opportunity
to get ahead - and it's those with real claims that suffer from this crying
wolf.

------
imartin2k
The problem with this whole debate that follows stories about sexual
harassment is that no matter how it is being sliced, it always leads to a
skewed image of reality.

The reality, in my eyes, would be something like this:

\- People walk around looking more or less intelligently, but almost all have
primal sexual urges that they are frequently seeking or at least thinking
about to fulfill. That applies to women and men.

\- Society is built in a way which only allows people to make subtle hints
about this desire. It is unacceptable to display too much sexual desires in
most contexts of public and professional life. There is an animal in everyone
but it must not come out.

\- The dynamics that play out during the process of finding a mate are
complex, happen in parts unconsciously, and are the result of evolutionary
biology and psychology. Meaning, everyone does things to attract a mate which
he/she might not be "aware" of - and which sometimes appear extremely stupid
in hindsight (Bill Clinton or Dave McClure anyone?!).

\- There is a gender difference in the heterosexual mating process. Men
impress women with power, status (often = money), display of dominance,
achievements, and often make the first approach (sometimes after they think
they saw a behavior from her side which correctly or wrongly suggested them
that she might be interested). Women select the men who they go on a date
with. This does not apply always, you can find different variations of this
and also the occasional woman who takes pride in having been the one who did
the approach. I also don't make a statement about whether this behavior is
learned or innate, or both; but based on the current information I have I feel
comfortable enough to generalize this dynamic. I suggest that one can even see
this behavior in apps like Tinder where most women let a man write first after
a match (sadly I don't have a scientific study about this - it is just
personal observation, own experience, from talks with friends and observations
of cultural norms) - therefore, I am curious about how Bumble will do on the
market. If it becomes a big hit with the current concept to require women to
write first after a match, what I wrote in the last sentences will prove to be
wrong.

\- If we want awareness and a change of behavior, everyone needs to learn to
understand these dynamics, and needs to understand that regardless of gender,
he/she also operating to some extend outside of the normal rational and
reasonable thought procedure.

~~~
etjossem
How about instead we just agree not to hit on each other within a power-
imbalanced professional relationship?

Seriously, I don't get how this is hard for folks. It's unbelievably simple.
Be aware that you may have professional power over other people, and if you
do, make an active effort not to flirt with them. Have the self-restraint not
to mix an investment/supervisory relationship with romance or sex. Either it
will feel coercive, or it's a conflict of interest waiting to happen.

Avoiding trying to sleep with your subordinates is not rocket surgery.

~~~
ablomen
Thanks, I'll be sure tell my parents (mom used to be dad's secretary) that
their 35y relationship will end in failure.

~~~
etjossem
Fortunately for women who just want to get their work done and go home, we do
not live in the world of _Mad Men_ anymore. Since then, we have realized how
important it is to strive for work environments that are free from sexual
pressure and related favoritism.

~~~
ablomen
"Fortunately for women who just want to get their work done and go home, we do
not live in the world of Mad Men anymore" Yes we can all be happy about that,
but it's not an either/or situation, lots of relationships start at work and
they can work out just fine.

~~~
yorwba
Sure, relationships that start at work/in an uneven power dynamic can
absolutely work out, but you only know this afterwards, when everything has
run its course.

If someone else had applied for the position as your father's secretary and
had been refused, they could have complained about it by pointing to the
conflict of interest.

If you want to avoid the negative consequences of mixing work and romance,
you'd better not only focus on the best-case result, but also keep the worst
case in mind and accordingly tread carefully.

------
mirimir
Wow. Hill reportedly posted the false allegations on Hatena from his actual
Comcast IP address. That was just so stupid. Not even using a bloody VPN
service, let alone Tor.

~~~
abhi3
Most likely he didn't expect a lawsuit, stupid nonetheless.

~~~
mirimir
And admittedly, Uzzaman obtained cooperation of both Hatena (ordered by a
Japanese judge) and Comcast (subpoenaed). That was no mean feat.

------
danmaz74
How can an _anonymous_ online accusation _without any evidence_ even get
considered a thing? Are we back to 16th century witch-hunts?

Whoever gives publicity to accusations like this for the clicks, without
checking their sources at all, should rightfully be persecuted for defamation.

~~~
b3lvedere
Back? We never left it.

------
tabeth
Why do accusations result in people automatically being labeled as "guilty"
anyway?

~~~
fweespeech
Because people would rather rely on gossip than facts. Its easier and requires
no real effort.

------
fenomas
For anyone curious, I hunted down an archive of what appears to have been the
original (Japanese, now deleted) blog post:

[http://archive.fo/6MU5K](http://archive.fo/6MU5K)

------
cm2187
What's interesting is that seeking a court order to unveil the IP of an
anonymous accuser can be seen as attempting to uncover the identity of a
whistle blower and would leave the person trying to defend himself in hot
water in certain companies. This is a minefield.

------
smaili
For those curious, here is the accused rival's about page -
[http://btrax.com/en/about-us/](http://btrax.com/en/about-us/)

------
AKifer
Profiteers always exist, seeking for loopholes and sneaky tactics to attain
their goals. The system should punish offenders and protect victims, but MUST
ensure that those who sneakily use that as a tool to achieve other goals MUST
be punished 10x harsher.

------
bitL
Ugh, now I am starting to understand those men that are dropping out of
society - one such a claim and they are done; it must be dire if they decided
it's better to minimize risk and segregate from society... We all are probably
going to wear mini cameras/mics and record every single moment of our lives
for protection, and won't trust a single human being. Scary...

~~~
selllikesybok
Done. Or POTUS. Or may it's like that Rostand quote.

------
Evolved
If the burden of proof is on the prosecution then, similarly, why isn't the
burden on the victim to prove they were actually sexually harrassed? This
isn't victim- _BLAMING_. This is simply an accuser having to prove their case
and _there is nothing wrong with that_.

~~~
smt88
> _why isn 't the burden on the victim_

Because there is often a massive power imbalance between the harasser and the
victim.

Either way, for any legal consequences to take place, the victim must prove
his/her accusation.

There is no system in the world that can protect people's careers and
reputations. If a false accusation is made and the accused person can prove
it, then a lawsuit will often be filed (as in the case above).

~~~
Evolved
Why isn't there something synonymous with a grand jury convening privately to
determine if the case has enough merit to go forward? This seems like a step
in the right direction to protect reputations.

Otherwise, it is reminiscent of the false accusations about political
candidates in the 1940s/1950s making wildly false accusations, which forced
their opponents to spend time and money to defend the claims. It still happens
today as well although it seems easier to defend claims via social media and
the 24hr news cycle having to keep up with all sorts of stories that draw
people's attention.

------
tanilama
What will happen to this Hill guy?

~~~
abhi3
He'll end up paying millions of dollars in damages most likely not covered by
insurance and might be subject to criminal charges if the State decides to
prosecute

~~~
zaroth
Are you a lawyer? Because this sounds like fantasy.

~~~
abhi3
Yes, I am a lawyer. Succesful defamation lawsuits usually get multi-million
dollar damage awards, most recent case was the Hulk Hogan case against Gawker
where 100 million+ damages were awarded and Gawker filed for bankruptcy.
Insurance doesn't usually cover liability due to defamatory behavior and in
any case, it is rare for individuals to hold such policies.

Now I am not familiar with the US or Japenese Criminal Code but there must be
something that criminalizes such behavior, but prosecution is at the
discretion of the DA (or in this case where the incident crosses international
borders even the US Attorney could prosecute)

~~~
DannyBee
" Succesful defamation lawsuits usually get multi-million dollar damage
awards"

[citation needed].

It's actually fairly rare for such awards in the US, according to all data i
see. (certainly, they get highlighted by the media, but seem to be uncommon,
since the average is something < 100k from the law review articles and data i
can find )

Where are you licensed that the usual is multi-million?

~~~
abhi3
Well, I should have been more specific. I was referring to cases such as these
which play out publicly and not disputes between two neighbors.

One hundred thousand dollar sounds right in the ball park for General damages
in usual cases though it'll increase depending on how much publicity the
accusation got or if business reputation was harmed. That's just general
damages. There's also attorneys fee in two countries and then there are
special damages (economic harm caused), and finally, pre and post judgment
interest.

Add on top of all that possible punitive damages imposed by a jury. I am a
lawyer in India but these are usual common law principles followed everywhere.

~~~
narrator
There are successful defamation lawsuits, even for public figures. For
instance, radio host Art Bell succesfully sued Gunderson and Michael Savage
for Libel/Slander though these lawsuits were settled out of court.

------
Kenji
I would simply put a law in place that if it can be _proven_ that the sexual
harassment accusation is completely fabricated, then the accuser must serve
the exact jail time that a person would serve who acted out all the
accusations. That would stop all the shenanigans instantly.

~~~
Rjevski
This should be extended to all crimes and not only sexual harassment.

------
matt4077
Thousands of women experience sexual violence, every day.

What gets Hacker News as excited as the end of Flash? The rare false
accusation.

~~~
ruleabidinguser
I guess we're all evil women haters then

~~~
matt4077
By and large, yes.

(Although, and it bears repeating: in this case everyone is hating on those
women running around falsely accusing good upstanding men just for the fun of
it, without ever realising that the false accuser in this case is actually a
man)

------
throwitlong
"Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American
Dream"

------
aklemm
Massive disservice to women in general.

------
abhi3
> Nevertheless, the threat of defamation suits can stifle women from coming
> forward, even if they have legitimate accusations of sexual harassment, she
> said.

The accused must usually be given the benefit of doubt in cases of anonymous
allegations without any corroborating evidence. But cases like these should
not be used to cast doubt on the motive/credibility of women brave enough to
risk their identity and careers to come out.

~~~
taneq
> The accused must usually be given the benefit of doubt in cases of anonymous
> allegations without any corroborating evidence.

The accused must always be given the benefit of the doubt in case of any
allegations without corroborating evidence. This current trend of "anyone
accused of sexual harassment is guilty unless proven innocent" is not justice.

~~~
curun1r
There's no such thing as guilty or innocent when it comes to sexual
harassment. It's not a crime and only companies can be liable for anything
related to it, not the actual people doing the harassment. So what we're
seeing is these incidents being played out in the court of public opinion. And
unlike the law, there are no hard and fast rules in that courtroom. There's
only cultural norms that are still evolving. We should expect a lot of
confusion around this issue given the stakes. We know that harassment is
incredibly pernicious for those that are targets while going almost unseen by
those who aren't. And yet allegations, regardless of their veracity, can
destroy someone's business, career, marriage and reputation. If nothing else,
all the attention this issue has gotten recently has at least driven home in
people's mind that the issue is important and can no longer be ignored just
because you haven't harassed anyone or been harassed.

But we should stop using legal terms like innocent, guilty or liable in our
discussions on the subject since they act as a subtle framing of the issue in
ways that are not accurate. By saying someone is guilty of sexual harassment,
you're implicitly saying that the determination of guilt should be made based
on criminal procedure. People hear guilty and think "innocent until proven
guilty." People hear liable and they think of monetary damages. These kinds of
accusations will almost always exist on the continuum between true and false
and, unlike the instance in the story, will rarely be as black and white as a
legal verdict is. There are subtle forms of harassment and there are more
blatant forms of harassment. And our court of public opinion should be more
nuanced and be able to come down harder on individuals based on how much proof
is provided. There's no sentence or fine being imposed, only social stigma and
it's up to every individual to determine how much to stigmatize the wrongful
parties, either when they are the accused, or in the rare cases like this one,
the accuser.

~~~
kbart
_" There's no such thing as guilty or innocent when it comes to sexual
harassment."_

If there are no procedures and we leave justice to public opinion then it's
nothing more than a witchhunt.

 _" It's not a crime "_

It is in pretty much any modern country.

~~~
curun1r
Perhaps, but unlike Salem, it's one with some actual witches.

~~~
kbart
By this logic, we could abolish legal system at all and rely on anonymous
accusations and public opinion to do all the bidding, because you know, there
are real killers/rapers/thieves/robbers etc. out there and the accusation
_might_ be true.

~~~
curun1r
On the contrary, we're left with a social remedy to a problem specifically
when we don't have laws that governing a specific behavior. Our morality is
not limited to what we codify into law. You might even argue that the court of
public opinion is the tip of the spear that helps us determine what should and
shouldn't be covered by laws.

And, by the way, we do rely on public opinion to do our bidding in the justice
system. They're called juries.

~~~
jpttsn
I hope that's not how the judge explains it to the jurors.

