Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site prism.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!prism!dawn
From: dawn@prism.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: Harassment case (Employers shoul
Message-ID: <6100013@prism.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Jan-86 11:24:00 EST
Article-I.D.: prism.6100013
Posted: Thu Jan  2 11:24:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 01:09:33 EST
References: <958@celtics.UUCP>
Lines: 40
Nf-ID: #R:celtics:-95800:prism:6100013:000:2171
Nf-From: prism!dawn    Jan  2 11:24:00 1986


/* Written  2:11 pm  Dec 30, 1985 by dave@lsuc in prism:net.legal */

>You're glossing over an important distinction between a fine
>(which is a criminal or quasi-criminal penalty and serves
>social goals of justice, deterrent, etc.) and damages, which
>are awarded to compensate for damage done to someone. 

Forgive my imprecise use of the language.

Since I am not a lawyer, I was using the word "fine" in the colloguial sense,
which according to Webster is a forfeiture (the loss of money or property 
because of a breach of a legal obligation) or penalty (disadvantage, loss, or
hardship due to some action) paid to an injured party in a civil action.
"Damages" -- compensation in money imposed by law for loss or injury -- would
suit my argument as well.  I am not concerned with whether the criminal
actions of the employee make the company also guilty of a crime; I am trying
to show a circumstance in which a financial judgement was made against a
company for the damages caused by the actions of an employee, when the company
could not possibly have known about those actions in advance.


>It's quite normal in tort law for a corporation to be vicariously
>liable for the acts of its employees. 

This is part of the point that I was trying to make.  The other part of my
argument is that *companies* (or company officials...) could not have known
in advance about the acts of its employees for which companies have 
often been vicariously liable.  Given this, my conclusion is that there is
no rational reason to insist that the company not be liable in the same
sense for sexual harrassment, on the flimsy excuse that it didn't know, or 
had no way of knowing about the harrassment.  Do you agree or disagree?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dawn Stockbridge Hall     {cca, datacube, ihnp4, inmet, mit-eddie, wjh12}...
 Mirror Systems, Inc.                                    ...mirror!prism!dawn

"If all possible objections must first be overcome, 
                                   then nothing significant will ever happen."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------