From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: What is "banning" anyway?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:13:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.004645.3009@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

)mark@kraken.ucsd.edu (Mark Anderson) writes:
)
)[...]
)>You might want to check with the Human Resource Department
)>about sexual harassment law and the concept of a hostile 
)>workplace.  Of course there is no problem until someone
)>is actually offended.  Your insistence that they *requested*
)>the information is unlikely to wash.
)[...]
)
)ANNOTATED REFERENCES
)
)(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
)
)=================
)law/meritor-v-vinson
)=================
)This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court
)decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a
)"hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two
)university speech code decisions.
)
)=================
)law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
)=================
)The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
)court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
)offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.

From the UWM post case Carl cites:
---
The Meritor Court held that courts should look to agency principles when
determining whether an employer is to be held liable for its employee's
actions.  See id.  Since employees may act as their employer's agents, agency
law may hold an employer liable for its employees actions.  In contrast, agency
theory would generally not hold a school liable for its students' actions since
students normally are not agents of the school.  Finally, even if the legal
duties set forth in Meritor applied to this case, they would not make the UW
Rule constitutional.  Since Title VII is only a statute, it cannot supersede
the requirements of the First Amendment.
---

As the original poster implies (in some text that was deleted where he
mentions assuming the poster was from a business site) the rules do change
some when you're an employee - unfortunately, IMO.  [The 'agency' principle.]

The observation that title VII cannot supersede the first ammendment may
be an accurate one, but gives me little comfort considering that the
Supreme court has apparently *already* decided that some  posters are 'too
extreme' to be displayed in the workplace - and some are not.  (Sorry,
this comes from some general reading - I don't have any specific cites
as Carl does).  I really don't understand how this is supposed to be
compatible with the 1st amendment, but the Supreme Court doesn't seem to feel
that I have to understand :-( :-(.

There is some effort to fight the current broadness of the Title VII law -
Time magazine mentioned a case the ACLU was fighting a case for Jacksonville
Shipyards.  However, most employers are probably willing to 'knuckle under'
to the Federal Government on this issue - and this leaves the private
individual in a very uncomfortable spot.  Unless you have the time and
the resources for a major legal fight (if you think the ACLU will help you on
a case like this, I'd really suggest confirming this IN ADVANCE, I have some
strong doubts, your mileage may vary) , you probably *are* stuck,
realistically speaking,  with  whatever 'Human Resources' decides.  Unless
you think that your rights to appeal to the EEOC are going to help you in
your conflict with the HR department, *you* are probably going to have to
bear the legal costs of any conflict with HR.

Sorry to be perhaps a bit alarmist - I don't like the current laws - but
that's the way things seem to be right now, at least to me.

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6083 comp.unix.bsd:6639 comp.os.mach:1418 misc.int-property:1083 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:916