Everyone has come up with fair and valid
points regarding this particular case,
and as Pelly pointed out - it can be looked
at from so many different angles. Eventually,
the jury will decide in this court case, and
by then, I imagine even more facts will be known.

I have to admit that I too was blown away initially
by the amount of money that's involved here.
Watching the "Insight" program however, lawyers did
warn that had she asked for a smaller amount the case
would not have received all this attention. So
perhaps we shouldn't be put off by the amount (which
is going to charity anyway), perhaps her motive was
to not have the issue swept under the rug - and force
Corporate Australia re-examine their sexual harassment
policies. She did by the way, report the instances to
her immediate boss at David Jones several times, as
did the other women involved - but nothing was done.

There are so many questions that need answers - but one
thing's for sure - the case has gotten our attention.
And hopefully something positive will be the result out
of it all. I don't think that realistically anyone
expects her to get a $37 million dollar settlement -
but as I said - it achieved what she wanted - it can't be
swept under the rug.

I have seen a number of young ladies, who were just being warm & friendly, to everyone in the work place, have this taken as an offer of much more than just friendliness.

However it does not take much knowledge of body language to see that the lady involved in this high profile case has a love affair with herself, & the camera. Perhaps she projected an offer that was not intended, or perhaps she had a boss who had trouble knowing where he wasn't welcome.

What ever the reason, I'm sure the lady has got what she wanted, lots of attention, & her face on TV.

I have seen a couple of cases where ladies attracted a lot of attention at work. One, a late 20s very slim, & attractive recently separated single mother. Over a few months her heals got higher, as her skirts got tighter & shorter. It brought to mind that Twiggy era ditty, ["If skirts get any shorter, said the fairy to the gnome, there'll be two more cheeks to powder, & a lot more hair to comb"].

I don't think she was being provocative, & she did have great legs, but I had to suggest we should see a little less of them. It was better that she could bend over without flashing.

Then there was the very buxom young lady who wore low cut, loose tops, with not much under them. She liked to lean forward & gauge the amount of a stir she was causing. It started to become a problem when a couple of the men started to imagine there was an invitation being made.

Have you ever noticed how effective the office ladies are at getting rid of someone they don't want in the place. This girl was given the bums rush, & was gone, as soon as the chance of a problem appeared.

We need to remember that the workplace is a prime sight for romance, & has fostered thousands of marriages. A friendly approach should not be made impossible with sexual harassment seen under every desk.

Sheesh, I can't believe that post from hasbeen.

Why do a minority of people have this need to blame the victim instead of the perpetrator, when it comes to sexual matters?

Apparently there's 16 women in the court action, not just 1.

I would think if there's 16 different people making the complaints that says something. Someone wrote that not all the charges will be contested. So there we have it, an admission by the defence that some of the charges are truthful.

Yet we STILL have people casting innuendo against a victim, in order to give credence to a perpetrator. I say again, some of the charges will not be contested.

Dear Hasbeen,

Interesting post.

In fact, this view of yours is quite prevalent in the workplace,
where the sexual harassment of women is a common and very
serious problem. In the office or factory, as elsewhere
in society, men have a virtual monopoly of power and
influence. Frequently they take advantage of this superior
status to indulge in uninvited and unwanted sexual advances,
ranging from ogling, leering, squeezing, pinching,
bottom-patting, texting, and the like to outright
propositions accompanied by the implied or explicit
threat of dismissal.

The norms for this kind of interaction require
comparatively little self-control by the men;
instead, it is the women who are expected to manage the
situation. As you point out, after all, "it's the way they
dress," "They're asking for it?"

Many men, it seems,are convinced that any normal woman will
be flattered by sexual attention in any form: women on the
other hand for their part, have been socialized to receive
these advances as gracefully as possible, regardless of their
private response.

The myth has it that they enjoy the attention, that they
find it easy to deal with, and that the behaviour is
trivial in any case.

But, surveys show the reverse to be true; almost unanimously,
women declare that sexual advances in the workplace make them
feel powerless, trapped, defeated, intimidated, or demeaned.

This reaction is understandable, for these norms of
sexual harassment have a wider social significance.

In all cases, the male's message is the same:
Your responsibility is to satisy me, you are not my equal,
don't compete, your real value is your body.

Well, sexual harassment in the workplace is now illegal,
and since corporate and other employer's may be now held
responsible for their employees' conduct - may
well be curtailed in the future. The outcome
of Kristy Fraser-Kirk's
court case will be interesting.
Watched closely by corporate Australia.

@Foxy, wow! You buy lawyer BS easily. How does her plight make any other person’s plight less important? The price tag gets the attention for the LAWYERS from prospective clients, who will no doubt have a similar case and similar expectancy of financial outcome.

Everyone knows SH exists but shouldn’t., so what makes her case so special? How many calls do you think they’ve received now from prospective clients, since making this claim public with such an obscene amount? The lawyers have their own careers, reputations and bank accounts to feed from this case, they don’t care about her plight they care about the percentage and free publicity. They saw a big name with money behind it, and that’s what they care about, not sexual harassment in the workforce. Sheesh! They just want facts tey can use and the law books for precedents. They are detached and driven by income potential, all in the name of the client, but motivated by the percentage stake in that client. They’re not a lot of Erin Brokovich’s, though they’d like us to think that.

Dear MC,

I actually wasn't buying into the "lawyer
BS," as you put it - but the various opinions
that were being expressed on the "Insight" program.
Which to me made sense. They came from a wide spectrum
of the community, and included both men and women.
However, I'm sure that she's got excellent legal advice,
as she should in a court case. She had no other
alternative if she's going to go up against a
corporate giant as David Jones - who would be
lawyered up to the hilt as would Mark McInnes.
So, I don't see your point. Lawyers do make money -
we all know that - but you try to go to court without
one - not a very wise move.

As for BS - well as I learned early in life -
we all know what BS is. An MS - is more of the same.
And a PHD - is piled higher and deeper - but some
jobs require those qualifications, otherwise you
don't get a look in.