That's 6.2 million dollars the LA Fire Department can't spend on other projects.

I'm all for "nontraditional employment for women." This payment though, coming from public funds, is excessive and irresponsible. It's not the tax-payer's fault that the firefighters were creeps.

I can't really say that I'm surprised she was harassed. One of my good friends in college's father was a firefighter, and that boy knew more ways to pull pranks on other people than I thought imaginable. He would talk about all kinds of strange things involving stuff int he shower heads, or eating things that make your pee blue.

From what I understand there is a level of harassment that goes on in Firehouses as part of the lifestyle there. They spend a lot of time together, and there is a lot of initiation hazing type stuff that goes on.

Just knowing that makes me question if she was being harassed because of her race and gender, or if she was being harassed because that's what firefighters do when they aren't working.

I just wonder whether she misinterpreted their actions, or if they were really targeting her. But since the court decided in her favor in this case, I will just assume that they were targeting her, and shut up.

That's 6.2 million dollars the LA Fire Department can't spend on other projects.

Indeed. Maybe knowing that they've been financially crippled will make the LAFD take workplace harrassment seriously next time. That is the point of a punishment.

I have to agree with EG on this - I hope that harassment is taken much more seriously by the firefighters especially since this case is so out in the public. People do not want their tax dollars to pay for settlements instead of protective services simply because some ignorant firefighters do not know where to draw the line.

"I just wonder whether she misinterpreted their actions."

I think that having urine mixed in your mouthwash does not need additional interpretation. We can't simply dismiss the behavior because "boys will be boys" and they were all doing disgusting things to each other (although I do doubt that what she experienced was exactly the same as the "hazing" men received - in cases like this, it's usually very gendered). The problem is the hypermasculinity associated with some male-dominated jobs that creates an environment in which these acts are seen as "normal." These "normal" acts that supposedly don't bother any of the men (which I also doubt) are part of a culture that steers women away from whole occupations.

It's also worth noting that the law does not support the "equal opportunity harasser" who does terrible things to men as well as women. Being an ass to everyone is no excuse Thankfully, some courts apply the "reasonable woman" standard to sexual harassment cases rather than the supposedly gender-neutral reasonable person standard.

The monetary effects on taxpayers as well as the fire department underscores the need for organizations to eliminate sexual harassment. No one is to blame other than the harassers themselves and the fire department (for letting this environment persist). It's not a simple case of a few bad apples who got the organization in trouble. We'd like to see it that way, but the cases that go down this way usually involve egregious violations and an organization steeped in sexism (among other things). There is no excuse for this.

I have no doubt the harassment was in large part because she's a woman. My mother was the first woman on the department in my hometown who went into buildings to fight fires (there had been other women on the dept. before in support roles). She had to put up with all kinds of harassment. They tried to extend her probationary period arbitrarily, tried to keep her from going on mutual aid calls to other towns, and were constantly undermining her in other ways. It's a difficult path for many women even now.

So kudos to women firefighters! :-D I'll check out the documentary you mentioned -- thanks.

Shinobi, I see where you're coming from, but I'd like to ask you to re-think your idea that people have to alter their standards of what's acceptable to them to fit what's acceptable at their workplace. That kind of thinking has made it very hard for women to win cases dealing with sexual harassment in the past. Now, finally, I believe there is some kind of precedent saying that we should recognize that women might get offended by things that wouldn't offend men, and that each person has the right to set their own boundaries. If this woman feels she was harassed, she was harassed. If she misread their motives for harassing her, that's beside the point, but honestly, I doubt she did. People who are different in male-dominated fields tend to get harassed for that reason, and I wouldn't be surprised if the targeting of women and homosexuals (I realize she was black and that probably had something to do with this case, but I don't know if it would be a factor in what I'm about to say) is even higher in fields that are "manly," like firefighting and mining.

I do agree that it's unfortunate that this will take money that would benefit taxpayers. I wish the offending firefighters had been fired instead, if they could be replaced. It's so important for people to know they can't get away with this stuff, and they do get away with it too often.

The flip side to this story is the Minneapolis Fire Chief Bonnie Bleskachek. The first openly lesbian firechief in the US, demoted because of 4 (count 'em 4!) sexual harrasment suits against her that the city of Minneapolis had to settle for millions of dollars. Now let's see, would a male fire chief be demoted or fired for doing the same thing. Hmmmm....

Merletto, you're right. There is precedent and that's the "reasonable woman" standard that some courts apply. It explicitly recognizes that what is "offensive" or "hostile" to the reasonable person (i.e. man) is not necessarily the same as what is offensive to a woman.

Women in all jobs, whether male or female dominated are sexually harassed, but this kind of over-the-top hostile environment stuff is reserved for women who dare to enter traditionally male fields. I think the case on which the movie, North Country, is based provides a great example of what hostile environment sexual harassment looks like when it comes on the heels of a woman (or a few women) invading "male space." In the mid-1990s, Mitsubishi had to pay out a bout 30 or 40 million. The problems were so widespread that the case involved hundreds of women over several years.

Who's being punished? The firefighters or the people who may have benefited from better firefighting equipment/staffing?

That's not to say that agencies that serve the public shouldn't be "punished" for promoting discrimination and abuse. But we need more creative and effective methods of deterrence than simply charging the government a whole lot of money.

Eli, such as? The legal system has wrestled with the problem for a long time without finding a more effective way to get public agencies to end these problems.

According to this article, http://www.dailynews.com/santaclarita/ci_6294407,

The jury award covers past and future economic and noneconomic damages suffered by Lee, who was assigned to Fire Station 96 in Chatsworth and is now on unpaid leave.

That suggests to me that these are compensatory damages, not punitive damages. I can see arguments against punitive damages paid by taxpayers--but if that's the amount of damages that the jury finds that she's suffered, it seems hard to argue that she shouldn't be compensated, even at taxpayer expense.

Even if they were punitive, the purpose of punitive damages is punishment, and with luck reform. This is true if you sue McDonalds, John Doe, or the City of Los Angeles. Ultimately, the LAFD was responsible for the actions of its employees, the City Government of LA is responsible for the actions of its constituent departments, and ultimately the voters of LA (and taxpayers, mostly the same folks) are responsible for the actions of its elected representatives. At the end of the day they (LA residents) are paying for the bad acts of their agents.

Frankly, there is an even better case for allowing punitive damages against government than there is against a private company, to the extent that the private company simply passes the cost to its customers, who really are blameless in many cases, and to shareholders, who are, in practice, less in control of their management than the voters are in control of their government.

I actually would like to see something happen to the firefighters who perpetrated these acts against her.

They should be on unpaid leave. Also I think they should have to go to a 6 month seminar, say, once a week, to inform them that they're not cavemen anymore and catch them up on behaving like a decent human being.

i can understand the need for a reasonable woman standard versus a reasonable person standard in some instances, particularly since the gender-neutral "person" is often assumed to be male. but i hope urine-filled mouthwash is not one of them! if a "reasonable man" is expected to tolerate urine in his mouthwash as a run-of-the-mill prank, then i have to rethink a lot of things about the society in which we live.

Who's being punished? The firefighters or the people who may have benefited from better firefighting equipment/staffing?

What makes you think this is coming out of the fire department's budget?

It's the city of LA being sued here, the LAFD is not a separately suable entity. It's not coming out of the equipment budget. The city has a fund for stuff like this that's separate from department budgets.

This was not just a group of "the boys" behaving badly; management obviously condoned it and even contributed to it; the very people who have the legal obligation to ensure it doesn't happen in the first place. Aside from the financial penalties I hope the courts ordered extensive training for the entire department.