I don\’t know. I have been trying to get spanked at work for sometime. There just have not been any takers. I almost had the copy guy and the lady that works in the coffee shop ready to do it, but they turned me down at the last minute. I guess I just keep fighting the good fight.
At the end of the day, it is a really pathetic attempt to motivate your employees-and really belittling to an employee, doesn\’t matter what age, male or female. I guess the word \”Professional\” is lost on this company..
I am just stunned that some of you (not all, some) can be so good at reading between the lines and just make an assumption (first thing I learned when I entered the insurance field in 1968 what the word \”assume\” really means :) )without benefit of personally sitting in the courtroom. Without knowing all the facts, well, she MUST be after the money – god forbid should anyone sue for the principal of the thing, and then have the odassity to be a female
M
P.S. And you Manley Man, one of the bad things about reading is you don\’t have benefit of tone and facial expression. Hopefully that was tongue in cheek, if not, how pathetic
Janet Orlando, testified in her case that she was so embarrassed by three spankings that she quit her job in February 2003 after five months.
Her attorney, Nicholas \”Butch\” Wagner, presented to the jury several calculations from a financial expert, on how much Orlando deserves for lost wages. The highest sum was $1.2million, but Wagner said that $841,000 was the most appropriate figure. He added that between $15,120 and $36,000 should be tacked on to pay for psychological and psychiatric treatment.
Orlando\’s lost wages would be a fraction of those amounts, because, the state of California refused to issue Orlando an alarm agent\’s license one month after she quit her job as a field supervisor for the company\’s Fresno office.
Without the license, Baker said, Orlando would not have been able to continue working as a salesperson. Her lost wages would be between $3,000 and $9,000 for the month before her application was denied because of a pending shoplifting charge.
Orlando filed against another previous employer, Rodeo Nissan, a car dealership in Clovis. Orlando reached a settlement in that case, which centered on a female employee who was accused of sexually harassing Orlando.
A document from that lawsuit, reveals Orlando was asked whether she had any other stressors in her life since she left the car dealership. The question was posed to her in November 2004, after she had already left Alarm One.
\”I don\’t believe so at all,\” Orlando said, according to the court document.
Not long after that case concluded, Orlando filed suit against Alarm One.
Well, looks like my faith in humanity was misplaced – new data makes it appear much more likely that Janet is indeed a big part of the problem, not a piece of the solution.
I\’m still a firm believer that the workplace and those in it have a ways to go in making sure everyone, regardless of race, sex, etc. have equal opportunities to participate in our economy, but it seems clear this particular lawsuit is just another example of how our system of justice can be abused.
The jury (6 men/6 women)found Janet Orlando was subjected to sexual harassment and sexual battery. The jury said Orlando did not suffer from sexual assault, as she had alleged.
Jurors awarded Orlando:
$10,000 for economic loss,
$40,000 for future medical costs
$450,000 for emotional distress, pain and suffering
$1.2 million in punitive damages
Company puts together sales initiative program. Participation is voluntary. I would assume that the rewards/penalties for the winners/losers were known before you agreed to join.
The way I see it, there are a couple of options. First, if you\’re not comfortable with the risk/reward of the contest, don\’t join in. Second option, join in and WIN!
Who else thinks that this lady was probably one of the first in line laughing at the humiliations faced by the other losers, but couldn\’t stomach the contents when the dish was presented to her.
What really gets me is that she would have the gall to sue for something this ridiculous, that there was yet another morally challenged lawyer willing to take the case, and because this is CA, odds are she\’ll win!
Welcome to the justice lottery ladies & gentlemen. Step right up, and we\’ll give you a b.s. reason to sue someone for millions.
Enough from me. I\’m off to McDonalds…my lap needs some coffee.
TXGuru – your reasoning is off. First, this has to be one of the worst \”sales incentive\” programs ever concocked. This isn\’t a BS reason to sue. The employer is in the wrong for, first, coming up with this type of incentive program.
She\’ll win, not because it\’s CA, but because the employer was in the wrong for not only allowing this, but actually coming up with the idea in the first place. This doesn\’t build camaraderie, it builds anamosity towards the employer and fellow employees.
Personally, I believe the employer may be guilty from a criminal standpoint also.
I agree w/ Hinky on this one. I don\’t care if my employer came up with this type of voluntary participation exercise, it appears designed to humiliate people. Who cares if it does not discriminate…it is a horrible way to promote healthy competition and work environment. My husband is in sales, and if his company ever came up w/ a hair-brained idea like this, I\’m sure no one would participate (unless a lot of alcohol were involved). That being said, I don\’t think the humiliation suffered by this person is worth $1.2 million. It may be worth some compensation, but let\’s be realistic!
First, let me state that I never said the premise for this incentive program was a good one. I\’ve been in sales for several years, and I can\’t think of a single example of pure stupidity in incentive making that would eclipse this one.
My problem is that a person that VOLUNTEERED to participate, when (I assume) the consequences were established and known prior to the choice to particpiate, suddenly decides to sue because they were embarrassed and humiliated by said agreed upon consequences.
Suing for $1.2 million when this appears to be nothing more than a classic example of \”sore loser\” and pure opportunism spawned by a litigious society run amock is what I take issue with.
Although partipation may have been \”voluntary\” (and I use the quotes liberally), within a sales organization or sales department, there can be a lot of pressure put on to participate. Organizations take a dim view of those that don\’t participate.
I don\’t agree that this is opportunistic. The employer brought this on themselves by coming up with \”sales incentive\” program. We can agree to disagree upon the amount, but the employer was out of line for even thinking up this idea.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I don\’t know. I have been trying to get spanked at work for sometime. There just have not been any takers. I almost had the copy guy and the lady that works in the coffee shop ready to do it, but they turned me down at the last minute. I guess I just keep fighting the good fight.
MSN has a news story on this trial.
At the end of the day, it is a really pathetic attempt to motivate your employees-and really belittling to an employee, doesn\’t matter what age, male or female. I guess the word \”Professional\” is lost on this company..
I am just stunned that some of you (not all, some) can be so good at reading between the lines and just make an assumption (first thing I learned when I entered the insurance field in 1968 what the word \”assume\” really means :) )without benefit of personally sitting in the courtroom. Without knowing all the facts, well, she MUST be after the money – god forbid should anyone sue for the principal of the thing, and then have the odassity to be a female
M
P.S. And you Manley Man, one of the bad things about reading is you don\’t have benefit of tone and facial expression. Hopefully that was tongue in cheek, if not, how pathetic
Janet Orlando, testified in her case that she was so embarrassed by three spankings that she quit her job in February 2003 after five months.
Her attorney, Nicholas \”Butch\” Wagner, presented to the jury several calculations from a financial expert, on how much Orlando deserves for lost wages. The highest sum was $1.2million, but Wagner said that $841,000 was the most appropriate figure. He added that between $15,120 and $36,000 should be tacked on to pay for psychological and psychiatric treatment.
Orlando\’s lost wages would be a fraction of those amounts, because, the state of California refused to issue Orlando an alarm agent\’s license one month after she quit her job as a field supervisor for the company\’s Fresno office.
Without the license, Baker said, Orlando would not have been able to continue working as a salesperson. Her lost wages would be between $3,000 and $9,000 for the month before her application was denied because of a pending shoplifting charge.
Orlando filed against another previous employer, Rodeo Nissan, a car dealership in Clovis. Orlando reached a settlement in that case, which centered on a female employee who was accused of sexually harassing Orlando.
A document from that lawsuit, reveals Orlando was asked whether she had any other stressors in her life since she left the car dealership. The question was posed to her in November 2004, after she had already left Alarm One.
\”I don\’t believe so at all,\” Orlando said, according to the court document.
Not long after that case concluded, Orlando filed suit against Alarm One.
Thank you Fraud Manager!
Well, looks like my faith in humanity was misplaced – new data makes it appear much more likely that Janet is indeed a big part of the problem, not a piece of the solution.
I\’m still a firm believer that the workplace and those in it have a ways to go in making sure everyone, regardless of race, sex, etc. have equal opportunities to participate in our economy, but it seems clear this particular lawsuit is just another example of how our system of justice can be abused.
$1.7 million
The jury (6 men/6 women)found Janet Orlando was subjected to sexual harassment and sexual battery. The jury said Orlando did not suffer from sexual assault, as she had alleged.
Jurors awarded Orlando:
$10,000 for economic loss,
$40,000 for future medical costs
$450,000 for emotional distress, pain and suffering
$1.2 million in punitive damages
Let\’s see…
Company puts together sales initiative program. Participation is voluntary. I would assume that the rewards/penalties for the winners/losers were known before you agreed to join.
The way I see it, there are a couple of options. First, if you\’re not comfortable with the risk/reward of the contest, don\’t join in. Second option, join in and WIN!
Who else thinks that this lady was probably one of the first in line laughing at the humiliations faced by the other losers, but couldn\’t stomach the contents when the dish was presented to her.
What really gets me is that she would have the gall to sue for something this ridiculous, that there was yet another morally challenged lawyer willing to take the case, and because this is CA, odds are she\’ll win!
Welcome to the justice lottery ladies & gentlemen. Step right up, and we\’ll give you a b.s. reason to sue someone for millions.
Enough from me. I\’m off to McDonalds…my lap needs some coffee.
TXGuru – your reasoning is off. First, this has to be one of the worst \”sales incentive\” programs ever concocked. This isn\’t a BS reason to sue. The employer is in the wrong for, first, coming up with this type of incentive program.
She\’ll win, not because it\’s CA, but because the employer was in the wrong for not only allowing this, but actually coming up with the idea in the first place. This doesn\’t build camaraderie, it builds anamosity towards the employer and fellow employees.
Personally, I believe the employer may be guilty from a criminal standpoint also.
I agree w/ Hinky on this one. I don\’t care if my employer came up with this type of voluntary participation exercise, it appears designed to humiliate people. Who cares if it does not discriminate…it is a horrible way to promote healthy competition and work environment. My husband is in sales, and if his company ever came up w/ a hair-brained idea like this, I\’m sure no one would participate (unless a lot of alcohol were involved). That being said, I don\’t think the humiliation suffered by this person is worth $1.2 million. It may be worth some compensation, but let\’s be realistic!
First, let me state that I never said the premise for this incentive program was a good one. I\’ve been in sales for several years, and I can\’t think of a single example of pure stupidity in incentive making that would eclipse this one.
My problem is that a person that VOLUNTEERED to participate, when (I assume) the consequences were established and known prior to the choice to particpiate, suddenly decides to sue because they were embarrassed and humiliated by said agreed upon consequences.
Suing for $1.2 million when this appears to be nothing more than a classic example of \”sore loser\” and pure opportunism spawned by a litigious society run amock is what I take issue with.
Although partipation may have been \”voluntary\” (and I use the quotes liberally), within a sales organization or sales department, there can be a lot of pressure put on to participate. Organizations take a dim view of those that don\’t participate.
I don\’t agree that this is opportunistic. The employer brought this on themselves by coming up with \”sales incentive\” program. We can agree to disagree upon the amount, but the employer was out of line for even thinking up this idea.