Employment Discrimination Report

Too Old to Perform Well?

Christina Stoneburner — Fri, 24 May 2013 13:03:45 -0500

Increasingly, there are more and more articles and pundits discussing the aging workforce and the impact that has on employers' operations. Although it is true that employers should be proactive about creating succession plans for key management positions to avoid operational issues when those employees retire, employers should be careful about assuming an employee is too old to perform well or learn something new.

In searching for this week's 5 Minute Laugh video, Chrissie has actually made a departure from funny to inspiring. Meet Mathilda Klein, who at 94 years old, is in a dance competition. At less than half her age, I realize I certainly could not do half as well. Here's the video of her solo routine which certainly questions preconceived notions about when someone is too old to perform well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LOdmka4_90

What Major Life Activity Does A "Shy Bladder" Limit? A Longtime Sufferer Comments

Richard B. Cohen — Fri, 24 May 2013 12:47:05 -0500

A “former shy bladder sufferer of over 40 years” wrote in to us to address the question as to what “major life activity” is substantially limited by possessing a "shy bladder"? Read her comment:

“I am happy to answer your question. As a result of having this condition, I missed out on all kinds of life-affirming activities and opportunities.

As a teenager, I couldn't attend friends' sleepovers or a summer camp. I even had to ask my parents to leave our home on those occasions when I wasn't able to urinate there.

Upon leaving for college, I spent the first 2 weeks in a student health center because I could not use the dormitory's restrooms.

Embarking on a professional career, I had to ensure a job didn't require travel as a prerequisite. I am grateful that drug testing was not an issue back then because I could not have produced a urine specimen as a pre-condition for employment.

Dating was problematic. It meant that I had to limit the amount of time I could spend with someone to 10-12 hours before my bladder felt like it would burst.

Gradually, over a period of time as my condition progressively worsened and health care professionals were unable to treat it, I learned to avoid using public restrooms almost altogether and ultimately reached a point where I was afraid to leave my home with my own private bathroom for more than a few hours at a time. On a day-to-day basis, I coped for years by holding in my urine for long periods, refrained from drinking liquids, made sure I urinated at home before leaving, and excelled at locating unoccupied or single-occupancy public bathrooms. When I was unable to urinate after a very long period of time (in one case 30 hours), I resorted to catheterization, whether performed by someone else or on myself.

The physical and psychological toll that paruresis took on my life was enormous. I realize it is often difficult for those who can urinate effortlessly to comprehend its magnitude. But just ask the millions of us who experience the daily trauma of not being able to urinate when others are around for their response to the question you have posed.

The point I really want to make is that paruresis is a "spectrum disorder" based upon the extent to which the condition controls or interferes with one's life.

For someone with a mild case, it can be no more than a nuisance or inconvenience, not something to be overcome. On the other hand, someone with a severe case feels intense anguish about going to the bathrooms when other people are around.

The goal of the International Paruresis Association (www.paruresis.org), of which I am an active member, is to raise public awareness about the condition, provide support, and give out the latest information. Please visit the organization's website for further information. Sincerely, Carol Olmert; Author, 'Bathroms Make Me Nervous' "

www.bathroomsmakemenervous.com

President Addresses Sexual Assaults In US Military

Richard B. Cohen — Fri, 24 May 2013 12:42:14 -0500

President Obama just gave acommencement speech at the Naval Academy and used the occasion to comment that the recent sexual assault scandals in the military threatened to undermine its credibility, despite its being, as he said, the nation’s “most trusted institution.”

The President recently met with top military officials all of whom, he said, told him that “they are ashamed by some of what’s happened.”

He also recently said “I don’t want just more speeches or awareness programs or training but, ultimately, folks look the other way. If we find out somebody is engaging in this stuff, they’ve got to be held accountable — prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period. It’s not acceptable.”

Older Women In Australia Report Age Bias In Employment

Richard B. Cohen — Fri, 24 May 2013 10:31:01 -0500

Female Australians over the age of 45 have reported widespread age discrimination in employment, according to Diversity Council Australia (“DCA”). Said researcher Dr. Roger Wilkins: “Many Australians feel they've been treated unfairly in the workplace. Age discrimination is the most common experience, which perhaps shouldn't be surprising given Australia's ageing population.”

It was also reported that when it comes to employing females in the age group of 55-64, Australia is behind Sweden, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Estonia, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and Finland.

Older women have experience, skills and talents which businesses need, and the Chief Executive of DCA said "Australia's future workforce will depend heavily on the employment of older women so this is not about special treatment for another group. Organizations focusing on older women's employment are future-proofing their workforce and positioning their organization for success.”

You Can't Use The "N-Word - Not Even Once - But You Can Make Sexually Offensive Comments Four Times

Richard B. Cohen — Fri, 24 May 2013 09:32:43 -0500

Are the courts crafting a bright-line test to determine when a crude and offensive remark is severe enough by itself to constitute a hostile work environment? Or a sliding scale of severity, perhaps giving crude and offensive remarks different numerical values on the “crude and offensive” scale? And are the courts distinguishing severity based upon whether the remark is sexual or racial in nature?

These fascinating questions are illustrated by decisions from two different federal appeals courts.

One "N-word" is enough

In the first case, which we commented on recently, a federal appeals court said that a single usage of the “N-word” can make out a hostile work environment because it is a racial epithet that is “deeply offensive.” The Court stated that “perhaps no single act can more quickly alter the conditions of employment” than “the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as ‘nigger’ by a supervisor.”

Four sexual comments plus numerous "wear a French maid's costume" remarks is insufficient

Compare this case to a Nevada case which we wrote about on April 3d, where the plaintiff female employee was subjected to numerous “crude and offensive remarks” but on “only about four occasions.” She was told by a co-worker frequently that “a large-breasted woman, whom he called 'Double D,' would attend a company event, and asked her 'whether the size of the woman’s breasts intimidated her.' He later spoke to her about tampons and "asked whether women ‘got off’ when they used a particular kind.” He also told her that “women were lucky because [they] got to have multiple orgasms.”

And, oh yeah, in addition to these comments made on only four occasions, he often told her that she had to clean a company facility “while wearing a French maid’s costume.”

The federal appeals court concluded that plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case of sexual harassment: “Although we certainly do not condone [the] crude and offensive remarks, we note that … [o]ther than his references to the French maid’s costume, [the co-worker] reportedly made offensive sexual remarks to [plaintiff] on only about four occasions.”

Is there a rule here somewhere?

Do we conclude that race and gender cases are treated differently when it comes to the number of times an offensive remark is made? Or when it comes to the nature or offensiveness of the comments made?

Or is it just that the courts simply have two different tolerance levels for what is crude, offensive, or severe.

Whatever it is, we advise employers to accept a zero-tolerance level for what is crude, offensive, or severe, and do not think it is wise for employers to accept any racially or sexually offensive comments – once, twice or four times.

Church Rector Groped Church Sexton -- Case Settles for $192,500

Richard B. Cohen — Thu, 23 May 2013 09:51:58 -0500

An interim rector at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, a parish of the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, grabbed the breasts and kissed a sexton and secretary of the church, the latter of whom was fired when she refused him. The EEOC’s subsequent sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit was just settled for $192,500.

According to the three-year court consent decree, there will be an injunction prohibiting both Grace Church and the diocese from engaging in sex harassment or retaliation; providing copies of revised policies on sexual harassment to all employees and all churches within the diocese; reporting to the EEOC all sexual harassment complaints received by Grace Church or the diocese; posting a notice about the EEOC and the lawsuit at the church; and providing anti-discrimination training for all employees.

The EEOC’s New York District Director stated that "All employers, whether private companies or religious institutions, should be aware that they have a responsibility to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. Employers must also make sure that they have multiple avenues for employees to complain about harassment and that those avenues of complaint are communicated to employees."

Debate Over Our "Sexual Harassment In The Military" Posts Continues

Richard B. Cohen — Thu, 23 May 2013 08:30:37 -0500

Michele Sommer, a Senior HR business partner in the New York area, responded to a critique of a previous post of ours, written by Anthony Vieira, Esq., which we reprinted at Reader Takes Issue With Our Post About Harassment In The Military.

Among other things, Mr. Viera said that “there are more than 2.2 million personnel serving in our US armed forces. That today we have "Another" sexual assault is an issue for the people and the command involved. Your trying to go further and loop it into some embedded pattern of conduct is lawyer talk and nothing more.”

Ms. Sommer comments about our first (purportedly controversial) post:

“I didn't read your first post as indicating that everyone in the military harasses or that all leadership in the military needed to go. However, there are many occupations where men and women work closely together that don't appear to have the same level of sexual assault.

Therefore, it is right to question whether the numbers in the military have to do with the culture or not. There are many who will say it absolutely does; there are others who will likely say it doesn't. To say that there needs to be change is accurate and is what many in the military and the US government are also saying.

To me what is most troubling is that the two most recent allegations that have gone public are against leaders within the divisions that were set up to prevent harassment and abuse and to support the victims. That is why this is news and being talked about. The same would be true if the head of a Rape Crisis Center was arrested for rape. People in such roles are held to a higher standard and their behavior greater fodder for the news.”

Read a similar, more recent post of ours:

http://employmentdiscrimination.foxrothschild.com/2013/05/articles/another-category/harassment/another-day-another-military-sexual-assault-scandal/http://employmentdiscrimination.foxrothschild.com/2013/05/articles/another-category/harassment/another-day-another-military-sexual-assault-scandal/

"When Men And Women Get Sexually Harassed, They Take It Out On Their Bodies"

Richard B. Cohen — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:19:53 -0500

Both men and women experience strong bodily reactions to sexual harassment, found a new study – the first of its kind which includes men.

Published in the journal Body Image, the researchers examined how men and women react to sexual harassment. They discovered that “women reported greater weight/shape concerns, eating pathology, dietary restraint, eating concerns, and binge eating compared to men,” and that as sexual harassment increased these effects increased.

The interesting new finding was that the main gender difference was that women reacted more with worrying about their body image, binge eating, or restricting their diets, while men responded more with "compensatory behaviors" – by attempting to control their bodies by vomiting, and taking laxatives and diuretics.

Very interesting, but disturbing.

West Pointer Responsible For "Health, Welfare and Discipline" Charged With Videotaping Showering Female Cadets

Richard B. Cohen — Wed, 22 May 2013 12:04:18 -0500

Another military sex scandal is unfolding – this time at West Point. The New York Times just broke the story that Sgt. Michael McClendon videotaped showering female cadets. He is a staff adviser “responsible for the health, welfare and discipline” of a company of 125 cadets, and was therefore expected to “assist each cadet in balancing and integrating the requirements of physical, military, academic and moral-ethical programs.”

The Times stated that “If proven, the violation of privacy and trust alleged in the filming of female cadets could have a significant negative impact on whether the Army is seen as an inviting career for young women.”

Said an Army spokesperson, “The Army will ensure the military justice system works through to its proper conclusion.”

As we have posted many times recently, the military justice system seems to be part of the problem, not the solution.

One More Opinion On Sexual Assaults In The US Military

Richard B. Cohen — Wed, 22 May 2013 08:02:40 -0500

“It’s true, as the military is fond of saying,” writes Margaret Carlson for Bloomberg View, “that the great majority of military officers are law-abiding. But when a fellow service member is accused, the law-abiding tend to side with the accused.”

Let’s give her opinion a read as she addresses the explosive increase in sexual assaults in the US military, and the growing scandal of sexual assault prevention officers being arrested for sexual assault. (See our latest post on the subject on May 22d).

“Sexual violence in the military is so pervasive, even some of those who have been charged with rooting it out are themselves violent.

The military just can’t seem to curb the epidemic on its own. It’s more important to pretend nothing has happened when a complaint is lodged; many are never relayed to military criminal authorities, while others are swept under the rug. …

Reporting a rape is never easy, but it’s much harder when the perpetrator is of higher rank than the victim (50 percent of the time) and when the perpetrator is in the victim’s chain of command (23 percent of the time). … [M]embers of Congress have dozens of reports that superiors are more interested in finding reasons to intimidate the victim than in helping her get out of the line of fire.

Sen. Gillibrand introduced legislation last week that would essentially remove commanders from the legal process. If passed, complaints would have to go to a parallel system of military prosecutors outside the command structure. No more commanders overturning guilty verdicts (emphasis added).”

Is A Single Use Of The "N-Word" Enough To Make Out A Hostile Work Environment?

Richard B. Cohen — Tue, 21 May 2013 13:43:49 -0500

The answer is “yes,” according to a recent federal appeals court decision.

Plaintiff, an African-American, worked for Fannie Mae, and when he was given a promotion without a raise, he was allegedly told “For a young black man smart like you, we are happy to have your expertise; I think I’m already paying you a lot of money.”

The Court found that given this backdrop, when a VP allegedly later told him to “get out of my office nigger,” this latter statement (if indeed made) was severe enough to in and of itself be considered a hostile work environment.

The appeals court denied summary judgment to Fannie Mae, and held that the “young black man” comment is arguably direct evidence of discrimination. A hostile work environment arguably existed based upon the single use of the “N-word,” a racial epithet that the Court said was “deeply offensive,” and, quoting other courts, noted “perhaps no single act can more quickly alter the conditions of employment” than “the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as ‘nigger’ by a supervisor.”

The Court concluded that “This single incident might well have been sufficient to establish a hostile work environment,” especially in light of the “young black man” statement.

"The Skill For The HR Person Is Trying To Bridge The Gap When Cancer Strikes"

Richard B. Cohen — Tue, 21 May 2013 10:35:13 -0500

RoseMarie Loft, an HR consultant in the UK, has commented on our post which disclosed the results of a survey in the UK which found that 37% of cancer patients have experienced some sort of discrimination.

She writes:

“I find this quite difficult to accept at face value, based on experience. Perhaps, as it's an on-line questionnaire, we are really saying that 37 per cent of those that felt strongly enough to log in and answer the questionnaire felt this way. I'm not suggesting that those affected were being untruthful nor suggesting that their feelings are invalid. However, in all of the organisations I've worked in - and it's a fair few across a number of sectors in senior interim roles - I've yet to come across a single one that doesn't suspend all normal sickness management processes, make accommodation for additional sick pay (I've often authorised extended sick pay through to end of life, and rightly so in my view), provide flexible working through treatment if the employee wishes to work, make home visits and so on. That's not to say that there can't be some dreadful ones out there.

But I have experienced a good few colleagues that find it difficult to deal with serious illness on a personal level, especially when the illness is terminal. This can often make them distant and appear uncaring. It's also been my experience that when someone suddenly becomes ill with a potentially life-threatening illness, then they can lose trust of those around them. The skill for the HR person is trying to bridge that gap.”

"Blacks To The Back Of The Pizza Place!"

Richard B. Cohen — Tue, 21 May 2013 09:56:45 -0500

Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus – and helped to usher in a new world of integration. She didn’t have to deal with pizza places, though, at least not in Mississippi.

Clarksdale’s Stone Pony Pizza was just sued by the EEOC, which alleges that the pizza place maintains a racially segregated workforce, and that it “hired only whites for front-of-the-house positions such as server, hostess, waitress, and bartender, and hired African-Americans for back-of-the-house positions such as cook and dishwasher."

An EEOC attorney said that "Applicants should be evaluated based upon their qualifications, not the color of their skin."

Why do we still need a reminder like this half a century after Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus?

The "NEW IMPROVED" DSM-V -- Prescription For More ADA Suits?

Richard B. Cohen — Mon, 20 May 2013 14:15:16 -0500

With the recent, long-awaited publication on May 18th of the 900-plus page DSM-V, the so-called "Bible" of the American Psychiatric Association (its $100,000,000 publishing baby), there has been the usual battle between and among psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals over its content. It adds many diagnoses and deletes others. It renames some ("Gender Idenity Disorder" has become "Gender Dysphoria" with a flick of a pen, or a click of a keyboard).

Should "caffeine-withdrawal" be classified a psychiatric disorder? Should "parental alienation syndrome?" "Sluggish cognitive tempo?" "Excoriation" (i.e., skin picking)?

The answers are found below.*

The National Institutes of Mental Health will no longer use the DSM-V's diagnoses in its research projects. Some critics say that it has become a sales manual for the drug companies, and others, such as The Daily Kos, says of the DSM-V: "Psychiatric junk science based on subjective 'diagnoses' represents a form of medicine that went out in the 20th century in every other part of medicine."

So why do we write about it here? Well, think about it. With the addition of "caffeine-withdrawal syndrome," will limiting an employee's trip to the coffee machine be a violation of the ADA? Will every new diagnosis become a court case?

The next interesting ADA case is limited only by the imagination of a shrink, or plaintiff's lawyer.

*Answers to quiz: The first and last of the above disorders were included in the DSM-V. The second and third were not. Give yourself a point for each correct answer.

Texas Businesswoman Of The Year Fired For Performance Reasons -- After She Discloses Breast Cancer

Richard B. Cohen — Mon, 20 May 2013 11:50:25 -0500

Irrespective of the merits or legitimacy of the performance issue, is there an employer who has read our blog who cannot critique this action by the company?

Kathleen Mason told her company, Tuesday Morning Corp. (which sells closeout housewares and home décor in 850 stores around the US), of which she was president and CEO, that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer “so they wouldn't be alarmed if she began losing her hair or growing gaunt as a result of treatment.”

She was fired a few months later for alleged performance reasons, even though she was the 2010 Women's Chamber of Commerce of Texas Businesswoman of the Year, and even though her board of directors had approved a $50,000 salary raise in 2011, along with stock options. She just sued alleging disability discrimination.

The Huffington Post reports that her attorney claims that “the board's attitude toward her began to change soon after [she revealed her condition], with members contacting her subordinates directly. At one point when Mason was wearing a wig ... one board member made a sarcastic comment about how nice her hair looked.”

Her complaint states that “When you put the board’s actions into chronological context, the motivating factor for the board’s decision to fire her was the fact that it had concern about her future performance because it regarded Kathleen as having a disability (cancer). … It’s clear that Tuesday Morning’s board overreacted when it learned of Kathleen’s cancer and regarded her as being disabled and wrongfully fired her.”

When it comes to disclosure of a disability, is chronology destiny?

"Another Day, Another Military Sexual Assault Scandal"

Richard B. Cohen — Mon, 20 May 2013 09:59:24 -0500

As officers charged with preventing sexual assaults have been charged with sex crimes themselves, the scandal in the US military is mounting. In an editorial, The Virginian-Pilot, citing a new Pentagon report, noted that “an average of 70 sexual assaults involving military personnel occur every day. … as many as 26,000 military members were sexually assaulted last year but fewer than 3,400 reported the incident.”

Reuters reported that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the military is losing the confidence of women members, and the Defense Secretary directed that a plan for training and credentialing those personnel who interact with recruits and sexual assault victims be formulated.

Does the history of the military's response to sexual assaults give us any reason for optimism?

The 1991 Tailhook Sexual Assault Scandal

The Virginian-Pilot reports that a year ago, eight Air Force members, or former members, who were victims of rape or assault sued claiming that they suffered retaliation when they reported it to their superiors. They alleged that the military has a "high tolerance for sexual predators in their ranks" and discourages victims from coming forward. Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times columnist, who writes “another day, another military sexual assault scandal,” recalls the 1991 Tailhook sexual assault scandal, where at least 83 military women and seven men were assaulted.

One female pilot testified that "I got attacked by a bunch of men [fellow pilots] that tried to pull my clothes off. I fell down to the floor and tried to get out of the hallway, and they wouldn't let me out. They were trying to pull my underwear off from between my legs." She pleaded for help from a passing pilot, who joined in the assault.

She reported this assault to her superior, Rear Adm. Jack Snyder, who said, "Well, that's what you get for going down a hallway of a bunch of drunken aviators." Rear Adm. Duvall Williams Jr. stated that, given the language used by one female victim, "Any woman that would use the F word on a regular basis would welcome this type of activity."

The Navy Secretary resigned, and Rear Adm. Williams took an early retirement.

As Abcarian says, “The Pentagon sternly vowed it had ‘zero tolerance’ for sexual harassment and assault.” Sound familiar?

Is Education and Training Enough? What Is To Be Done?

Reuters reports that despite years of training, role playing, a video game called "Team-Bound," and the "I Am Strong" sexual assault prevention campaign, all designed to educate about sexual harassment, there was a 37% increase in sexual assault cases in 2012. The Virginian-Pilot says that “Anecdotal evidence is substantial, and it spans years, showing that training, tracking and enforcement efforts aren't working.”

As the Reuters story says, “critics say training may never be enough to do away with the problem.” It quotes former Marine Captain Anu Bhagwati, executive director of the Service Women's Action Network, who helped implement sexual assault prevention training way back in 2004: "The military cannot train its way out of this problem.”

Then story says that Captain Bhagwati “urges the military to take prosecution of sexual assault cases away from the chain of command, making it easier for victims to seek justice, an idea echoed in a Senate bill last week.”

Let’s give Robin Abcarian the last word in this post:

“Tailhook represented the sort of lawless, alcohol-fueled behavior that was never supposed to happen again in an age where increasing numbers of women were in the military. Things have changed since Tailhook, that's for sure. Military sexual assaults no longer occur in raucous hotel corridors. Instead, they're taking place in more private settings, and in record numbers.

Good work, Pentagon.”

Reader Takes Issue With Our Post About Harassment In The Military

Richard B. Cohen — Fri, 17 May 2013 13:06:09 -0500

In our effort to be fair and present all sides of an issue, and to encourage discussion, we print here a comment from a reader, Anthony Vieira, an attorney from LA:

“Mr. Cohen, there are more than 2.2 million personnel serving in our US armed forces. That today we have "Another" sexual assault is an issue for the people and the command involved. Your trying to go further and loop it into some embedded pattern of conduct is lawyer talk and nothing more. This is particularly evident where you make the further claim, as a lawyer, that the issue is the chain of command structure and that it has to go. There are layers of complexity here that you'll never understand because you evidently haven't tried to. Talking without making some minimal effort to comprehend the issues doesn't become us as a profession. We all need to do the hard work of understanding what's set before us before we can begin to talk credibly (and persuasively) on anything.”

Any thoughts or comments on this issue? Please let us know.

"Appalling" Sexual Harassment Suit Settled For $650,000

Richard B. Cohen — Fri, 17 May 2013 11:17:12 -0500

“Harrowing,” “appalling” and “extreme abuse” were words used by EEOC lawyers regarding a series of lawsuits targeting sexual harassment, particularly of farmworkers who are subject to an "appalling abuse of power."

One example was an EEOC suit against National Food Corporation, a major egg supplier in Washington. It was alleged that the company allowed a supervisor to physically grab a female worker who worked alone in a henhouse where the harasser was the only management person on site. He made sexual demands upon her several times a week from 2003 to 2010.

She said that "For almost seven years, I tried to just survive these demands from my boss, because I needed to support my mother and my daughter.”

Now the company has settled this action for $650,000.

The EEOC General Counsel stated what we have been repeating for years: "It is one of the EEOC's national priorities to combat discrimination against vulnerable workers, and we hope that this settlement sends a message to other employers that they need to be vigilant to prevent sexual harassment and other abuse."

GINA Class Action By EEOC Against Nursing Home

Richard B. Cohen — Fri, 17 May 2013 09:23:53 -0500

Don’t say that the EEOC did not warn you – it included GINA as one of its priorities in its Strategic Enforcement Plan ("SEP"). So now, hot on the heels of its first GINA lawsuit (and settlement), the EEOC announced thatit has filed a GINA class action against The Founders Pavilion, Inc., a Corning, N.Y. nursing and rehabilitation center. Under GINA, employers cannot, in the hiring process, request genetic information and family medical history.

The EEOC alleges that the company conducted post-offer, pre-employment medical exams of applicants, and annual exams if the person was hired, and requested family medical history.

Elizabeth Grossman, the NY EEOC’s regional attorney said that "GINA applies whenever an employer conducts a medical exam, and employers must make sure that they or their agents do not violate the law. Here, not only did the employer ask for prohibited information, it also discriminated against individuals with disabilities or perceived disabilities as well as pregnant women."

That last statement should resonate with health care facilities, who we have repeatedly warned that the EEOC is targeting under the ADA for disability discrimination. Now, it seems, it is targeting them under GINA too.

Another Military Sexual Assault Arrest of A Prevention Officer

Richard B. Cohen — Thu, 16 May 2013 19:12:31 -0500

Once again, despite the express feeling of being "ashamed" about sexual assault in the military by the President, there is a new story tonight about a military arrest - it has been reported that a Lt. Col. at Ft. Campbell who is a sexual harassment prevention officer has been arrested for a sexually-related crime.

This case is distinguishable from our previous posts because his issue was with an ex-wife with mutual restraining orders, not with subordinates. He was removed fom his position by the Army while his domestic dispute is beign resolved.

In any event, the US military has a clear institutional resistance to any change. The "chain of command" model must be changed. Without a change of the culture of the military, these episodes will continue.

This is no joke - it is a serious situation of criminal behavior.