What now? 5 steps to take if your probe doesn’t corroborate harassment allegations

December 12, 2017 - by: Marilyn Moran 0 COMMENTS
Marilyn Moran

The avalanche of complaints emboldened by the #metoo movement shows no sign of relenting, and many caught in its crosshairs have been unceremoniously fired or forced to resign based on allegations of harassment. Of course, when such allegations arise in the employment context, employers have a duty to investigate and to take action when there is evidence of serious misconduct, but what if your investigation does not corroborate the allegations? What then?

As an initial matter, the fact that your investigation does not corroborate allegations of harassment does not mean that they were false or that the complainant can or should be disciplined for making unsupported accusations. To a large degree, harassment is subjective, and what Documents Searchis offensive to one person may not be offensive to another. Legally, conduct must be both objectively and subjectively offensive, and severe or pervasive, and based on a protected characteristic (such as sex, race, or religion) before it may be considered harassment.

While employers usually apply a less stringent standard than the courts in determining whether sexual harassment has occurred, there are still a variety of circumstances when an investigation may not corroborate  sexual harassment allegations, even though the complainant provided an accurate description of the conduct and his or her subjective reaction to the conduct. For example, an investigation may reveal that the incident complained about wasn’t based on a protected characteristic. Alternatively, an investigation may reveal that the evidence is inconclusive because there are no witnesses or other evidence to either support or refute the allegations. In other instances, an investigation may corroborate that some type of unprofessional conduct indeed occurred, but the conduct complained of wasn’t serious enough to establish a violation of the company’s anti-harassment policy.

Whatever the reason, an investigation that yields a finding of “no harassment” still has the potential to expose your company to unnecessary legal risk if not handled appropriately, so here are five steps to follow when navigating this tricky situation:

1. Even if you don’t find a violation, ask the alleged harasser to sign a copy of your company’s anti-harassment policy. This will have the dual benefit of reminding the alleged harasser of the importance of appropriate workplace conduct and the consequences for violating the company’s policy, and it will help your company defend against future claims by showing that the policy was made known to employees and you made reasonable efforts to prevent and correct harassment in the workplace.

2. Thank the complainant for bringing the issue to your attention and assure him or her that your door is always open if problems arise in the future. The complainant will likely be discouraged or frustrated with the outcome of the investigation, but you can help lessen the sting by emphasizing that the company appreciates being made aware of the situation and takes all such complaints seriously.

3. Document your investigation thoroughly, including the various steps you took to reach your conclusion and the basis for concluding there isn’t enough evidence to establish a violation of your company’s anti-harassment policy.

4. Stress that retaliation is prohibited. You should stress your company’s nonretaliation policy to both the complainant and the alleged harasser. In addition, follow up with both of them on a regular basis (such as in 15, 30, 60, and 90 days) to find out whether there have been any further issues or problems between them.

5. Develop a plan for avoiding future problems. Even if your investigation determines that no disciplinary action is warranted, you should develop a plan for avoiding future problems between the employees. Is the problem based on a personality conflict? Can any steps be taken to improve communication and avoid misunderstandings between these employees? Would additional training help? If the relationship is beyond repair, is it possible to separate the parties in a way that would not trigger an accusation of retaliation or unfair treatment? Consider each of these issues, as well as the employees’ input and suggestions, to determine how best to move forward after the investigation.

Not every investigation will result in a finding of harassment or warrant disciplinary action for violating company policy, and that’s a good thing. By following these five steps, you can communicate the outcome of your investigation with compassion and fairness while protecting your business and, hopefully, avoiding future problems down the road.

Harvey Weinstein: beauty and the beastly mogul

October 12, 2017 - by: Kristin Starnes Gray 0 COMMENTS
Kristin Starnes Gray

Over the last week, the fallout from a New York Times article regarding Harvey Weinstein has been swift and significant. On October 5, the Times published an explosive story about Hollywood producer and media mogul Weinstein’s alleged sexual harassment spanning decades. More and more women have been coming forward since the story broke to accuse Weinstein of unwelcome sexual advances and sexual assault during his time at Miramax and the Weinstein Company. The Times quoted Weinstein as stating, “I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it. Though I’m trying to do better, I know that I have a long way to go.”  Stop Sexual Harassment red stop sign held by a female

According to the Times, Weinstein has reached settlements with at least eight women over the years, and his former attorney, Lisa Bloom, has described him as “an old dinosaur learning new ways.” The growing list of allegations stands in stark contrast against Weinstein’s public image as a liberal, humanitarian, and champion of women. The Times quoted Ashley Judd as saying, “Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time, and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly.”

Since the story first broke, the Weinstein Company has terminated Weinstein’s employment, board members and legal advisers have resigned, and Weinstein’s wife has announced she is leaving him. Meanwhile, the accusations have continued to mount. Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, and Cara Delevingne have come forward with additional allegations of sexual harassment. The New Yorker also published a story alleging that Weinstein has raped several women over the years.

Weinstein is reportedly entering a treatment program for sex addiction and has denied any accusations of nonconsensual sex. From former temporary employees to Hollywood A-listers, the accusers’ accounts have a similar narrative: young women hoping to find success in the industry but instead facing unwanted sexual advances from a top power player promoting a culture of fear. It sounds like a Hollywood film plot in the vein of 9 to 5, but this is far more serious and with real-life consequences.

Best practices for employers

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the federal law that prohibits sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace, though there are many state and local laws prohibiting the same. To maintain a sexual harassment claim, the plaintiff must generally establish that he/she was harassed based on sex, the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment, and there is some basis for holding the employer liable.

If the harassment is perpetrated by a supervisor but does not culminate in a tangible employment action, a defending employer may avoid liability if it proves the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities.

Best practices for employers to maintain healthy working environments and prevent harassment and discrimination from invading the workplace include:

  • Implementing strong policies prohibiting discrimination, outlining various avenues for employees to complain (taking into account the possibility that complaints may be against the person at the top of the chain of command), and prohibiting retaliation;
  • Training employees on the available avenues for complaints;
  • Training supervisors and managers on how to respond to a complaint;
  • Immediately investigating complaints; and
  • Taking prompt corrective action when complaints are substantiated.

Bottom line. Employers must practice commitment, communication, and credibility. It is their responsibility to ensure that potential complainants understand they will not be subjected to retaliation, the complaints will be taken seriously and investigated appropriately (regardless of the position of the accused harasser), and they have nothing to fear from using the complaint procedure. Let us know your thoughts on this developing story in the comments below.

What’s in a name? Bias in the workplace

March 13, 2017 - by: Katie O'Shea 1 COMMENTS
Katie O'Shea

As Shakespeare wrote, “that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” But there is in fact much to a namea name can convey a sense of identity, culture, and family history. Recently, a series of viral tweets illustrated how much something as simple as a name could affect an individual’s employment.  Business woman versus man corporate ladder career concept vector illustration

A man and his female coworker conducted an experiment whereby they switched their e-mail signatures for two weeks. The series of tweets describes the man’s struggle to gain clients’ respect when using his female coworker’s name.

The experiment started when, because of a shared inbox, the man accidentally e-mailed a client with his female coworker’s signature line. He received a lot of pushback and attitude from the client. Upon realizing the mix-up with the e-mail signature , he switched back to his name and continued communicating in the same way with the client. He said he noticed an immediate improvement and positive reception from the client when he reverted to his real name. The man claimed his advice to the client never changed, only the fact that he was signing the e-mails with a man’s name instead of a woman’s name.

So the coworkers decided to switch names for two weeks. The man described his negative experience using his female coworker’s name, tweeting that everything he asked or suggested was questioned and that one client even asked if he was single. Meanwhile, he reported his female coworker had the most productive weeks of her career. The man stated he learned his female coworker had to convince clients to respect her, whereas he had an “invisible advantage” as a man. The woman also wrote her own account of the experiment and described sexism that many women face in the workplace.

While this is only one account, and by no means a scientific study, it is an interesting reminder to be conscious of gender bias and other biases in the workplace. Other Twitter users chimed in agreeing with this experience, and adding their own experiences where they had been concerned about how others would perceive them because of their name. For example, some Twitter users described concerns with how employers would perceive their names on their resumes. Some wondered if they should change their names to have a greater likelihood of success in obtaining employment because of unconscious biases.

Unconscious bias is a huge issue in the workplace and can affect who is hired, promoted, and valued at work. Discussing issues like biases can help bring the issue to light and create a company culture that acknowledges the problem and improves decision-making.

Peter Dinklage takes on Elf

December 05, 2016 - by: Kristin Starnes Gray 0 COMMENTS
Kristin Starnes Gray

It’s December, which means that those of us holiday fanatics can decorate and watch Christmas movies to our hearts’ content without shame.  Of course, I won’t tell anyone if you already had your tree up in November (like me) or if you never took it down from last year.  One of my favorite Christmas movies is Elf, starring Will Ferrell.  It is surprisingly packed with various employment law issues, such as employee substance abuse at work, sexual harassment, and workplace violence.  In one of the more memorable scenes, Peter Dinklage’s character, Miles Finch, demonstrates how good intentions can still lead to a harassment complaint.  Facepalm, retro disappointed man slapping forehead, d'oh!

As background, Will Ferrell’s character, Buddy, has been raised as one of Santa’s elves and only recently learned that he is actually human. He has tracked down his biological father, who works for a children’s book publisher in New York City. Unaccustomed to the human world and innocent to its realities, Buddy has difficulty adjusting to life in the Big Apple and working in his father’s office.

Cue Peter Dinklage, who steals the scene wherever he goes.  His character, Finch, is a best-selling children’s author ready get down to the business of pitching his latest book ideas. Finch, like Dinklage, is a busy, high-powered professional who also happens to have a form dwarfism. Tensions flare when Buddy barges into the room and innocently mistakes Finch for one of Santa’s elves. Unaware that Buddy was actually adopted and raised by Santa’s elves, Finch is understandably insulted and upset by Buddy’s elf comments. Finch tries to remain professional but quickly reaches his breaking point when Buddy calls him an “angry elf.” Finch then initiates his own trial by combat and attacks Buddy before storming out.

This is a great example of how even the most well-meaning employee can unknowingly engage in conduct giving rise to a harassment complaint. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has explained, harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on a protected status such as disability, race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), etc. It becomes unlawful where (1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or (2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.

Had an employee complained about conduct like Buddy’s, the employer’s best practice would be to investigate immediately,  interview potential witnesses, provide the accused employee with an opportunity to tell his/her side of the story, and take prompt remedial action reasonably designed to end any harassment. Other best practices include regular employee and supervisor training as well as having a strong harassment policy clearly stating that harassment will not be tolerated, the various avenues for reporting such issues, and that retaliation will not be tolerated. I’ll leave the workplace violence issue for another post.

Thankfully for Buddy, his tale ends on a cheerful note and teaches us that the best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear. In the meantime, what’s your favorite color?

 

Mila Kunis’ open letter on gender bias at work

November 29, 2016 - by: Katie O'Shea 0 COMMENTS
Katie O'Shea

Many people know actor Mila Kunis for her role in the TV series “That ’70s Show” and her film roles in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and the drama Black Swan. Kunis has recently been in the headlines for her open letter on sexism in Hollywood and the workplace entitled, “You’ll Never Work in This Town Again…” originally posted here.Accusation. Sad woman looking down fingers pointing at her

In the letter, Kunis discusses some of her personal experiences, including being told by a producer that she would never work in Hollywood again after she refused to pose semi-naked on the cover of a men’s magazine to promote a film. Kunis explained that she felt objectified and that the threat that her career would suffer because of her refusal embodied the fear that many women face with gender bias in the workplace. She explained her view about how many women feel–that if they speak up against gender bias, their livelihoods will be threatened. Because of her career success and financial ability, Kunis explained she is fortunate to be in a position where she can stand up against gender bias and bring it to light when she experiences it, but recognized that many women may not be able to do so.

The letter also discusses the fact that a pay gap still exists between women and men. In Kunis’ view, this is one of the ways women’s contributions are undervalued in the workplace. She also highlighted that subtle gender bias can be imperceptible or undetectable to those who share the bias and that women may face “microaggressions” that devalue their contributions at work. For example, Kunis cited a time when a big producer referred to her as “[o]ne of the biggest actors in Hollywood and soon to be Ashton’s wife and baby momma!!!” Kunis wrote that describing her in relationship to a successful man and her ability to bear children reduced her value and ignored her contributions.

It’s important to recognize blind biases that may occur in the workplace, just as employers also must recognize overt sexual harassment or sexism. As Kunis highlights in her letter, however, many people may be unaware of their blind biases and it’s important to address them and educate people on their biases. If employers don’t adapt and address sexist microaggressions, they risk losing talented women in the workplace. As Kunis concludes her letter, “I will work in this town again, but I will not work with you.”

U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team alleges gender wage discrimination

April 01, 2016 - by: Kristin Starnes Gray 0 COMMENTS
Kristin Starnes Gray

Five star players of the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (Carli Lloyd, Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn and Hope Solo) made headlines this week by filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging gender wage discrimination against the U.S. Soccer Federation.  In their charge, the players allege that they should be paid at least as much as (if not more than) the players for the Men’s National Team.  The players filed the charge amid contentious negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement, which have already resulted in a separate lawsuit and serious questions about whether the team will be participating in the Summer Olympic Games in Brazil. Soccer Stars

In their charge, the players allege that they are paid as little as 38 percent of what the Men’s National Team Players earn.  More specifically, the charge alleges that top-tier Women’s National Team Players earn $72,000 per year to play a minimum of 20 exhibition games (“Friendlies,” with no additional pay for games beyond the 20unlike the men’s team which is paid for each game played) and that they earn $99,000 if they win all 20 Friendlies.  Meanwhile, the men earn $100,000 if they lose all their Friendlies and can earn up to approximately $260,000 if they win.  As for the World Cup, the women’s team earned a total of $2 million last year for their championship performance in Canada while the men’s team was paid a total $9 million despite their failure to advance past the top 16 in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.

If the matter proceeds, the women’s team players will have the burden of proving that: (1) higher wages were paid to a male employee, (2) for equal work requiring substantially similar skill, effort, and responsibilities, and (3) the work was performed under similar working conditions.  Assuming they are able to meet this burden, the federation may offer a variety of affirmative defenses, such as the pay differential being based on any factor other than sex (e.g., economic benefit to the employer).

Anticipating that the U.S. Soccer Federation will respond by offering a nondiscriminatory business reason for the pay disparity (such as women’s professional sports being less popular and less lucrative), the players allege in the charge that the women’s World Cup win and victory tour dramatically increased U.S. Soccer’s bottom line from a projected $430,000 deficit for 2016 to a $17.7 million profit.  Indeed, the numbers released by Fox indicate that last year’s telecast of the women’s World Cup Final against Japan was the most watched broadcast in the U.S. of a soccer game (men’s or women’s) ever.

The President of the U.S. Soccer Federation, Sunil Gulati, responded on Thursday stating, “We think very highly of the women’s national team and we want to compensate them fairly, and we’ll sit down and work through that with them when all this settles down.”  A federation spokesman, Neil Buethe, has also called some of the revenue figures in the charge “inaccurate, misleading, or both.”  The federation has argued that the players’ pay was collectively bargained and that the women’s team players opted for the economic security of a salary-based system (plus provisions for severance/injury pay, health benefits, maternity leave, and other benefits not available to the men’s team) as opposed to the bonus-centric plan under which the men work.  In addition, as U.S. Soccer noted, the World Cup prize money is determined by FIFA rather than by the federation.

By contrast, Solo stated in an interview, “In this day and age, it’s about equality. It’s about equal rights.  It’s about equal pay.  We’re pushing for that.”  She also stated, “We are the best in the world, have three World Cup championships, four Olympic championships, and the [men] get paid more to just show up than we get paid to win major championships.”  Players for the men’s team, such as Tim Howard and retired player Landon Donovan, have offered their public support for the women’s team.  Hilary Clinton has also voiced her support.

This isn’t the first time the women’s team has raised issues of gender equality.  Abby Wambach led a group of players in filing a complaint in Canada about the artificial turf playing surface and pointing out that the men’s World Cup is played on natural grass.  The issue came up again during the team’s victory tour when a game in Hawaii was cancelled due to the artificial turf being deemed unsafe by the players.

As for the currently pending charge, U.S. Soccer will likely have the choice of participating in mediation in an effort to resolve the charge or proceeding with the investigation and submitting a statement responding to the allegations and outlining U.S. Soccer’s position.  In the meantime, submit your comments below and let us know whether you would like to face these women on the field or in the courtroom.

Bloodline: We did a bad thing

December 11, 2015 - by: Kristin Starnes Gray 0 COMMENTS
Kristin Starnes Gray

“We’re not bad people, but we did a bad thing.” This is the tagline for the Netflix original thriller-drama Bloodline. If you haven’t seen it, run to add it to your watch list immediately. The show takes us into the lives of the Rayburn family, owners of a picturesque beachside hotel in the Florida Keys. Despite the gorgeous backdrop, this family is plagued by its dark and violent past. Pay attention to the opening sequence because a storm is certainly coming.  Woman Mugshot

When the oldest son, Danny, returns home after years away, the family reunion is anything but happy. Need proof? We know from the very start that Danny will end up dead by the hands of one (or more) of his siblings, but it will take the rest of the first season to unravel who kills him, how, and why.

During Danny’s descent into darkness (all he wanted to do was to give his toast at the anniversary party, right?), he and his family members commit any number of sins, many of which could destroy the family, not to mention the family business. To give but one example, Danny uses his criminal connections to threaten a witness and save one of his co-conspirators, Carlos, from some jail time after a fight. Danny ends up hiring Carlos to work at his family’s hotel, a cover for their actual moneymaking plan, despite (or, indeed, because of) Carlos’ criminal history and his recent run-in with the law.

This type of scenario is probably not what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had in mind when it released its enforcement guidance on the consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Title VII prohibits employers from treating individuals differently based on those protected statuses, but it also prohibits employers from applying a facially neutral policy that has a disparate impact on individuals in a particular protected group.

The EEOC has warned that even when employers apply criminal record exclusions uniformly, the exclusions may still operate to disproportionately and unjustifiably exclude people of a particular race or national origin. In short, employers must show that such exclusions are job-related and consistent with business necessity. The EEOC has called for a fact-based analysis whereby employers should consider (1) the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct, (2) the time that has passed since the offense, conduct, and/or completion of the sentence, and (3) the nature of the job sought or held.

Danny, however, isn’t your typical employer. For his purposes, a criminal history is a virtue and an opportunity for exploitation. After all, how do you pay back your boss for having the prosecution’s star witness frightened out of testifying against you at your upcoming trial? Nothing good, I can tell you, but it certainly makes for an entertaining show. So tell us your thoughts in the comments section as well as your predictions for Season Two in the New Year.

The Abominable Boss Man

October 31, 2014 - by: Kristin Starnes Gray 0 COMMENTS
Kristin Starnes Gray

In honor of Halloween, this post will address some of the many potential workplace issues in the Pixar film, Monsters, Inc.  If you’ve been living under a rock and have managed to not see this film (or its recent sequel), here’s a quick recap. A city called Monstropolis is inhabited by monsters and is powered by the screams of children in the human world. shutterstock_98138216At Monsters, Inc., employees (or “Scarers”) have the job of scaring human children and collecting their screams to power the city. The company, however, is facing a serious dilemma and potential energy crisis, as human children are become harder to frighten. Through a series of amusing misadventures, the top Scarer, Sulley, and his best friend, Mike, end up caring for a little girl they dub “Boo.”

In trying to return Boo safely to the human world, Mike and Sulley discover that one of the Scarers, Randall, plans to kidnap children (particularly Boo) and use a torture machine on company property to extract their screams. Randall tries to use the torture machine on Mike, but Sulley saves the day. Sulley reports Randall and his torture device to the company chairman, who responds by promptly exiling Mike and Sulley to the Himalayas. I won’t spoil the ending for the two or three of you who have not yet seen the movie.

Thankfully, in the human world, your boss can’t respond to a workplace complaint by  shipping you off to the Abominable Snowman (though this banished yeti happens to be much friendlier than expected). Indeed, a number of state and federal laws prohibit discrimination and retaliation against employees for reporting certain workplace issues. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) is intended to “assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions . . . .” OSHA contains a nondiscrimination provision, which prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because the employee filed a safety or health complaint or otherwise engaged in protected activity under the Act.

The monster equivalent of OSHA might have saved Mike and Sulley a trip to the Himalayas, but then it would have been a rather short movie. Plus, the Abominable Snowman would still be sorting mail at Monsters, Inc., rather than  serving up some delicious snow cones. Don’t worry–the yellow ones are lemon-flavored. Happy Halloween!

Clip[pers] his tongue!

April 28, 2014 - by: Josh Sudbury 0 COMMENTS
Josh Sudbury

This past week the biggest story in the NBA was not the excitement of the first round of the playoffs, but the comments L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling allegedly made to his girlfriend. In an audiotape released Friday by TMZ, a man (allegedly Sterling) is heard chastising his girlfriend for associating with black people and bringing them to his team’s games.  ThatsRacist Several authors and bloggers have already written about the deplorable worldview espoused by the man in the tape alleged to be Sterling so I won’t rehash the obvious. Indeed, the audio reveals personal views one might expect to be held by resisters of the civil rights movement, but not by that of the owner of an NBA franchise 50 years after the passage of Title VII. But a different lesson about our times can be learned from the incident, which concerns the prevalence of audio and video records in today’s world. In our technology-laden society, every smart phone doubles as a camera, tape recorder, video camera, word processor, etc. You name it, and your phone—and your employees’ phones—can probably do it, including secretly recording conversations between themselves and supervisors. On top of that, it takes almost zero technical savvy for someone to make a recording and post it to YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, or any number of social media sites instantaneously. The majority of states permit the secret recording of conversations so long as at least one party to the conversation consents to the recording. In those states, such an audio recording could wind up as evidence against the company in court or before a government agency. In the Clippers’ case, it’s the owner himself who is alleged to have made the statements. So, it’s obvious that his statements reflect directly on the organization. But would the result be any better if one of your mid-level supervisors was caught on tape making an off-color joke or sexually charged comment about another employee? The answer is simply no. In addition to the potential liability that may arise from such statements in a discrimination or harassment lawsuit, the company almost certainly would lose the verdict in the court of public opinion. All hope is not lost, however. Employers can minimize the potential for such occurrences by committing to provide anti-discrimination and anti-harassment training for their managers on at least an annual basis. You should also remain in contact with your workforce and get to know your managers. Many times, when a manager is caught on tape making these kinds of statements, it isn’t the first time. Being present in the workplace will help you identify potential bad apples as well as remind your employees to be on guard because their words and actions are being noticed. Finally, employers can adopt and enforce policies prohibiting employees from making secret records in the workplace. Such policies help foster open communications in the workplace and protect confidential or trade secret information. Employers, however, would be wise to consult with outside counsel before implementing or enforcing such a policy to ensure it doesn’t encroach on employee rights. In the hopefully unlikely event you have an employee who sympathizes with Mr. Sterling’s alleged views, nothing short of a muzzle may be appropriate.

Robertson a sitting duck after controversial quotes released

December 19, 2013 - by: Josh Sudbury 0 COMMENTS
Josh Sudbury

Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson and his family are most likely not enjoying a Happy Happy Happy Holiday after his recent GQ interview hit newsstands. In the interview, Robertson is quoted as saying:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

When asked what he considered sinful, Robertson elaborated:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men . . . .”

[For greater context and to get Robertson’s full quotes on the subject, I encourage you to read the entire GQ article, which you can find here.]

In response, A&E Networks put the eldest Robertson on “indefinite hiatus” from filming, issuing a statement saying the network is “extremely disappointed” to read Robertson’s comments, which A&E notes “are based on his own personal beliefs and not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty.”

read more…

 Page 1 of 2  1  2 »