D'Onofrio class turns into law & disorder

[Patcat]

Look, if Mr. D'Onofrio is being a jerk, well, then, I'm not making excuses for him.

But I'm highly suspicious of the report. This strikes me as being highly similar to the brouhaha (I love that word) over Mr. D'Onofrio's fainting last year where a good two thirds of the initial report turned out to be false.

And aren't these sessions supposed to be confidential?

Patcat

[Metella]

brouhaha is a splended word; lay some more on me.

I don't think company training sessions are confidential at all, but then, the companies I worked for never had to deal with celebs as employees. So I have no idea how "private" these things are expected to be.

Well, if we want to get on the subject on whether this is true or not .... Tell me if I should go there.

[LOCIfan]

summerfield said:

Uh...maybe he was just pissed because he had to attend the meeting? Maybe he resented having to be there discussing what should be the obvious? From what's been "reported" in the past, it seems he has a low opinion of network executives and their mouthpieces. It looks to me that the lawyer opened the door with his weak scenario and Vincent took the opportunity to make his "point" and in the process caused the meeting to be cut short.

If he was pissed because he had to attend a sexual harassment seminar that the article states was mandatory for all NBC cast and crew -- boooo hooooo.

Mandatory seminars aren't fun for anyone, but they do serve a purpose. I applaud NBC Universal for making a workplace harassment seminar mandatory for its employees. While the information provided in the seminar may be common sense to some, it clearly isn't to everyone -- otherwise such harassment wouldn't exist.

The seminar served an important purpose -- to educate employees about what does and does not constitute workplace harassment. It's a shame that Mr. D'Onofrio's conduct (if true) disrupted the proceedings.

Also, I notice that the article did not say that the network lawyer stated the hypothetical situation DID constitute sexual harassment, but that it was presented as "a hypothetical scenario - involving a costume assistant stumbling on a male actor looking at hard-core porn in his trailer - AND ASKED IF THAT CONSTITUTED SEXUAL HARASSMENT."

Perhaps if Mr. D'Onofrio hadn't hijacked the meeting and had allowed the seminar to proceed, he'd have got a better understanding of the fact that workplace harassment is NOT a matter of "pitting one person's idea of what's acceptable against another's." At its core, sexual harassment is about an individual in a position of power over another individual exploiting that power differential.

Legally, an underling cannot sexually harass the boss. Because the boss always has the option of firing the underling -- whether the underling is working as an "at will" employee or as a contracted employe (sexual harassment would constitue a breach of the contract on the part of the underling). But an underling doesn't have the muscle to fire the boss. The person in the position of power may be either a man OR a woman. Perhaps other hypothetical situations, had they been presented, would have illustrated that fact.

If this incident is true, I, too, have lost some respect for Mr. D'Onofrio.

[Summerfield]

Yeah, maybe he showed his ass on this one, but maybe he felt passionate about the subject. Since we weren't present at the meeting, we shouldn't jump to conclusions and judge him.

Okay, everyone has given their opinion and I think that's great. I will still watch LOCI and any other VDO project. All I know about the man is what I read, and I usually take that with a grain of salt. Do I like his work? Hell yes. Would I like him as a person? That's a tough one. As long as he keeps performing to the top of his ability, I'll respect him for that.

[DNA]

Crikey! I love a good debate

We could argue the truth content of the article until the cows come home, truth or bullshit:"Quirky, bitter, belligerent" I'm detecting a little hostility from Lloyd and his spy.

So just on the subject of sexual harassment alone.

My opinion, as a person who has in the past experienced sexual harassment, (both in the form of inappropriate behavior and career development), I appreciate such seminar's and companies who choose to participate in them. Sure wouldn't life be fantastic if we didn't need rules and restrictions governing our every move, but in reality society as a whole dictates that there is still a need for intervention.
Men and women are sexually harassed. I'm sure the stigma attached to a man going public regarding such incidents has a big impact on any figures recorded, equally I believe some women are far too quick to use the sexual harassment card in a whole array of situations that do not warrant it.

We are not privy to the inner working of the LOCI set, it could be a rampant fest of women burning bra's in the name of sisterhood ragging on any poor fella who dares to open the door for them, likewise it could be a pig pen of guys scratching their nuts checking out the "arse on that one". It's probably not even close to either but I agree "It's a matter of subjectivity".

[LOCIfan]

I was responding, as others in the thread have, as though the report was accurate. And, if accurate, whether or not he felt passionate while disrupting the meeting and bullying the presenter does little to alter my opinion. Those defending D'Onofrio and those criticizing him are both projecting a judgment of his actions. Still, it's very true that it's a leap to assume the report of his behavior is true.

Anyway, whatever the truth may be, he's a fine actor and I'll continue to enjoy his work.

[DNA]

LOCIfan I forgot to thank you for your further insight into the Daily, your description of it being a more credible localized publication for NY gave me a clearer idea of it's standing.

[Summerfield]

LOCIfan wrote:

Anyway, whatever the truth may be, he's a fine actor and I'll continue to enjoy his work.

Amen...amen.

[Observer2]

metella said:

Is it always a D'Onofrio in the right do or die? Hero worship is not called for here.

Okay, so Metella has dismissed my opinions as knee-jerk hero worship; but on the off chance anyone else is still taking me seriously, I’ll try to clarify my reactions.

First of all, I was *not* assuming that the article was accurate. It’s a gossip column. It’s standard procedure for them to amplify and embroider such incidents – except when they make them up out of whole cloth. So no, I wasn’t assuming the story was accurate – only that there may have been a seed of truth behind the story.

I was also assuming that the scenario was presented as an example of sexual harassment, subcategory: hostile work environment. Even the gossip columnist didn’t imply that D’Onofrio left the lawyer so little chance to respond that he couldn’t have managed to explain that his example wasn’t considered harassment, if that was what he meant to say.

And I, personally, would have taken exception to that example when applied to writers, actors, directors or producers – either male or female – as long as they were making a reasonable effort to avoid exposing other people to the offensive material. It’s not like pictures taped to the inside of a locker, that flash at everyone passing by anytime the locker is opened.

Yes, it’s important for companies of all types to educate people about sexual harassment, and to work to eliminate it from their workplaces. But there are many places where official policies are going too far; and when the “education” is something I consider off-base I would have a hard time sitting silently through it – especially if it were being presented by a company lawyer as policy that I was supposed to agree to abide by.

If I found the lawyer’s definitions of harassment unreasonable, I would probably be more disruptive than you guys would consider appropriate. So I’m ready to give the benefit of the doubt to D’Onofrio. And apparently not everyone thought he was completely unreasonable. Even the gossip column indicated that some of D’Onofrio’s disruption drew scattered applause.

I don’t know if I would have thought he was being reasonable, if I had been there. I might have thought he was being rude, long winded and excessively belligerent. Or I might have agreed with everything he said, and thought it was stuff that needed to be said to the network lawyer who was leading the seminar. There’s no way to know, because there’s no way to get a trustworthy accounting of what actually went on. But I pretty much agree with what the article quotes him as saying, and I can imagine myself saying pretty much the same things, if a lawyer was laying out policy that I thought was unreasonable.

And I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, or even saying they think my opinions are unreasonable and ‘part of the problem’ (I may disagree, but I would not take offense at someone expressing that honest opinion). But I don’t appreciate being dismissed as someone who doesn’t have a genuine opinion, but is just a ‘yes man,’ ‘D’Onofrio can do no wrong’ kind of fan. I’ve disagreed – quite vocally – with things that both D’Onofrio and Balcer have done. So I don’t think I’ve earned, or deserve, that kind of cut.

[darmok]

On the subject of sexual harrassment, what a lot of people have trouble realizing is that it's how something is taken and not necessarily the intent. If someone takes a remark as being offensive, even if it wasn't meant that way, that's a problem. Now, I do think that makes it hard for some people because it is subjective, but if you're professional in your behavior, then it should never be an issue. As far as male/female equity in this realm, I agree that if men cannot put up pictures and tell dirty jokes, women shouldn't either. I've worked with a lot of guys that are as sensitive or more to certain things as I am.

As for the report, I hope it isn't true. However, from other reports/articles/interviews it doesn't sound much out of character. He's not one to be silent if he thinks something is BS. Although, the reference to the applause is puzzling. How bad was this presentation that a disruption gets applause?

[Summerfield]

Vincent honey... you need to chill. Go get a drink, get laid and have a smoke afterwards.

[Metella]

Observer, I did NOT dismiss your opinions; I labeled it as hero worship and went on tell why I would define this as unacceptable behavior – therefore not worthy of worship.

If I didn’t take your opinion seriously, I wouldn’t have bothered to answer. Because I KNOW you were serious, the implications of your acceptance of this behavior alarmed me. I'm surprised that you would not be all for sexual harrassment education in any form and just agree that it needs to be EXTENDED to females as perps and not just thougt that it is by males only.

I stated Clearly that my thoughts were only if we want to accept this as basically true. I don’t think I could have been clearer that I was not going to argue this as it is not provable with current knowledge. So all my post following that is just playing the game that this is true (in your words, assuming the article was accurate) & what we think about it if so. EVEN you, Observer, said there must be a grain of truth in there; most gossip does have a seed in there.

If you would have been as disruptive in a seminar; I would consider you also to have been out of line. A seminar is not a place for political discussion in my opinion. This is a quick type training/information session. Just because I would consider you out of line, would not mean that I hated you, that I couldn’t still see you as a viable person; just that I wouldn’t have appreciated the disruption – the extension of the time I had to waste in that room etc. and may have even agreed with your opinions, but not thought that the time or place.

” I don’t appreciate being dismissed as someone who doesn’t have a genuine opinion, but is just a ‘yes man,’ ‘D’Onofrio can do no wrong’ kind of fan. I’ve disagreed – quite vocally – with things that both D’Onofrio and Balcer have done. So I don’t think I’ve earned, or deserve, that kind of cut. “ I really don’t recall any area in which you have come out and said D’Onofrio is wrong; you were not the only one I was lumping in that category, but I do have a sense of your defending all actions attributed to this actor – I’d be glad to hear, here or in a pm, any areas that I have forgotten about.

[Sirenna]

Lawyers argue.

I'm not saying actors don't but as soon as one becomes famous then things get magnified. Vincent and this lawyer could have had a verbal hammering out and maybe Vincent should have known when to leave the point alone. But, yet again, all we have to go on here is the words of a third party who may or may not a) been there b) have a grudge c) got paid for turning a non-event into an event.

Vincent should get a personal publicist. His image is part of his job. Being without one is like running a corporation without hiring a CFO.

[LOCIfan]

darmok said:

On the subject of sexual harrassment, what a lot of people have trouble realizing is that it's how something is taken and not necessarily the intent. If someone takes a remark as being offensive, even if it wasn't meant that way, that's a problem. Now, I do think that makes it hard for some people because it is subjective, but if you're professional in your behavior, then it should never be an issue.

Actually, darmok, this isn't true. Sexual harassment is not entirely subjective and absolutely does take the individual's intent into consideration. Two types of sexual harassment are recognized by both federal and state laws.

The first is known as "quid pro quo" sexual harassment. The classic example of this is a situation in which sexual favors are requested/required in exchange for conintued employment or advancement in the workplace (i.e. if you have sex with me, you'll be promoted). This kind of overt sexual harassment is rarely the subject of complaints and/or litigation any more precisely because it is so overt.

The second is commonly known as "hostile work environment" sexual harassment. (Which is likely to have been the focus of a training session.) This type of sexual harassment exists when the conduct has the effect of unreasonably interfering with the victim's work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment that seriously affects victim's psychological well-being.

However, it is not enough that the "victim" find the conduct offensive. The "victim" must also show that a REASONABLE PERSON would find the conduct offensive. So, someone who's hypersensitive would not have a claim of sexual harassment if a reasonable person, in the "victim's" position would not have been offended by the conduct.

Additionally, in order to rise to the level of "hostile work environment" sexual harassment, a "victim" must show that the workplace was permeated by discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of a victim's employment and to create an abusive or hostile working environment.

So -- conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive -- regardless of what the person complaining of sexual harassment subjectively feels is hostile or abusive -- does NOT give rise to a claim for sexual harassment either federally (pusuant to Title VII) or at the state level (in NY Civil Executive Law Sec. 292).

In determining whether or not a hostile work environment exists, it is necessary to look at the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or merely an isolated incident, and whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.

Courts have uniformly held that a single incident does not rise to the level of hostile work environment sexual harassment.

Therefore, the hypothetical situation presented by the NBC lawyer -- a costume assistant comes upon an actor in his trailer looking at hard-core porn -- as presented, does NOT constitute sexual harassment.

I'd guess that was the point of the hypothetical. Too bad the entire discussion was derailed.

Hope y'all enjoyed MY little seminar on sexual harassment in the workplace!

Oh, and DNA, it was my pleasure to offer some insight into the NY Daily News. I read The New York Times, The NY Daily News and (for work) The New York Law Journal every day. The Times can't be beat for nat'l and internat'l reporting and for general arts & entertainment coverage. But The Daily News is tops when it comes to local and regional reporting. My opinion, anyway...

[Metella]

Well it has created a buzz here. Does anyone know if it has been a buzz anywhere else?

I still see this as 2 separate and non-connectable aspects
1- is it true or not
2 - if not, nothing follows here. if so, then what do we think of it.

The 2 sides are too difficult to argue in one post; at least too difficult for me.