New York Times:
More seriously, they raised questions for both his company and CBS about whether his actions constituted sexual harassment or at least abuse of a power relationship over employees.
Jamie Lee Curtis: Crimes and Misdemeanors
David Letterman makes this revelation about his personal life because he was being extorted. I understand he was staying ahead of the wave, and I commend him for it, but really, is this any of our business?
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let's break this down one more time.
1. Dave's so-called confession has nothing to do with questioning whether they were two consenting adults. They were. It's more to do with whether by his extra attention to Birkett did she gain more perks on the job Vs others, female or male, who were equally qualified and/or talented.
2. What sort of "relationship" he had with the mother of their child, now his wife, is also irrelevant to this story.
3. CBS legal and Dave's company are more concerned with any PRIOR employees and/or relationships he may have had with others coming forth now and accusing him and/or CBS with unfair labor practices towards, especially if the statue of limitations has NOT been exhausted concerning sexual harassment in this type situation. And, the reason WHY Dave gave his mea culpa's on NATIONAL teevee.
4. And, of course, CBS is going to come out and state that there was no sexual harassment now.
5. Anyone can file a lawsuit. It's proving it that could more difficult in this circumstances, but show me one lawyer who is not in the entertainment industry that wouldn't take someone's sexual harassment case having worked with Dave now that this has come out.
6. If someone does come forward now other than Birkett and files suit, CBS and/or Dave do not obviously want the additional controversy.
7. if someone does file suit now for sexual harassment against Dave and CBS, Dave is through.
I agree with all observations except No. 7.
It all comes down to a cost-benefit analysis by lawyers and risk management professionals.:
How much is David Letterman worth (a lot!);
If some woman comes forward with an allegation, how old is the incident (statute of limitations)?
and
If the case is ripe, how much time, money and public good will is needed to make it go away?
Your last point is the most significant. The money factor is the biggest issue for CBS, they don't care about Dave's production company. What they do care about is if they are going to be sued, NOT by Birkitt, BUT by any other employee, current or prior. And, that's where the status of limitations comes in. If it's still viable to do so, then Dave is through. Like I also said, there isn't an attorney who may or may not be in the entertainment business who wouldn't take someones case for sexual harassment against CBS and/or Dave.
Wrong. None of this has anything to do with sexual harassment, whether Birkett got more airtime because she and Dave had a relationship or CBS in any way, as neither Dave nor Birkett work for CBS. This story is simply and totally about BLACKMAIL. Just because you have a moral issue with Dave's behavior does not make it the story. The story is some dirtbag tried to extort money out of Dave and Dave stepped forward and stopped it and even though he had no real need to, chose to clue his audience in as to what was going on. You can list as many reasons as you want to be upset about this, but it doesn't change the facts. There is NO harassmant lawsuit, the only legal action being taken is toward the blackmailer. Get over it.
Yep.
You have totally misunderstood. Once again, I agree, this is NOT a sexual harassment issue between Birkitt and Letterman. As I said, they were consenting adults. This is about any OTHER employees, female, specifically, but it could also fall under a males purvue too, that have felt they were denied "equal treatment" specifically on the job BECAUSE Letterman was giving more perks, assignments, special or otherwise, to Birkett because he was having sex with her while working at the SAME time with Letterman in the same workplace. That's the crux of it in this situation. I don't care what Letterman does in his private and/or married life, so it's not a moral issue for me, nor am I naive that these things happen on a job. But, the law is the law, period.
What's wrong with a boss taking advantage of his position of power. It's one of the perks. If the female staff didn't like it they could have found a job some where else. WRONG...a perfect example of sexual harassment in the work force.
you have no clue whether this constituted sexual harr. at work; I am acutely aware of this issue (personal details are mine NOT to put out there); it is up to the women to make a choice, and, if they choose, pursue accordingly; you jump to a lot of conclusions w/ no facts----
is this crapola still raging on-----folks still ms.....tr....b ting over this; kids, it ain't NONE OF OUR BEEEEES-WAX; GET A LIFE AND GET UPSET OVER THE UNEMPLOYMENT, AFGHANISTAN, AND THE BA/MERRILL DEAL-------not at this nonsense; Dave was/is not a bible thumping Repulsive who is a hypocrite.-----he ain't no Vidar, Sanford, Ensign------GET A CLUE FOR GOLLY'S SAKE---
Was her name M*nica Lew*nski by any chance?
I am sorry people but why is this a story? They were consenting adults. Give me break. We need to put emphasis on healthcare, unemployment, starving americans, the wars, give me a break. I care less who David Letterman had sex with. Get a life. No, this is not sexual harrassment. I am happy he went to the police and did not give to this craziness.
This article and its premise are a joke.
How are Les Moonves or any of his execs going to judge Letterman without a long-standing, unambiguous a corporate non-fraternization/sexual harassment policy?
Les Moonves met and married Julie Chen on the job, for pity's sake!
“His core viewers are not the kind that are going to say, ‘He did what? I’m never going to watch again.’ He was not the host of a Disney Channel talk show,” he said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sure, but this kind of thing never helps. His image has been damaged. Go Conan and Andy!
Naw.
UNPROFESSIONAL.
Let THAT title STICK to him FOREVER.
ANYone knows not to mess around with your staff.
Yeah, it never happens anywhere else.....
Of course, women are never star-struck ... Letterman groupies...didn't he already have a stalker that trailed him?
OK, I"m tired of dissecting Letterman's sex life -- think I'll dissect my own. That will make for a very short monologue.
I hardly think these woman were harrassed considering they were having a consensual sexual relationship...
"Oh no, stop hitting on me, I dont like being harrassed.......Ok now lets go to the movies and screw afterwards...."
um that doesnt happen.
I bet all the women at CBS call him, "The Tongue"
Sounds like a bit of jealousy there...
I'll take that bet.
Get your checkbook out.
Well I got that reference to Soapdish even if no one else did. Well done.
I think the reference is actually to the movie “Tootsie” but still, Hilarious!
DOH! You're right...those two movies have melded in my mind!
What about preferential treatment she may have received over other staffers (money, work load, hours, perks)? How about those female employees who possibly were forced to do their job, commute to work via mass transit, limit their lunch hours to an hour and possibly got paid less than she did and no air time...? Can they claim bias?
in a publicaly held company, can bosses have their girlfriends on the payroll?
Most lawyers and Drs offices do. I let my husband co-own our business too :)
Is the Congress of the United States publicly owned??
Sen. Ensign is the current man on the ropes, so to speak,
for his affair with a staffer.
I believe Worldwide Pants is a private company owned by David Letterman who is CEO.
Dave doesn't work for CBS.
CBS has already issued a statement saying Letterman did nothing that violated the CBS sexual harassment policy.
Truth is it is very easy for employers to defend against sexual harassment lawsuits. (Activist) conservative courts have chipped away at the legislation to the point where an employer can defend by showing that it had a policy, it communicated the policy, and whenever it received a complaint it did "something" about it. And if "something" is anything, defense rests.
WHY IS THE NYT SO INVESTED IN THIS.
Why? They are trying to get up to 20 people at the next fire Dave rally LOL!!
Sales.
Because they're going to push for any man, in any position of athority, to never ever be allowed to sleep with anyone except a wife who will only put out six times a year. It's the Times, they wan't to help promote the Iraq war and make sure all men are nuetered.
One might think that the NYT would put their efforts into something much
more important like the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our
crumbling economy and healthcare reform...
CBS has already issued a statement saying Letterman did nothing that violated the CBS sexual harassment policy.
No. Dave's company Worldwide Pants gave that statement. Dave doesn't work for CBS.
Dave may wish he had worked at CBS before this is all over.
I'm still confused as to what the big deal is. No infidelity and no harassment = who cares? He's a human and he works a lot. Where else is he going to be meeting women? That this is even a story says a lot about how silly and hypocritical people are in general.
EXACTLY. The big problem here is the guy that was trying to blackmail him - PERIOD!
Dave only recently got married, but does have a 5 year old son with his wife, still he was single and he often joked that he would never get married again. So he and the women were consenting adults, why is he being judged? Work place relationships are more the norm than anyone knows or wants to know. I think it is good that these kind of relationships are discouraged so at least they don't flaunt it in the office so much, and favoritism is not ramped.
It's unknown whether there was harrassment. That is what they will investigate.
As for infidelity, prior to finally getting married last March to the Regina Lasko, mother of his 6 year old son, Dave has been living with and in a relationship with her for over 20 years. So, if he was having affairs while living with Regina, even after Harry was born, I'd say that is infidelity. But that is between Dave and Regina.
You are correct that that we don't know whether there was harassment, but it doesn't seem legitimate to investigate whether there was harassment just because there was a relationship. If a woman were to come forward and say as much, that would be different. As it is, he had sex and that's all that anyone has any reason to believe.
Now, you are correct that there was infidelity, but there wasn't any infidelity that could result in legal action, so I don't think it's a story. Dave's wife may be upset but that's nothing to do with anyone else.
How do you know that they didn't have an understanding that each could do what they wanted and that there were no strings attached. It has been done before. That is he problem with "marriage" : commitment.
Loading comments…
First Posted: 10- 3-09 02:09 AM | Updated: 10- 3-09 02:16 AM