Hostile Work Environment

[Deleted]

mlm828 said:

divinemrse said:

I think we know exactly how Jim would feel, as he clearly tells Karen at the end of the pilot that he would never have been paired up with a blind detective.

I agree. Jim specifically tells Karen that if his boss had tried to partner him up, a year ago, with a guy who couldn't see, he would not have let that happen. But I wonder. Just what would Sighted Jim have done in that situation? After all, a police force is a quasi-military type of organization. Would Sighted Jim have disobeyed a direct order to work with a blind guy? Maybe he would have transferred rather than work with him. Would he have resorted to the same verbal harassment and passive resistance (leaving the furniture out of place) that Marty did? I suspect the Jim of a year before might have resisted more subtly, by undermining the blind guy in various ways, without actually doing something that could result in disciplinary action.

I have to do one by one because I don't know how to quote within quote. D'oh. The police force is considered para-military, so Jim, having been military himself, would certainly not have disobeyed orders. I agree with that. Knowing what we know of the character, I'm leaning toward Jim not saying a word, or partaking in any sort of "abuse" on the guy/girl, and bottling it up as he did with everything else. I am a little torn, though, when it comes to what he would ulitmately do: part of me feels he would transfer, but there's another part of me that thinks he would give the person a chance. We have seen a little bit of Jim Dunbar's sympathetic side, which I believe was there before blindness - it's just part of his personality.

[Deleted]

Combo answer to innie and carl: no, it should not be tolerated and normally is not. But I think it was perceived as more of a territorial issue or (dare I say it) the vulture attacking the weaker one. We found out that's not so, didn't we? I agree with inferiority complex whole-heartedly. Me thinks, if Dunbar had 20/20 vision, Marty would STILL be prickish to him; the blindness was just something to add onto Marty's idiocy.

[mlm828]

Oh, what the heck. This is much more interesting than what I should be doing.

Since only Marty was involved in the harassment, it might not have been considered sufficiently "severe" and "pervasive" to create a "hostile work environment," at least not for purposes of a lawsuit. (This assumes the ADA would prohibit disability-based harassment in the first place).

Regardless of whether the harassment is something Jim could have sued over, it's likely the NYPD would have a policy against such harassment in addition to any requirements of the ADA. However, considering that we're talking about a bunch of macho guys in a police department, it seems more likely to me that someone in Jim's position would be expected to "suck it up" and deal with the harassment.

One little point that has always struck me is this. (As most know, I'm a big aficionado of the whole Jim-Marty dynamic anyway). In the Pilot, Fisk and the other detectives are asking Jim the questions you'd expect them to ask. It seems pretty reasonable for them to ask. Jim answers them and they seem outwardly satisfied, if still somewhat doubtful. Marty goes so far as to say, "Tell us the gun on your hip is plastic, and we've got no beef." That, of course, leads to Jim challenging Marty to take the gun, and Marty backing down. It can be argued that this is the beginning of Marty's harassment, and the reason for it is not that Jim is blind, but that Jim showed him up in front of the rest of the squad.

[Deleted]

mlm828 said:

... It can be argued that this is the beginning of Marty's harassment, and the reason for it is not that Jim is blind, but that Jim showed him up in front of the rest of the squad.

Indeed - thus, the insecurity theory. Brava!

[Chris]

I can't comment on the legal aspects at all, since I'm not familiar with American labor Laws, the details of the ADA or any Australian laws ( ) or much of Danish Labor Laws for that matter

mlm828 said:

It can be argued that this is the beginning of Marty's harassment, and the reason for it is not that Jim is blind, but that Jim showed him up in front of the rest of the squad.

While this could be true, I also believe there could be a different interpretation of the beginning of Marty harassing Jim.

I believe that Marty was against the idea of a blind cop from day one, at the very least one who wants to go out on the streets and carries a gun. So before Dunbar even enters the squad, Marty doesn't want him around. He might not have planned to harass Jim, not even Marty is that big a bully, but he certainly didn't want to work with the guy. Maybe he wanted to do what Dunbar said himself he would have done, which is to make sure that did not happen.
And then this arrogant, obnoxious guy walks in, and not only does he want to go out in the streets, and carries a gun too, but he also has the audacity to be a very good detective. He finds the killer in the "Tongue Collector Case" on his second day back at work, and he tries to solve every little thing not leaving any room for Marty.
Marty is also very protective of Karen (The Condell suicide, offering to slap Nick around a little) so seeing Jim win Karen over in a few days must also add to the animosity he feels towards Jim.

So back to the original question, is Marty harassing Jim for being blind or for being Jim??

I think both, but I agree with Barb, Marty would resent Jim, blind or sighted, because as Carl said so very precisely

carl1951 said:

I still think that weasel Russo has an inferiority problem when he's around Dunbar.

As for Dunbar making a lawsuit, I can't imagine him doing that for several reasons. It would make him even more un-popular within the department and possibly making it impossible for him to stay on the job since a lawsuit would ensure that NOBODY would want to work with him.
Someone said that he probably knew what was facing going back on the job, and that he was happy that there was only one Marty to deal with.
He must have prepared for this and must have been pretty sure he could handle it on his own, if he couldn't, he would have no business being on the job. If he could not handle the stuff thrown at him in the squad, how would he ever be able to handle whatever was coming from perps and suspects and witnesses?
Ohh, and some boring legal resolution, no way, that would be no fun!!!

- Chris

[hoosier]

Jim also wanted to prove to himself that he could "make this work". He was the one having to deal with Marty day in and day out. They had to come to some kind of compromise--Jim had to learn that it was not necessary that he solve "every little thing" to show that he was competent and Marty had to realize that Jim did have something to offer and was not a liability. If Jim had resorted to a lawsuit, it would be admitting that he wasn't able to handle the situation on his own. Maybe he tried to look at it as the hazing any new guy gets when assigned to a new precinct.

Could Jim and Marty have been friends before the shooting? Friendly rivals? They definitely had different styles-- Marty wanted everything out in the open, Jim played it close to the vest, Marty would tend to intimidate, Jim commiserate. Marty didn't like being shown up while Jim seemed almost oblivious to the fact that that was what he was doing. And on Jim's first day back on the job, Marty had to bring up what was a sore spot (the gun) and rather than address what was a legitimate concern , Jim reacted by issuing a challenge so he could prove himself not only to Marty and the others but to himself. If Marty had succeeded in taking the gun, what would Jim have done?

Another question,what about Fisk? He knew what was going on. When Marty was blatant in his comments in the squad room, Fisk would look at him askance but not reprimand. Even the "pissed-off stepsisters" comment was more about their sniping not about the underlying cause. If he had stepped in, would it have made matters even worse?

[matilda]

I'm with (the seemingly venerable) Carl. The bloke's a weasel.

However, having watched the first ep again last night, what do you all think of this:

Jim goes back to work.

Employee has won a legal battle in public arena and provisions of ADA have been enforced - so it's established that employee has right to return to former position. He does and we don't really know the ins and outs of the terms of settlement BUT:

In terms of management responsibility, wouldn't it then be the case that it would be incumbent on the employer (in this case a presumably very large government agency) to ensure that an understanding of what the return to work means (ie treat person with ordinary courtesy) is conveyed to both line management (Lt Fisk) and colleagues (here come legal arguments again!).

I don't think Jim would have wanted people to fall over themselves to display how ok they are with it (the return to work, the blindness, the gun) but like most people he would be taken aback by the level of hostility don't you think?

This situation is what really interested me in the series in the first place - the difference between what happens in courts, settlements and essentially the law and what actually happens in workplaces, in the micro and day to day.

Because ... it seems to me that Marty, being both weasel and prickish person that he is (do I have permission to use prickish in everyday conversation? lovin it) is just rude, threatened in his own image of what a cop should be by the notion of Jim being able to do the job and as time goes on (even in first ep and claiming principle tv for further viewing tonight), do it far better than him, if we consider what the job really is and its inherent requirements.

So old Marty's behaviour is indeed territorial and yes he would appear to have huge inferiority thing happening, but importantly for me, his behaviour is apalling and I would have thought that in terms of both managing a potentially 'hostile work environment', particularly after Jim's aready won Round One, and ordinary day-to- day management, the behaviour would require intervention, and I recall that line management handed it out fairly equally rather than dealing with the silliness of said weasel.

Classic management error in these matters I would have thought - deal with it by talking to everyone and not dealing with the individual!

All of that said, I reckon Jim would have dealt with it on his own. And that's my interest in how things are dealt with in the day-to-day and its relationship with the law.

And if that meant Jim giving Marty a good going over then agreed, Marty would have SO come off second best.

We all know that we can't legislate against ordinary reactions to change/bad behaviour but its pretty silly stuff that Marty does.

Cheers

Matilda

And no I don't intend to bore you with new thought patterns of Matilda every day after I have watched another episode. Just fun to have people to discuss it with right now! I should have done this months ago!

[maggiethecat]

Hot diggety -- a great new discussion thread.

Welcome, Matilda, and kudos to all and sundry. I plan to be -- all things considered and if the creek don't rise -- back to the computer and posting happily again by next week. What delicious fun to find a fabulous new BJ discussion waiting to be chewed over and added to. (So I just ended a sentence with a preposition -- so shoot me. )

I have missed you all.

I'll be back!

Maggie

[hoosier]

Is the employer, in this case the NYPD, obligated to instruct its employees in matters such as 'reasonable accommodations', proper etiquette, etc.? If the employer conforms to the rules and regulations of the ADA, do they also have to have 'sensitivity' training for all the employees on the off chance they might be working with the disabled? It is expected for harassment in any form in the workplace to be quickly dealt with but what about the aforesaid items?

People transfer or are promoted all the time and have to make their own way in a new environment. In Jim's case, was it basically dumped in Fisk's lap--here's the blind guy thats all over the news and you have to find a way to make it work? Jim didn't even come in to get a layout of the precinct and squad room. That may have been dramatic license on the part of the writers so we felt more sympathetic towards Jim but wouldn't they have suggested or insisted that he do so for his own benefit? I admit that I don't know much about the ADA other than what I've read here and there and that when the library where I work expanded it had to meet state standards for handicap access.

And Maggie, welcome back!

[mlm828]

hoosier said:

Is the employer, in this case the NYPD, obligated to instruct its employees in matters such as 'reasonable accommodations', proper etiquette, etc.? If the employer conforms to the rules and regulations of the ADA, do they also have to have 'sensitivity' training for all the employees on the off chance they might be working with the disabled? It is expected for harassment in any form in the workplace to be quickly dealt with but what about the aforesaid items?

I'm sure Fisk and the squad knew in advance that Jim was being assigned there. When Jim arrives and announces he's "assigned here," Marty responds, "We know." It's possible a large governmental agency like the NYPD might have Jim's future co-workers receive "sensitivity training" or instruction about "reasonable accommodation" before he goes back to work. But this could be a double-edged sword. It could cause resentment if they feel he's receiving special treatment, or if they feel they're wasting their time with such things, when they should be working on the "tongue-collector" case. Jim might have considered it preferable to go back on the job and deal with questions as they came up, as he did in the Pilot. In addition, a lot of what his co-workers needed to know was simply common sense or common courtesy.

hoosier said:

People transfer or are promoted all the time and have to make their own way in a new environment. In Jim's case, was it basically dumped in Fisk's lap--here's the blind guy thats all over the news and you have to find a way to make it work? Jim didn't even come in to get a layout of the precinct and squad room. That may have been dramatic license on the part of the writers so we felt more sympathetic towards Jim but wouldn't they have suggested or insisted that he do so for his own benefit.

Given that there was some dramatic license, I think Fisk handled the situation pretty even-handedly and about as well as could be expected. Dragging Jim into Karen's desk on the first day was a major faux pas, and his effort to relegate Jim to working minor cases was understandable, if misguided. But to give him credit, he caught on pretty quickly to what Jim could do. As for the situation with Marty, he recognized that it was a two-way street; Jim was dishing it out as well as taking it. I think it was his management style to give his detectives an opportunity to resolve the situation themselves and step in only if it continued and threatened to disrupt the squad, which he did. I give him credit for treating Jim like any other detective in this regard.

[matilda]

Here we are at the real issues again. Love that.

I agree that "sensitivity training" would have been a bad management tactic and I also think that Jim wouldn't have wanted it to be included in any terms of settlement because of the 'double-edged sword' factor.

Here, we have "compliance training" as you do in the U.S., as part of what we have developed as "all reasonable steps" an employer must engage in to ensure that a workplace is free from all types of actionable behaviour (bullying, sex-, race-, disability- etc based harassment (we're now picking up your diversity council/task force approach as well, arising out of the settlement of the Coca-Cola race discrimination matter 2002 I think it was).

But how does that work in an environment that has 'toughness' as part of its culture and in fact could be considered a requirement of suitablity for the position? How would we define that? And are the actions of Marty reasonable or unresaonable? Does he display "common courtesy"given the requirment for toughness?

I don't think so and I think its beacuse of the weasel factor. Does he behave in a terrritorial manner with all new appointees, especially men?

If that's the case, Lt Fisk does handle it well. He allows for Marty's personality factors (weasel and prickdom), the fact that despite the weaseldom he seems to do his job reasonably, and what would seem to me to be factors around workplace- or industry- specific culture. This goes to Jim "dishing it out" as well.

However (me being further advanced on the re-viewing) - what about the leaving the filing cabinet drawer open deliberatley? I mean really ... schoolyard doesn't even begin to decribe that one.

Topically at this end, here in NSW a major headline of the moment is police suiciding and/or being otherwise affected (eg PTSD) because of the nature of the job, the culture of the industry and the culture and nature of the employer in particular. It's a pretty harsh culture for people to work in (given its antececents are in the convict structure of the early colony), and the outcomes are tragic.

Cheers (on a cheerier note)

Matilda

And I wish I knew how to quote, your views are all so interesting I'd love to be able to respond directly. Oh well, I'll work it out ..