If there are, I’m finding it hard to see them. There was a huge response here when I posted about Kristy Fraser-Kirk’s sexual harrassment claim against David Jones and former CEO Mark McInnes for $37m. As I pointed out then and will reiterate now, it is a fraught subject for me because one of the individuals is a family friend. So I am going to sit this one out.
News Ltd journalists Jonathon Moran and Claire Harvey report:
.
SHE sued David Jones for $37 million, but Kristy Fraser-Kirk will walk away from Australia’s biggest sexual-harassment case without a job at the department store and legal costs as high as $300,000.
The 27-year-old publicist will sacrifice a chunk of her $850,000 settlement to her legal team, publicist and three barristers, after agreeing to pay her own court costs in the settlement with David Jones and its former chief executive Mark McInnes, 45.
That includes paying for a top-class legal team at Harmers Workplace Lawyers, barristers Michael Lee, Rachel Francois and Ian Barker, QC and expert witnesses, psychologists’ reports and trips to Europe and the US to escape media scrutiny.
Both David Jones and Ms Fraser-Kirk’s PR teams said yesterday the settlement was a win for their side. But neither emerged as winners.
Sources close to Ms Fraser-Kirk said the $850,000 payout – of which she is likely to take home about $500,000 – was sizeable for a junior employee earning less than $70,000 a year.Ms Fraser-Kirk’s case was fraught from the start. The absurdly high claim of $37 million in punitive damages exposed her to ridicule and Federal Court judge Geoffrey Flick criticised her attempt to draw in seven anonymous women, whom she said were also harassed by Mr McInnes.
Mr McInnes and David Jones have achieved the outcome they desired in settling the case for a sum originally offered during earlier negotiations. But the case has been devastating for Mr McInnes. He lost his job, his reputation was damaged and unsubstantiated claims were made about his behaviour towards women in the workplace dating back 20 years. Late yesterday, lawyers were negotiating details of the payout.
Both parties released statements this morning
Kristy Fraser Kirk
Ms Fraser-Kirk said:
“I could not have done this without the support and guidance from those in my life that matter most, to my partner, parents, family and friends, thank you and to my unwavering legal team, a special thanks. Also, to those members of the public who have supported me, thank you,” she said in the statement.
“This has been a difficult journey but one that I felt was important.
“The case has lead to real debate taking place which I am confident will lead to change. That is part of what the punitive damages claim was intended to achieve, and it has.
“I had asked the Court to award punitive damages, which was to go to charity, but as the Court will no longer be determining the case that’s no longer possible. I look forward, however, to participating in charitable work in the future.
“Thank you again for all your support. As the settlement is subject to confidentiality, I am not in a position to say anymore.”
Mark McInnes
“I welcome today’s settlement. It brings to an end a difficult time in many peoples’ lives and hopefully it marks the moment that everyone can begin focusing on the future,” he said in the statement.
“I have repeatedly said that the vast majority of the allegations are simply untrue and the nature of the court proceedings was an abuse of legal process.
“Personally I am looking forward to a new chapter in my family life and a resumption of my career in 2011. I would particularly like to thank my partner Lisa, my family and many friends for all their love and support.
“The settlement contains confidentiality obligations so I will not be making any further comment on these matters.”
Do you think this settlement is a good thing for Kristy? For David Jones? For Mark McInnes? Do you think this high profile case has been a good or bad thing for other women who may have experiences sexual harassment at work?
Comments
485 Comments so far
Loving some of the comments *note sarcasm – a woman’s worst enemy is another woman sometimes.
Ladies (and gents), so she said she would put the money towards charity, WHO CARES, the money she got will go towards putting her life back together and maybe studying for another career.
Her name is tarnished unfortunately but is Marks? Nope, he will continue to be the charming sleaze bag he always was! Now he has a bundle of joy on the way, let’s hope it is not a daughter.
So she said it was for charity, do you really think with the media storm, her lawyers dictating everything she says to anyone that she was really talking straight? Probably not, she was under intense pressure but hey she brought it against herself didn’t she, you know by complaining and going against the boss *note sarcasm again.
Thankfully I have never been on the receiving end of this and do we all really know how we would handle ourselves if in the position that this woman was in?? We all like to share our opinion, demonise her, support her, slag her off, but until we go through such a life changing experience you cannot say “she should have said this or she should not have said that or she is the one who made those comments” bla bla bla.
loading...
It’s funny that you should argue that what people say shouldn’t be used against them
loading...
Maybe if he has a girl, he’ll learn…
loading...
That’s all very interesting and relevant and everything, but what I really want to talk about is the Congo….
loading...
Quite a lot of people have been saying “Oh, this proves she was only in it for the money.” Well, this is how court cases work at the moment, and I was wondering – what else are they suggesting? A non-apology “I’m sorry if you were offended”? Or (at the other extreme) should McInnes be beaten with sticks & other blunt (or sharp) objects?
loading...
Or that her lawyers should have worked for free?
loading...
And I think everyone who’s complaining, “The charities, won’t anyone think of the charities!!” should let us know how much they themselves give to charity each year.
loading...
I really hope you were doing a Helen Lovejoy voice then, otherwise I think I will cry.
loading...
Oops, I think it came out a bit wrong. What I meant was that there seem to be whole lot of people criticising what the complainant hasn’t done with the money she didn’t receive, & demanding she donate to charity. And I was wondering how many of the critics give to charity.
loading...
I don’t think there are any winners but I don’t have an issue with her standing up and saying this is wrong and I’m strong enough to say it very loudly to a media that will listen.
What I would like to know is how they came up with the idea of 37 million? Does anyone know? Seems like a strange number on many levels.
As for him, well he got what was coming to him (which appears to be only embarrassment and a money fueled “walk of shame”) and from what I have read he will be fine.
loading...
i believe it is a percentage of the earnings of DJ’s and Mark Mc Innes during the period of the harrassment am i supposed to say alleged??
loading...
I heard it was 5% of the earnings
loading...
“The crippling multi-million dollar figure is 5 per cent of the company’s profits while Mr McInnes was its CEO between 2003 and July this year.”
http://www.news.com.au/business/kristy-fraser-kirk-files-35-million-lawsuit-against-mark-mcinnes-and-david-jones/story-e6frfm1i-1225900134304
loading...
Ok. Thanks guys but one other question, Is that usually what they do in a punitive damages case? Is there a structure in place they have to follow or could they have just said lets ask for 10 million?
loading...
I believe that punitive damages are very rarely awarded in the Australian courts. It is big in the US (hence the enourmous pay outs their courts award).
I suspect it would have been gound breaking if it went to court, would’ve been interesting to see if the case set a new precedent or was thrown out!
I guess at the end of the day it was just a ploy to get DJ’s to settle early though.
loading...
I think it is a loss for DJ’s, people will still shop there but they have lost, by all accounts, a very talented exec (hence why he got away with it so long). That has to be damaging for their long term business.
It’s a short-term loss for Mark. If he is a talented as they say he is he will land on his feet again after period of time in the doghouse. Don’t forget he probably has opportunities abroad as well. A stint abroad after falling on his sword then eventually slotting back home into a good job a few years down the track. It’s happened before and it will again.
It’s a big, long term loss for KFK. She deserves every penny of the 500k (reputed, after legal fees) she will get. She will need it to support herself, possibly retrain in a new career or move away. The stigma will always follow her, for him the old double standard will eventually kick in and he will shrug it off.
It’s a win overall for sexual harassment cases so thank you KFK. Now when a company hears of their star execs or managers up to no good, as DJ’s was clearly fully aware of, they will know better than to pretend to be blind. I think businesses will be more on top of things now in the hopes of avoiding a repeat of the DJs saga.
As for the effect on the nation overall? Well two steps forward one step back I think. The negative comments from the dinosaurs were all pretty predictable, but i would think with every case they get less and less, just like with any social change it takes time for some to accept things are changing.
As for her not deserving the money because others have suffered more I do want to say that as a first world country it is up to us to set the bar, it is our own advances in prosecuting and putting rape on the agenda in first world countries that has helped put it on the agenda in the third world. There is a trickle down effect and one day, i hope, the Congolese women will need the trickle down effect of the first world tackling sexual harassment in the workplace and they will be pissed off if it didn’t happen because of some bullshit hierarchy of suffering that deems first world women to not be worthy of justice.
Best of luck to KFK, one day history will redeem you.
loading...
Well said Apples!
loading...
I think if we consider it a loss for DJs because they don’t have McInnes working for them anymore, we are no further ahead! Without being too black and white about this, have they not just been shown why he is a liability for them?? This sort of behaviour in a workplace is damaging, whether there are law suits directly related or not…the longer we value the people who behave like that the longer it will take to get the message across that it should not be tolerated.
loading...
$850 000 is a drop in the bucket for DJs so I certainly don’t feel an injustice on their behalf… If it sends out a strong message that sexual harrassment is NOT ok then all the better I say… As for MM, he’s sure to land on his feet… wealthy well connected people almost always do so I’m not really shedding a tear over that one either…
loading...
Okay I don`t know what the hell is happening, but that comment was meant to go in response to Princess Machiavelli`s comment, which was in turn a response to one of Lulu`s comments, which was in turn in response to an original comment of mine on the previous page. If that is where it has indeed ended up then cheers, but from my moniter it appears that I can`t submit anything in reply to anyone at all and all my comments are just appearing as the next ones up on the thread. What`s happening?
loading...
Must have been a glitch….
loading...
No, she`s confirming that the best way to get your message across is to illustrate it with concepts your audience can understand and relate to.
In this case, the concept that McInnes and the DJ`s board most easily understand is money, what with them being a multi million dollar business empire and all, and making money one of the main reasons for their existence. Take it away, and they get upset. Take it away after they`ve done something wrong, and eventually they will learn to associate doing wrong with something they don`t like happening- losing money. It`s simple negative reinforcement.
loading...
Oh I find this a hard one to comment on!
OF COURSE it is is wrong for ANYONE to be harrassed in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM in the workplace…..and as someone below said….if he’d done nothing, then why did he resign!?
But, I think it is a little ‘weird’ how just because there were no punitive damages awarded that her sentiment of donating some $ to charity just disappears! If she wanted to, she could still donate some of the money to a charity that works hard to fight harassment.
I feel sorry for lots of people involved in this! Especially the partners of both Mark and KFK, among others.
Off to eat….
loading...
Agree Phoodie.
She made it clear in her initial statement she wasn’t doing it for the money but is now happy to have the $500,000.
loading...
She is likely to be unemployable at least in the medium term thanks to her boss sexually harassing her, at only 27 doubtful she has much in the way of savings, who should pay to support her Centrelink and the taxpayer or her family or the company that looked the other way as long as their star exec was doing a good job?
I don’t think she was doing it for the money because this isn’t ‘fun money’ she isn’t going to be living it up she is going to be using the money to put her working life back together (and she has a long one ahead of her) everyone is acting as if she it’s a lottery win and she’s going to go on a spending spree. It’s compensation for a severely disrupted working life and about right.
loading...
not disregarding what she has been through. just saying that for what she initially said and implied makes her look a bit dodgy in my opinion.
never said it was ‘fun money’ never said it was a lottery win.
Just said, in my opinion, she has gone back on what she initially implied and said.
loading...
I disagree it was very clear that the charity money was for any money ‘over and above’ her needs. She does need to keep a roof over her head and I don’t see how anyone could have thought she would be making donations to charity when the settlement only covered her. As for not being in it for the money, she wasn’t this money covers costs, damage to reputation and missed time working now and potentially in the future. IMO she hasn’t come out ahead she hasn’t gone back on the ‘not being in it for the money’ statement. But she did need to cover herself and that’s all she has done so criticism over the payment isn’t really justified. She isn’t a winner in this, just adequately compensated. Her past statements hold up. And she did the one thing that she said was most important – she held them to account, publicly. She was offered this money PRIVATELY. She could have had it all, but she didn’t, she took a stand and didn’t go back on it. Yet people call her a golddigger? Doesn’t add up.
loading...
didn’t call her a gold digger.
you say Tomato, I say tomato.
difference of opinion, we’ll leave it at that.
loading...
Im with you Kateo…. $500 000.00 is alot of money I mean hell even if she donated a couple of thousand to a charity atleast!
She was apparently earning $70k a year, which is alot of money to begin with, more than the average worker… I’m sure she wont be without a job for too long! Certainly not 7 years, if she intends on living off the settlement unti she gets a job…
It all seems a but suss to me aswell…. The whole lot of it… from begging to end…. Im glad/hoping this is the last I hear about it to be honest!!
loading...
She might need that money because she hasn’t been able to work, I’d assume, and she may find it hard to get a job in the future because of this suit.
Maybe. I know nothing about this kind of stuff though. I don’t blame her for keeping the money, as long as we don’t see her in a brand new expensive car.
loading...
I agree, seems a bit wrong she is not giving some to charity any more…. hmmmmm.
loading...
I’m surprised that so many people are upset about the fact that a woman was compensated money because her workplace failed to protect her from sexual harassment. Are these same people upset that the guy that harassed her walked away with $4 million?
loading...
I must add though, regardless of your friendship with Mark McInnes, Mia, regardless of how ‘awkward’ it is to comment, It is your job as a social commentator to comment.
If you believe Mark McInnes is scum then you should say so, because really why would you want to maintain a friendship with him?
If you believe he is an innocent party then say so, perhaps you have been privy to his side of the story which has swayed your decision, in which case you should give your opinion on that also.
People don’t come here to read the news, we come here to discuss WITH YOU, the topics in the news.
You are very quick to slander anyone else in the media accused of such things (in fact worse things) without really knowing if they did do it or not. But when it comes to your ‘circle of people’ you’re happy to pass the buck.
You can’t choose what sexual harassment/assault law suits you sit out and what you don’t, because then all of your opinions lose substance and credibility, and so do you.
loading...
Mia has commented before that she finds what he did terrible, but that she knows a different side to him than that portrayed in the media, so I’d say she falls somewhere between the two extremes.
I personally don’t think she needs to go into more detail than that if she’s not comfortable with it, and at the end of the day she’s still just a person – her opinions are no more or less valid than the opinions of you or I and that being the case I’m content to debate the issue with other contributors here. It’s not as though she frequently contributes to discussion anyway, she just facilitates it. By posting this, she has done just that.
Though I can see why you’d find it a bit hypocritical; I just don’t really care if she is as long as discussion ensues.
loading...
Yes I do understand that, I also considered all of this before posting.
Just in light of how heated debates such as this get, I’m just a bit disappointed that Mia “queen of opinion” (which is usually a good thing) doesn’t want to be involved but is more than happy to on other topics.
How does Mia think the friends and family of those people feel when she writes her opinion against their loved one?
loading...
On the contrary, I think Mia has maintained her credibility by opening this topic up for discussion DESPITE her personal connection with McInnes, and by declaring her conflict of interest. If she has been privy to his side of the story, she may have been told it in confidence or not wish to share it with the general public.
loading...
I do not expect her to inform us of private information at all.
It was merely in comparison on how vocal she generally is on ‘these kind of cases’ but when it is someone she knows she wants to wash her hands of it all.
loading...
Since when did the job of ‘social commentator’ come with a position description as written by you?
It’s Mia’s website, her job, her business, she can do whatever she likes. You don’t have to like it (by all means don’t, makes it more interesting when there is debate) but you can’t tell her she ‘has’ to write something as it’s her ‘job’. What’s the point in being a freelance commentator if you can’t set your own terms?
As for ‘sitting one out’ you write as if other commentators and journalists don’t do the same thing. As long as someone is putting forward a view I’m happy for others who need to take a turn to sit one out for personal reasons. Journo’s are people too. We don’t need every single jouno in Aus ripping every single person to shreds, or alternatively everyone standing up for the one person. You need a mix and part of that mix is having the one sitting it out focus on something else of import that might also be going on at the same time.
I’m happy with the DJ’s coverage so far, I think alot of this simply boils down to wanting to hear some goss from an inside source and being peeved when that’s denied because someone preferences a friendship over a quick spike in hits.
loading...
Also want to add that no matter what she wrote Mia couldn’t win, stand up for him and people will say it’s a mate’s thing, rip into him and lose a friend, sit on the fence and people demand you have an opinion so you might as well leave this one alone. It’s not like it happens often.
loading...
Thats not really what I was saying Apples.
And to be honest, to an extent we all write Mia’s job description because without all of us visiting the site Mia wouldn’t have a job. I don’t mean that in a nasty way, it’s just how it works in my understanding. I was giving criticism based on Mia’s usually vocal opinion on such matters which often I have disagreed with, so i wanted to understand if and why it had changed on this case, that is all.
didn’t want insider goss. you can think what you like and write what you want but that’s not how I meant it at all.
loading...
Kateo,
I’m not doing my job?
I dispute that but I would like to respond to a couple of things you say.
I unequivocally do NOT think Mark McInnes is scum. I think he is a good man who made a mistake and has paid a considerable price for it.
The difficulty for me is that any positive thing I say about Mark is incorrectly perceived by some as an implicit or explicit condemnation of Kristy or, worse, an endorsement of sexual harassment.
It is neither.
The two things can and do co-exist in the realm of my opinion.
Further? I believe Kristy was advised very badly. I don’t think speaking up was wrong but I think the way it was turned into a circus and the amount of the claim and the other unsubstantiated allegations about other anonymous women…..I think that was all terribly unfortunate for all parties.
Ultimately, she has accepted the same amount as she was offered before everything became public – minus the hundreds of thousands of dollars that must be paid to lawyers and PR advisors. And plus a million column inches of media coverage.
As I said at the start of this post, I’m not sure if that’s a win for anyone.
loading...
Mia, for what it’s worth I agree that this case was very poorly handled and resulted in a media circus. It will be interesting to see how sexual harassment claims are handled in the wake of it.
loading...
Thank you Mia.
I think you articulated yourself perfectly and gave no impression of A) dismissing Mark’s character aside from the law suit and B) did so without dismissing his actions and the case at hand.
I would hope that you could have said that in your intro without being attacked, your opinion is greatly valued by Mamamia-ers.
Of course one action doesn’t make a man a bad person, just as one good deed doesn’t make someone a good person. I completely agree with your response (but even if I didn’t that would be fine because it is YOUR opinion and we don’t all have to agree!)
I am really appreciative that you responded (albeit probably out of offense), thank you Mia.
loading...
No offence.
loading...
That was a good article.
loading...
Glad you though so Ms. B!
loading...
Here’s a great article that examines this issue minus the emotional headlines and media bias – definitely worth a read!
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/20101018-five-lessons-from-the-david-jones-sexual-harassment-case.html
loading...
Sorry, this was supposed to go to Annoyed`s comments below, which in turn were in response to Lizzie`s comments. Don`t know how that happened.
loading...
Please use your head. The congo is a shithole right now. Why are you holding up the long suffering women there as an example? Is that the standard we want for womens rights in this country? You are correct in that it is unlikely the women there will ever be awarded any form of monetary compensation for what they have just endured. But we are not in the Congo. We are a first world country, and in first world countries you generally don`t have to deal with that kind of crap, hence why demand for refugee and immigration places are so high and the status of `first world` is generally held to be a positive thing.
And on the second point, she promised she would donate any punitive damages from the case to charity. Except the court did not award her any punitive damages as she settled out of court. She has not revoked anything.
loading...
Thanks for your last paragraph especially. Why is that s hard for people to understand? It says very clearly in the original court docs, that the $37M was the claim for punitive damages to be awarded by th court and paid to a charity nominated by the complainant. There were no punitive damages hence, no donation.
loading...
I really don’t know. It’s been mentioned countless times here already, but I’m pretty sure we’re bound to see another 100 comments saying how she has gone back on her word. =P
loading...
I know, even the papers cant get it right. Why am I surprised???
loading...
Whilst, technically, she didn’t go back on her word, she created the scenario of not having to pay to charity by agreeing to settle. Some may argue that, if it wasn’t really about the money for KFK, then she should have taken it through the courts and got whatever punitive damages awarded. That she din’t has only created the impression that she has taken the money and run. In any case, could she not have donated even 5-10% of her clear $500k (tax free) to charity.Also, why does everyone seem to feel that DJ’s have taken the easy option when they in fact haven’t changed from their original position. It is KFK who has conceded (taking less than originally offered, by accounts) and if only slightly, called the veracity of her claims into question. You can be commercial or a moral crusader, but you can’t be both. Just my two cents worth……..
loading...
The Prince is brilliant.
Secondly, nice point.
loading...
I was a little peeved when Kristy ( or whoever is pulling the strings ) asked for $37 million dollars. Any woman who is sexually harrassed or abused has the right ( even the obligation ) to report that harrassment, but to then ask for what is an exorbitant amount of money only opens that woman up to ridcule ie Kristy. Its not only her that copped the ridicule though – now there are certain factions of society who will view every abused woman the same way ( as whingers and just in it for the money ).
Funny thing is, when she first staked her million dollar claim, Kristy said it wasnt about the money, and at least half of what she was awarded would be given to charity. I read on ninemsn.com earlier this morning that she will be giving nothing from her settlement to charity at all….
loading...
See below – she didn’t recieve punitive $$$
she hasn’t lied at all
loading...
Yes Madison, i read her reasoning on Ninemsn.com, but it doesnt really sit well with me. At the start of the all controversy she said she wasnt in it for the money and would be giving some to charity, as she wanted to take her abuser to task on behalf of all abused women.
Now it seems as though she hasnt won herself enough money – regardless of how it was awarded to her ( punitive damages or not ) and she just doesnt want to share. If its really ” not about the money ” then she’d be able to give some of it away, regardless of how much it is…
loading...
To quote Wendy on the first page;
“It was the punitive damages she was going to give to charity (none awarded, it didn’t go to court)”.
loading...
I’m not convinced ninemsn is the most valid news source …
loading...
ha ha Evey… perhaps not! Its a step up from New Idea though, i’m confident on that one. However, should another more reputable news agency find evidence that what i read on ninemsn was wrong, that i’ll be happy to consider changing my opinion. That being said, everything else i’ve heard/seen today also says there will be no money going to charity so my original disappointment still stands…
loading...
I’m going to put it out there and say that I think everyone actually wins here:
KFK has won by reclaiming the power she was robbed of when McInnes abused his position and DJ’s turned a blind eye. The money is just icing on the cake.
McInnes wins because in being publicly taken to task for his behaviour, he will be watched like a hawk from now on and have to stop acting like such a pig. The people in his life probably win here too.
DJ’s, their employees and shareholders all win because they have been forced to re-assess their corporate culture and put in place mechanisms to make sure this doesn’t happen again.
The rest of us win because sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace have been placed in the spotlight. What is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour has been reiterated. Dozens of corporations across Australia are scrambling to look at their own culture to check that their name could never be dragged through the mud like this, while victims have been empowered to step forward and say ‘enough’.
Can’t see any negatives really!
loading...
Fantastic response!
loading...
Agreed! There are a lot of productive things that have come out of all this, exactly as you have outlined. great response.
loading...
Yey – great answer gosh golly! Love it
loading...
Agree – except for the charity, they lose. Her reason for the money (after legal expenses) not going to charity doesn’t really wash with me.
loading...
well said!!!!!!!!!!!!
loading...
Great perspective Gosh Golly!
loading...
I think that to think that Fraser-Kirk is in complete control is somewhat naive. There are a lot of other drivers at play here. Although I think $37 million is plainly ridiculous I can’t help feeling that Fraser-Kirk has perhaps become a victim again. Anyway, I thought the below article was interesting outlining the bigger forces at play in this case. See what you think?
http://www.smh.com.au/business/straightforward-case-has-turned-into-a-fanciful-sixringed-circus-20101013-16k2x.html
loading...
Perhaps there were no winners in terms of either party.
McInnes has had his name dragged through the mud, and will find it very difficult to become senior executive in any capacity ever again.
But we can’t ignore the fact that Fraser-Kirk was made to look like a money hungry gold digger looking for a pay check. Yes $37 million was extreme, but it got peoples attention didn’t it?
Sexual harassment in the workplace is rife, and I’m sure many of us on this very forum would have been subjected to it at one time or another to varying degrees. Bringing attention to the issue is so important, and as many posters have already said – it is a brave thing to do. Maybe, just maybe, this might be able to change the attitudes (and behaviors) of some males that reside in the corporate world.
And I’m hoping that it will be able to change some attitudes of females as well. We need to stick together ladies!
loading...
loading...
(I could be wrong on this, but I believe I heard the amount of $37 million was chosen because it represented 5% of DJ’s last annual profit…? Or something along those lines.)
I am a bit sad the huge sum of money turned it into a farce into some people’s minds, and it turned from “let’s focus on what he did wrong” to “let’s focus on the amount she asked for”.
Because I am so glad KFK decided to do what she did.
Standing up and saying “What he did was not OK” was the absolute right thing to do and I would hire her in a heartbeat.
Good on you, Kristy, for standing up and saying what so many women have not.
loading...
I agree with you Jenna, good for her!!
I think she AT LEAST dserves to keep what she has left after paying court costs. If she had ended up with more than i’m sure she would’ve donated some but lets be honest, her life isn’t going to be a walk in the park for a while yet & i can’t see anyone wanting to hire her anytime soon, so the 500k she ended up with i believe she deserves, for standing up for women, against arrogant men like this guy!! She said all along she wasn’t doing it for the money & i believe she could’ve ended up with more had she not settled out of court but she’d made her point & exposed him for what he is & hopefully gave women the strength not to put up with this, from anyone!
loading...
Of course nobody wins here. However, Miss Fraser-Kirk is the big loser.
As this ended in an out of court settlement, she clearly was awarded way less than the $37mil that she was seeking as compensation. Loss 1.
Any potential employer seeing her name at the top of a CV will more than likely put the said CV at the bottom of the pile. I have read that she has made sexual harassment claims whilst in the employ of another company. Being a high profile litigator, as an employee she is now box-office poison…to use an old Hollywood term for any actor whose movies nobody goes to see. She is now quite possibly unemployable. Might get offered a gig in the next series of “Dancing With The Stars” or something else that requires C grade celebrities to participate. Loss 2.
The legal team engaged as her mouthpiece during the matter will reap most of the financial settlement….unless of course they are really nice folks ! Ever dealt with a lawyer ? A simple “good morning” goes on to your bill ! Loss 3.
People will still shop at DJ’s. Rightly or wrongly, McInnes will not find himself totally unemployable, and when you think about it…he was given $2mil to go away. Fraser-Kirk will receive way less. Loss 4.
loading...
I don’t think that’s a very nice way to look at it.
Not many people ever receive the entire amount they were seeking, so I don’t think Kristy would ever have expected to get $37 million.
And I don’t think she will be unemployable for the rest of her life at all. I think there are plenty of women who would think along the lines “I’m proud to have her standing up for herself, and I would absolutely hire her.”
I know I would.
Tallying up her ‘losses’ like that is a bit cheap I think. Because ALL of what you wrote is wiped out by what KFK and women in the workplace everywhere get out of it:
WIN: The strength to stand up and say that if we’re uncomfortable, it’s OK to say so, and regardless of men’s intent or the extent of the inappropriateness, it cannot be disregarded as harmless.
loading...
I appreciate and accept your opinion, Jenna Felicity.
I agree without question that sexual harassment in the workplace is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. It is vile. It is not harmless. End of story.
What part of my comment did you find the most unacceptable. The very obvious losses as noted or the fact that I placed a numeral beside each one of the explanations that was given ?
I’m sure that Miss Fraser-Kirk is as delighted as I am that you are offering her future employment by way of expressing our mutual pride in her decision to stand up and be counted. You did say that you were prepared to employ her, didn’t you ?
loading...
Glad to hear Bradley,
That you think sexual harrasment in the workplace is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.
loading...
She was never seeking 37 million as compensation. There is a difference between compensatory damages and punitive damages.
loading...
My sincere apologies for using the word “compensation”. I actually was implying any financial award received as a result of in court or out of court action.
loading...
I would say McInnes’ partner and his loved ones are losers from this mess too.
It must be lovely to know that the father of your unborn child tries to kiss young women in the workplace.
loading...
If the partner choses to stay with McInnes…more fool her !
loading...
Will DJ’s have to have bigger and better sales more frequently to win back outraged shoppers?
‘Cause then it’s a win for consumerism!!!!
loading...
Unless you’ve heard something that I haven’t….is DJ’s experiencing a slump in sales since this matter first reared its ugly head ?
I’m serious. I honestly haven’t heard of anything to indicate that any outraged section of the community is venting its anger at DJ’s by taking its credit card down the road to Myer.
loading...
Have to go anonymous on this because my partner works for an above mentioned department store. When I approached the subject with him and other people in the same industry they confirmed that there had been a slump in sales but according to them (ie their personal opinions) it was not due to the courtcase. These were all men and unlike me had not heard of women who refused to shop there out of principle. But if so, I really doubt they would stay away for long.
loading...
Methinks you need to lighten up Bradley…
loading...
I’m very enlightened, thanks.
I asked a question and I was waiting to receive an answer.
What is this country coming to ? You can’t express an opinion or even ask a question anymore without being jumped on.
Methinks that you need to lighten up. That’s the clean version. Make of it what you will, then go ahead and sue me !
loading...
There is a difference between the expression ‘lighten up’ and the word ‘enlightened’.
Your response has just proved my point. Thankyou.
loading...
There are no winners (apart from lawyers)in this situation, however my heart does go out to Kristy. When this case first hit the news I think most people knew it was extremely unlikely the punitive damages would be awarded.
However, by making this case front page news, I assume it would make many men in offices all around Australia think twice before acting like an idiot. If it has stopped one young girl being embarrassed by an older colleague or manager than I think Kristy has done us a favour. Of course it goes without saying that I’m glad if this case has stopped ANY harrassment, but I do think many women have been that young girl in their first job who has put up and shut up about the behaviour of men in their workplace.
I hope she can move on from this, although she probably will need to move from Sydney for a while.
loading...
Oh no, am stranger in the street made a an inappropriate comment toward me, commented on my backside and comments in relation to sleeping together, maybe I should get a legal team together and sue the pants off of him, would be an easy few bucks… Please, does this Fraser-Kirk women actually think that her brother, fatehr, uncle and for that matter her partner have never made comments of that nature toward other females before… Come on please does this women truly live in a bubble???? I think she saw this as her own personal cash cow and rode it like a bull to the end…. I am female, attractive and in my early 30′s, I have all my working life worked in male dominated environments that I have had more than my FAIR share of innapropriate comments, suggestions and advances and each time I would alwasy put that man in his place ever so discreetly, but so he knew exactly where he stood and that would put a stop to most of it, the one’s that where persistant, I would make sure that I was very cold, vacant and abrasive toward them and they soon got the message. In my opinion this Fraser-Kirk women is a gold digger and does not live in the real world… So what someone said something you didn’t like, then tell THEM to back off and leave you alone, set YOUR boundaries and make sure they are aware of them, don’t confuse the situation with signals of giggles, laughs smiles and let him think you like it… Mr McInnes sounds like a PRICK of a man, I mean his partner is beautiful why would he be making these comments, etc etc to Fraser-Kirk, beautiful and pregnant, that in my eys equals a creep of a man, lucky his partner has stuck by him, I would have told him to stick it if it where me….. Anhyway Fraser-Kirk enjoy your “HARD EARNED” cash that you seemingly feel you so deserve afterall you have been so HARD DONE BY haven’t you… I could think of many female hardship charities that could use some financial assitance from you cash cow flow!!!! Hope the money brings you the happiness you feel it will, I can assure you it won’t my dear. Good luck in life you will need it!!!!
loading...
Here, here. I agree totally.
loading...
Boo you! Very cynical view. It’s great that you can brush off harassment. You’re so tough, we should all try to be like you.
Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to deal with harassment at all? If that was the result of this case would you be so hard on her? I know, I know, I should try living in the real world. What can I say, I’m an idealist.
loading...
Yes I agree it would be lovley to live in a idealistic world where there was not harraessment, no abuse physical mental or sexual, no pedaphiles, no cruelty to animals, no poverty, no starving children, no deadly dieases, no threat to man kind or animal kind at all, yes idealistically that would be what we would all like, but truth and realistically that is not the world that we live in, the world we live in is hard and harsh and full of, well full of, shit and shitty people and in order to get on in this world unfortuantly I believe that we need to be strong, not tough, not nasty but most of all not nieve to what is real and what we would LIKE this world to be. I stick to my thoughts on this FRaser-Kirk women… I pity her…
loading...
You’re right, the world is full of shit and shitty people, but it’s the people who are willing to stand up and sacrifice a part of their lives to cynics and critics and biased media and apathetic public who should be applauded, not torn down.
I don;t know how much or how little money awarded would make people here happy. I don;t understand this mindset that there is a pricetag on harassment and she over-estimated its value. That’s ridiculous. It;s about sending a message to powerful people and businesses that victims won’t always stay silent adn are willing to rock the boat, often to their own detriment, to affect some kind of change in society.
Not everyone is trying to diddle the system or profit from misery or trivialise the plight of Congalese women. Some people are trying to do good, why can’t we let them instead of always thinking there is an ulterior motive like money or fame?
loading...
Yes, the world is full of those things but the only way they are going to change is if people stand up and DO SOMETHING… just putting up with it is not doing something it is being defeatist – imagine if everyone thought like that – the world would be a much worse place. I don’t necessarily agree with the OTT nature of KFK’s claim and I’m disappointed she’s chosen not to give any to charity but she stood up for what is right and fair and she should be supported by all women in the workforce for doing this rather than being dismissed as a gold digger.
loading...
Chill pill, anyone, for Annoyed…. ? Gosh, this case brings out the emotions, doesn’t it!
loading...
You sound like a very strong woman who would have no problem handling harassment from any man let alone someone you report to.
That’s fantastic for you but unfortunately not everyone is like this, please spare a thought for the many women out there that would find this kind of scenario very intimidating – I am one of them.
Harassment in the workplace, particularly from a superior is very different to having a crude comment directed by you from a stranger in the street, it’s a clear abuse of power, it should not be tolerated, that’s why it’s illegal.
loading...
Very well put, particularly your last paragraph. If a stranger makes a comment in the street, you never have to see them again. If you tell them to shove off, you may get a dirty look or a rude remark.
If a person in a position of authority continually makes those comments at work, you have to see them every day. If you tell them to shove off, they may make the rest of your working days there a living hell, turn other staff against you…much more serious.
loading...
I have to agree you have a very valid point.. It must be hard for you and I should perhaps realise that I have been in lucky situations where I am strong enough, and perhaps
hard enough to say shove off and they know I mean it. I have been cornered by a General Manager that I had once, I suggested that perhaps he would like his wife and my partner to know about this situation and that I would not be over powered by his status power over me, he backed off and left me alone, I continued to work there for 18 months and yes it was HARD, he did try to make things hard for me, but I REFUSED to allow his FAULTS and his idiocies control me or my work either. I left when I wanted too…. I hope you get the outcome formt his that is what you feel better and makes you get the justice that you deserve, but I do NOT feel for this Fraser-Kirk women, I feel that she is the reason that people second guess cases such as yours she is a GOLDDIGGER… I feel that your situation is real and valid and I trully do wish you well. 
loading...
You may be happy to base your opinions about workplace relations and gender equality on a episode of Mad Men, Annoyed, but the rest of us live in 2010. Come join us some time.
loading...
Hahahahahahah, Mad Men you say, oh well thats ok, could have been worse you could have used Two and a Half Men, then I would have just been plain offended gosh golly
…. Yes, I to live in 2010, and like you standing up and speaking out in what I believe in…. As for joining you, hmmmm me thinks not, I like where I am, who I am and what my opnions are. Afterall, wouldn’t the world be a very boring place if we all acquired the same thoughts, dreams & opinions??? I think it would be… 
loading...
Maybe this happened and it’s confidential, but David Jones should have made a healthy donation to a women’s charity or done something to show the public that they are totally against sexual harassment.
Maybe the $37M was ludicrous, it seemed to get a lot of people’s backs up. I mean, did anyone seriously think SHE was going to get all that money? I know the issue of punitive damages had to be explained here numerous times and people still weren’t buying it, so I don’t know. It annoys me that the money trivialised everything else and in certain people’s minds it came down to whether or not someone deserved millions of dollars for someone trying to kiss them.
Sexual harassment happens and is actually quite common in some industries still. I had to explain to my dad the other night just how uncomfortable and intimidating some men’s behaviour toward women is. A lot of men don’t see it, they don’t understand. I don’t know if this case did any good in the end, I’ve read soem people have been inspired by Kristy Fraser-Kirk coming forward and I truly hope that is the case.
loading...
This case and article is really timely for me as I’m going through a similar situation right now and really struggling with it.
After much agonising I finally told my fiance just this weekend that the CEO, my boss, has been hitting on me for a few months. He wants me to report it to our board of directors or said he’ll pay the guy a visit.
It’s really stressing me out because a) I’m scared of any negative effects on my career which is very important to me, b) I hardly know the (all male) board of directors so have no idea how it would be handled and c) I have this crazy guilt complex like I’m partially to blame because each time it has happened I was so intimidated I didn’t really shut it down properly I literally just ran away and only the next day when he apologised did I say that it was not on and can’t happen again.
I am very glad Fraser-Kirk took such a public stand, I hope it makes people like my boss think twice in future.
loading...
I’m probably going to get booed over this comment, but anyway . . .. No one wins here.
I get it. I understand that sexual harassment is a traumatic experience and can cause a lot of emotional distress. I can’t even imagine the impact on a victim’s personal and professional life.
However . . $37 million? I don’t think so. And then openly pledging any money to a charity and then withdrawing that? It makes me so mad that she would even a) think that her experience was worth $37 million to start with. I wonder if she talked to women in the Congo and heard their experiences of being raped on a regular basis, if she would have the gall to do that again? And b) that she would make an audacious statement like that and then withdraw that pledge.
I don’t feel sorry for her or for Mark McInnes. No one wins. End of case.
loading...
But we’re not in the Congo…
loading...
NO we are NOT in the Congo, but these things happened and LIzzie has a very VALID and APPROPRIATE comment. Fraser-Kirk is a gold digger and a greedy person can see it and hear it. She has made previous allegations in her past and they where dismissed does that not say anything, I think it screams a few things… Sexual harrassement is a very serious matter, I as a child suffered sexual abuse by my then primary school prinicipal and I am one of the fisrt peole that would stand behind a person in a sexual harrassment/abuse case, but this case wrecked from the begining to me, the women, Fraser-Kirk is not trustworthy… I am not suggesting that some of the thing she alleges where said and one did occur, but perhaps not in the complete contaxt that she claims. As LIzzie has said I feel sorry for NEITHER of them, they both deserve nothing as far as I am concerned…. The women in the Congo and other women across the world specially in the third world areas of this globe deserve a whole lot more and get NOTHING!!!!!
loading...
WTF does the Congo have to do with any of this?
loading...
Use you head….. Fraser-Kirk wins nearly a million bucks an out of court settlement, so nothing has been proven, she gets all this for ALLEGED comments, actions whatever and the women of the Congo and other long suffering men and women whom are in much WORSE situations than this Fraser-Kirk women and she gets a settlement like that…. She firstly agrees to donate money and then revokes her statement what a GOLDIGGER!!!!!
loading...
Do you think that McInnes really would have resigned from David Jones if he hadn’t been caught completely red handed?
When he resigned the papers were suggesting he had an eye for the ladies, and his alleged ongoing behaviour was a badly kept secret around town.
From the initial comments in the paper, it was suggested that DJ’s HR dept, knew of the issues but wouldn’t deal with it.
If anyone truly doesn’t get it, it’s McInnes, given some of his public comments along the lines of “She encouraged me”.
Instead of this becoming an issue of work places providing a safe working environment, and failure to follow policies, she got her name smeared through the press with the ongoing PR battles.
It was mistake to ask for punitive damages, because in the end, that was the only figure people focussed on.
loading...
Because human rights are just first world airs and graces.
loading...
And of course you are privy to all the facts and details of the case, on which you are basing your considered judgement.
loading...
She sought $37 mill in punative damanges… for the purposes of punishing David Jones. So that other women at other companies don’t have to go through the same experience that she did. So that women can go to work and not be fearful of sexual harrassment. So that women can someday hope to have some kind of equality.
She openly pledged the punative damages to charity. Which she then didn’t win. She settled for $850 000, $300 000 of which went on legal fees. This leaves her with $550 000 which she will need every cent of seeing as it will be pretty tricky for her to rebuild her career after this.
This brave young woman took a stand for all women. I can not believe we are knocking her down. It is terrible what is happening to women in the congo, but that doesnt mean that a woman’s right to be free from sexual harrassment in the workplace doesn’t matter. It is not a logical or fair comparison.
loading...
Your gonna remember that figure forever aren’t you and isn’t that the point? 37 million dollars for sexual harassment. It might make someone out there think twice about their behaviour.
loading...
So she gets $550,000. She can’t spare $500 for a charity? If she went through such a traumatic experience that she would want others to go through, then surely even a small donation would go someway to helping others? I’d be happy even if she just gave $10 – at the very least she would be supporting her public statement.
Also, in response to others on this thread, after I posted my initial comment I did think that it was a bit extreme, comparing it to the situation in the Congo – a bit silly on my part. However I still stand by my statement that the $37 million made the whole thing look like a circus.
loading...
Thanks Mia for the transparency and also still deciding to post on something you felt was important despite your personal ties, not sure that would be altogether easy.
One thing that I feel that people are overlooking here is that it was not just the actions of the McInnes here that was the sole reason for the court case but even more importantly, the inappropriate way it was alleged that David Jones and the other senior staff handled the situation/complaint. This is in my view perhaps the more serious problem here. (Not that sexual harassment isn’t also serious, just that there is a massive amount of stress and risk often involved with making an allegation which is greatly intensified if it is ignored particularly as you may feel that there will be ramifications for you). I do think attempts should always be made to redress these things within the workplace first.
Fairly recently I had situation at the hotel I worked at where a young female staff member came to me (very upset) and told me that 4 men in the cafe were quite seriously sexually harassing her and when she told them that it was inappropriate they became verbally aggressive with her. I (in the capacity of manager) firmly but politely let them know they had to leave. There was a mix up and their meals were not canceled and the other manager on came and let me know in no uncertain terms that I was incompetent and had made a foolish business decision that I wasn’t to ask people to leave and then went and told the girl that it was part of what she had to put up with working in the service industry! and next time she was to go to him (and not me) when she had an issue. This was not (our) usual company policy and the general manager who was on holidays would have (I believe) supported my actions, but I can’t stress enough how much it is the internal politics of a workplace that often cause the most distress with how these things are handled, how they contribute to bad workplace culture and the massive amount of personal stress that can be involved, in making a complaint or feeling that you are powerless. Or made to feel stupid because there is no support network at your workplace to redress it at that level. And it is very difficult to go to top managers and make a formal complaint particularly about other managers.
$37 million, seems a bit absurd to me, but I definitely think that a lot of managers in businesses do need high profile cases to do the right thing. Idiots that will tell you sexual harassment is trivial or just part of the job. Very unfortunate that this comes at, perhaps a disproportionate cost for only very few people involved. The other top managers at DJ’s are almost as culpable for their response. This case did help me personally when I saw it in the newspaper and dreamily pondered pasting it to the other managers face.
loading...
Mabol, great points raised. Ditto.
loading...
Massive snaps anyone for speaking out against harassment – it is a brave action to take and shame on David Jones for ignoring staff complaints.
However boo to Fraser-Kirk for going for $37 million – she turned it into a joke and a circus.
She must not have been a very good publicist as clearly did not think her strategy through (including the trip to the Hamptons and the half-hearted promise to charity).
Good luck getting a job in the future cause I think you have blown it.
loading...
“Good luck getting a job in the future cause I think you have blown it.”
See, that’s the attitude that needs to change. That is why women are too afraid to speak out because they are afraid of losing their job and not being able to get another one because they are seen as a trouble maker. For that reason, I think what she did was incredibly brave. If work places stop seeing women that speak out as trouble makers, then more women will come forward and this behaviour will stop. But sadly, it seems easier for companies to tolerate this behaviour of bullying and harrassment and silence the victim.
loading...
I think the comment meant that because Fraser-Kirk (or her advisors) turned the whole thing into a circus she will have trouble finding people to take her seriously.
When this story first broke I was completely on her side but when she came out trying to claim $37mil, my opinion of her changed dramatically. No, sexual abuse is not ok in any circumstance,and yes she should be compensated but I don’t agree with greed.
loading...
I don’t think the speaking out is the issue Anon is referring to here, but the fact that Fraser-Kirk promised to donate the money to charity and has now withdrawn that promise. She has proven herself to be untrusthworthy.
loading...
She promised to donate the punitive damages to charity. But as she didn’t receive any punitive damages, she is not going to be donating it to charity. The money she received is compensation for the distress she suffered; it is hers to keep. If she had been rewarded punitive damages, the purpose would not have been to compensate her for her suffering, but rather to punish David Jones. This is why she is not donating it to charity.
]]]
loading...
Ms Fraser-Kirk’s payout is such an amount that would finance her move to another career, eg. going to uni to move on to a professional area. It would pay her education costs and living costs for the time it would take to set herself up again, as by the sounds of things she won’t be up for any further PR jobs. As such it’s a good payout and hopefully she can move on from this incident and salvage (or make) a real career and life for herself.
loading...
To me it doesn’t seem like anyone is a winner, other than the lawyers. They’re getting a big chunk of that money without even working for it in court. Mark’s reputation is ruined. Kristy has her share of critics. DJ’s doesn’t look good at all. Noone looks great (except the lawyers).
loading...
“without even working for it in court”
…do you know how much prep solicitors and barristers have to do BEFORE court? Do you think they just have one sit-in meeting with a client, then deal with the rest on the day?
Yes, they get paid a pretty sum to do what they do, and that’s because they’ve spent years developing skills and knowledge that most other people don’t have.
But to suggest they haven’t actually done any work here because they didn’t end up going to court is insulting to all in the legal profession. Most cases settle out of court – it’s a good thing, that’s what people want. Going to court costs more, takes time, is more stressful for all involved.
For most solicitors, the bulk of their work involves resolving disputes between parties without going to court. Court is a last resort, for when the parties just can’t agree or won’t compromise. Settling is preferable in most cases, and people only settle after their legal team have worked hard negotiating for the best possible outcome with the other party.
loading...
People also have a greatly inflated idea of how much of those legal fees is paid to a salaried solicitor. All in all it’s no wonder the burn-out rate is so high.
loading...
Exactly Jenni. Partners can make a fortune, but often not a salaried solicitor. For the ridiculous number of hours they work, salaried solicitors, even at the major firms, really don’t earn all that much.
loading...
Yup, just like any other business – the people at the top reap the benefits for all the hard work of people below.
loading...
Yep…can you imagine the hours the less senior lawyers would have put in?
loading...
I know. After 5 years at uni + 2 years supervised practice, less than 60k really isn’t all that extravagant for 60hrs a week work plus all the travel for Court involved if you live away from a major city. Even the income offered as a Partner wasn’t worth it for us, we walked away from a great financial offer in order to have more of a family life.
loading...
Sounds like you made a good choice
Getting to that senior level with really great salary just seems to require too much of a sacrifice. I guess it’s all a matter of working out what your priorities in life are.
loading...
Ultimately McInnes did wonders for DJ’s bottom line sadly all that many shareholders will care about, and certainly seems to have the support of many in the fashion industry and suppliers to DJs, I am sure he will go on to greater things in 2011, and is canny enough to know that he will need to change his ways.
Fraser Kirk was a fool, she’ll be lucky to get away with $500K which is a great windfall, but really does not amount to much and certainly will not provide for her retirement – which she will need as I can’t imagine her getting employed anytime soon, and most especially in her chosen career, this after all is reportedly not the first workplace where she has made sexual harrassment claims
had she accepted the original settlement (rather than being what I believe was greedy) she would have been far better off not going public and not attracting adverse attention nor would she have affected her future career prospects
loading...
So by your rationale if she had swept it under the carpet and accepted what amounts to hush money so no-one knew this happened, that would have been better?
The more people who come forward the better, until people realise that our bodies are our own, not here for the amusement, arousal or benefit of others who don’t know how to control themselves.
loading...
better for her yes
she could have taken the money and not affected her reputation or future career prospects
@jessamy another job yes – but where??
maybe in the hamptons ;p
loading...
The whole point, the point that a lot of people who were put off by the $37M fail to see is that she was taking a stand against harassment for the benefit of all who have suffered harassment. If nobody draws attention to the issues as they happen, behaviour like this is allowed to continue and is simply covered up whenever somebody decides they won’t take it.
I keep coming back to her initial statement where she said “I’m a young woman standing here today simply because I said it was not okay, because I said this should never happen to me or to anyone.”
“I just wanted to be treated with respect.”
I’m glad she spoke up.
loading...
yes you believe she did it for everybody else, for the greater good and to stand up for herself, I believe, that she did it only for herself, for as much as she could get, perhaps misled or at the urging of others, good god she had a publicist! – it all sounds very engineered to me
however I do agree with you that it is positive that her treatment, whether real or partly exaggerated, has seen the light of day, perhaps employers particularly those who treat employees like DJs has, will now think twice
I also do think that if she really had a better case her lawyers would have proceeded to court
loading...
The girl is young and bright and will get another job. I think everyone is assuming she is done for. My bet she will be in another job by Christmas and living in a swanky pad in no time.
loading...
Jessamy, I would love to have a bet with you on this !
If I lose, and Miss Fraser-Kirk is employed by Christmas…I’ll double or nothing bet that she’ll be unemployed early in the new year and it will make headlines !
loading...
She will probably have been harrassed again by Chrissy!!! Maybe even try for a third complaint….
loading...
Troll.
loading...
Are you suggesting that I am a TROLL????
loading...
If you where then you had better not walk across my bridge then, hahahahahahahahaha
TROLL, really?????
loading...
Lulu, before you call anyone a troll, you have picked a fight with at least three people on this discussion alone.
Now, go and feed your cats…………
loading...
Bahahahahahaha!
loading...
I’m sorry. She has not picked a fight with ANYONE. just contributed to the debate
loading...
I am just wondering if anyone could please confirm with me, actually if you hannah could, you believe that calling another person that has posted a comment a “troll” as a controbution to a debate, I would call that name calling and slightly uncalled for, but oh well I guess we are on a touchy subject aren’t we and emotions over peoples thoughts and opinions seem to be f=running extremely high. I myself have labled Fraser-Kirk and GOLDDIGGER, guess that also would be classed as name calling, but as wre are on a forum regarding Fraser-Kirk herself, I feel that perhaps warrants my public display of slander toward her. As for Lulu, she has made some very intelligent and worthy commenst, perhaps however she should quite making quotes on other peoples arguments and come up with some of her own that are based on what she thinks and feels about the situation, after all that is what this site is for, have a great Tuesday all.. Annoyed!!!
loading...
Jessamy, I agree with Bradley on this. No male employer in their right mind would employ her. Let’s not forget that she raised complaints at another employer, and as yet has not had the conviction to go through the courts to seek redress.
Further, a female employer would also be entitled to be wary of this serial complainant. More often than not, women complain against other women for harassment.
Both of these aside, she will unemployable above all else because she blew an earlier settlement offer of larger amounts, and ran a poor media/PR campaign, culminating in this morning’s mealy mouthed release to try and justify her caving in and denying the charities intended of their proceeds (didn’t have be 37 million, I am sure just one would have been fine!)
Any employer who sees value in employing someone of her questionable skillset and even more questionable attitude (am I the only one who has been suspect of her body language from the start?) is welcome to all the trouble she will bring.
Mark McInnes has made some mistakes (I can hear the sisterhood coiling up here), has fallen on his sword but at the same time stood out against the aspects of the claim (and he may be right) he felt without basis. He should be able to seek employment now and we should all reserve judgement until or if he does it again. I would doubt that after what he has been through, and the public awareness of it, that he would be silly enough to put himself in that position again. Please let us remember, that while is actions were wrong, he didn’t kill anyone either. Whilst he is not the sort of person that you might enjoy dinner with, he is entitled to the same rights that we would all like for ourselves. He has suffered materially, reputationally and I am sure personally, and should now be allowed to continue with his life as he chooses.Now I await the presumption fuelled tirades to begin………….
loading...
I agree, though I do believe that he is as bad as her in this case, I think he should be left to his own devices now… Lets just hope for his sake, his partners, their unborn child and any other females that he may encounter in his future that this was his lesson learner…. As for Fraser-Kirk, well hmmmm, she will forever live under a shadow of doubt, like you mentioned she has made prior allegations and therefore will continue to be seen as, ohhh dare I say and trouble maker, really she has made a total mochary of herself and her, well supposide stand that she claims she was taking to make people aware and accountable,hmmm I wonder was she accountable for role in it??? I would rather NOT have her take a stand for me thanks all the same!!!!!
loading...
So Heléna by your rational, you are only allowed to make one sexual harassment complaint? If I made a complaint for every time I had been sexually harassed in the work place then I would be labelled a serial complainer. It’s exactly the reason that I have NEVER spoken up about it. I know for a fact that if I had made even one complaint then I would find it hard to get another job in this industry, so I have had to suck it up and move on.
Is that how it should be?
Good on her for making complaints and standing up for herself. Sexual harassment should never happen.
loading...
If the employer had done the right thing from the very beginning it would never have cost them this. They failed their responsibility to Mark McInnes by not reining in his behaviour earlier, they failed their responsibility to the women he has harassed… and yes, if he was not in a position of power the situation may be different.
I think the message is clear to employers – know your responsibilities and that NO-ONE in your business is exempt… not even the CEO.
The amount paid to Ms Fraser-Kirk is put into perspective when you look at the payout amount that Mr McInnes received.
loading...
Just wanted to add, if it was me I wouldn’t have originally gone for such a huge sum… But I wouldn’t have publicly committed to donating anything to charity either. In fact, my press release would probably go something like this: “Yeah, y’all can call me a money grubbing whore if you want, but if that CEO/board wants to take something away from me (like my dignity) then I’ll take something they value away from them, and what I do with it once it’s mine is none of your business.”
Ahem, as you can tell, I will never be able to work in PR.
loading...
I have to wonder whether the $37milion dollar claim was at the advice of her lawyers. When Kirsty sat down with her lawyers and went through the evidence she had collected and the multi-national company she was working for, then I believe her lawyers would have a pretty good grasp of the situation and how much compensation they would claim.
I think it’s unfair to put this figure on Kirsty because I believe she is acting from the advice of her lawyers.
loading...
Oh I totally believe she and her lawyers had a very good estimate of exactly what amount would make the DJ’s board squirm. I actually wish she had gone for the whole 37 million without saying she would donate any of it, just to prove the point that the board’s behaviour was unacceptable. I wouldn’t have gone much lower myself- probably at least 25 million still.
I was just trying to say how I don’t think she had any obligation to give the money to charity in the first place. I think the huge amount was about sending a message to the board and McInnes that they can’t get away with that kind of crap, in clear monetary terms that they would understand. Like it was about the money, but at the same time not about the money at all. Hope that makes sense…
loading...
now you I would support
@MS Butlertron
loading...
Aw shucks…
loading...
as a victim of bullying and sexual harassment in the workplace, this is a win.
mark is no longer in his position of power that enables him to behave as he has done.
THAT IS A WIN.
the fact we are talking about this and hopefully other companies are taking notice is also a win.
frankly, i am so surprised that other women are so dismissive of this. had he raped her would it be ok for her to sue???
believe me this sort of behaviour in the workplace is so destructive.
clearly anyone who is so critical of her has not experienced this. it makes me so sad that we are missing this amazing opportunity to say to workplaces that this is NOT ACCEPTABLE. shame we are too busy dismissing her claims and talking about how much money she asked for. i am ashamed to be female.
loading...
I’ve been a victim of workplace bullying and believe me…it’s not nice. What upset me the most was the fact that ALL the female staff were bullied and did nothing but complain about their treatment from this particular manager (a female) at a large well know Australian bank.
It wasn’t until I had hard evidence against her that I took the bullying to management, who did nothing (not surprising) so I then took it to the union and she was sacked for her behaviour. Terrific I thought, no more bullying, but to my dismay all those other women who were bullied then started complaining about how I had her sacked!!
Some people really deserve the jobs they have and they can’t stand anyone standing up for themselves. I no longer work in the financial service sector, gave them the flick as soon as possible because they are a gutless pack of whingers.
And I might add, I’m now in the best job ever…no bullying and respect for what I do.
loading...
Yes, Rainbow, isn’t it a shame that women are so hard on each other. Obviously women who are judging this woman have not experienced workplace bullying or harassment themselves and don’t know how badly it can affect your self esteem.
I believe this case is a win also because at least it has promoted discussion which may lead to change.
loading...
I think the $37m figure was plucked out of the air to make sure the story became a big one. If Kristy Fraser-Kirk had sued for a more realistic amount we wouldn’t be talking about it.
loading...
The $37million claim guaranteed publicity, but it also meant the focus of the case moved from sexual harassment to dollar signs. It was a PR stunt, and all it succeeded in doing was making the focus the money rather then the sexual harassment, and also meant DJ’s were going to fight this harder (and arguably dirtier) then a “garden variety” sexual harassment case.
She works in PR, and tried using the machine to generate publicity. It bit her – hard. The team tried using PR with their “anonymous” other complainants. While the complaints are untested, anonymity will never stand in court. Again, a backfiring PR stunt.
The court got used to grandstand. Again, more backlash.
All up – Fraser-Kirk stands as a poster child who got bitten by the PR machine in a bad way.
loading...
I agree. I think she’d have almost all sympathetic ears if she had of sued for a realistic amount, say a few years salary, rather than the ludicrous $37 mill. Its the “gold digger” syndrome women are angry about… because it misrepresents women who are harassed in the workplace who just want it to stop and to get on with their jobs, not buy a house and holiday in the Hamptons with their settlement.
loading...
really disappointed to be honest. Fraser Kirk has us all thinking that money was going to a charity and now it’s straight in her pocket, just because her boss tried to kiss her and sent her a few raunchy texts she can now go out and buy herself an apartment in one swoop- is that all I need to do to own property in this day and age?
I get it, that what mark did was wrong, but I don’t think it’s $850,000 of wrong. I think he is a bit sleezy for doing such things while his pregnant gf was at home, oblivious. I think a boos cannot act in that way and hope to get away with it, and i think his rep is well and truly tarnished.
as for her, trips to the usa for stress, what a joke! they are as bad as each other! she wasn’t sexually assulted nor was she raped and the women in Aus who are, what do they get? nothing except severe emotional, mental and physical damage for the rest of their lives!
I think the ones that should have recieved the biggest blow is DJ’s- they shouldnt have ignored her claims of harrassment. thats not cool AND against their store policies!
loading...
“I think he is a bit sleezy for doing such things while his pregnant gf was at home, oblivious. I think a boos cannot act in that way and hope to get away with it, and i think his rep is well and truly tarnished.”
So, if he didn’t have a girlfriend at home, then it would have been okay?
loading...
I think you are spinning what she is saying here she wasn’t saying its only wrong because he had a girlfriend she simply mentioned that was the situation.
loading...
Wow Lulu, way to twist my words. I think you read what you wanted to read, so don’t put words into my mouth thanks.
Thanks Kathy, that’s exactly what I meant.
Of course what he did was sleezy, the fact this his pregnant girlfriend was at home while he was hitting on other women just makes it even MORE despicable!
loading...
No, I don’t think she was saying its OK, but that it just makes it worse. And I agree. I feel for the poor pregnant woman at home having to read/ view all these reports instead of enjoying her pregnancy.
loading...
how much do you think it was worth to be slobbered on by your boss?
loading...
I understand that she felt uncomfortable and it was, legally, harassment. From what I understand ‘he tried to kiss her on the neck’ it’s up to you to sensationalise what he did.
My comment was more in regards to the comparison between someone who is raped or sexually assaulted to this case of sexual harassment. The only reason Fraser Kirk is walking away with any money is because it’s a high profile case. Rape and assault victims rarely get compensation for their trauma and yes I believe it is worth alot more than Ms Fraser Kirk’s experience.
loading...
I do have to agree with you that we need better compensation for victims of crime.
loading...
Allegedly he kissed her on the mouth at a work function, felt her boob in an elevator and repeatedly invited her back to his house for sex, even after she had previously turned him down.
Regardless of whether we think this behaviour is “par for the course” or not, it is a little more extreme than “he tried to kiss her neck.”
loading...
he said, she said!
loading...
Actually, that trip to the usa for stress annoys me a bit. She attended a family wedding while there – so she probably would have gone anyway. Seemed a silly thing to add to your claim.
loading...
I am a survivor of rape and severe domestic violence. I have not asked for, nor received one cent of compensation, but if I had, it would be NOWHERE near $850K. I am also victim of sexual harassment from a senior member of management. I reported it, he was given several warnings, and then he was fired. Justice done.
I don’t think about the sexual harassment, it doesn’t bother me. I do live with the memories of rape and domestic violence every day. Thankfully we have government support for survivors like me who do not have such a payout, so that we can receive counselling and support. I would love to have an expenses paid holiday where I can unwind and forget about everything for a week. But my rapist didn’t work for David Jones.
I have no issue with KFK making a stand, but I do have a problem with the payout. I just don’t get it. It just does not compare.
I also have wondered what impact this may have on juniors applying for jobs- are attractive women going to be turned down in case the CEO fancies them and then a harassment suit is filed?
loading...
I agree with you Mish.
Btw i am very, very sorry to hear about your experiences.
I would say a lot of woman have experienced some sort of unwanted advances at some point in time.
When i was in high school i had a teacher try and feel me up. He then texted me and called me “a cutie”. I had another teacher at the time ask my then boyfriend what i was like in bed (i was 17!!!!!)
In my first job when i was 18, my male boss at the time asked me to flirt with my customers to make sales. I complained and he recieved a warning and counselling but i certainly wasn’t able to claim a large amount of money.
In my first year of university, my anatomy teacher constantly made me feel uncomfortable by calling me “stunningly attractive, stunningly beautiful” and he was always using me for demonstrations. It made other students think there was something going on.
During university placements i had 2 or 3 health care professionals comment on my looks etc which made me feel really uncomfortable.
I think it happens a hell of a lot and i understand what you mean. I didn’t see most of these issues as a big deal and i dealt with them as i saw fit (i.e complaining about my boss who told me to flirt with customers). I think another reason why some people don’t relate to her is that “well i went through this and i didn’t get a penny”.
loading...
I agree. I’m actually not bitter about having no compensation, which I never pursued- I have a great life that I have worked hard at to be happy and overcome struggles… but I just don’t get this. I think it tarnishes valid claims of women who would otherwise be unemployed if they don’t sue, from companies that don’t take harassment claims seriously. From what I know, he resigned, and her job was kept open for her. So that should be justice served.
Harassment is not OK, but its not on an even par to rape in terms of emotional/ physical damage. An unwanted kiss on the neck doesn’t justify that amount of compensation. She’s a junior. I’m sure she will find another job (not that she needed to leave this one after he resigned anyway). It just seems grubby.
loading...
I have to say, I mean ok the amount of the claim was huge, but that’s what you sue for- money. Also I believe she wanted to draw people’s attention to this kind of behaviour, I mean she already had the outcome that you got, he was gone, she wasn’t. We may never know exactly what drove her to actually sue, but it’s a big risk to take to just go after money. She has paid a big price.
I have to say though in regards to money, if it were me and someone sleezed onto me I would take them for all they are worth. This is the problem, we put too low a price on our bodies. I wouldn’t feel that merciful to someone who had made me feel like trash. The money is to make them think twice.
Some commenters here actually think that because the case was settled, she must have made the whole thing up. Hello, she got the biggest payout for this type of case in Australia ever. You don’t get that if you got nothing.
It all seems very fishy to me though(not Fraser-Kirk, just the way it all went down), I’d love to know the whole story from a voyeuristic perspective cos it doesn’t all make sense, a lot happened behind those doors.
loading...
As always, the lawyers win as fees get splashed everywhere.
The case has been disingenuous since it began, with the absurd punitive damages claim, with justification the damages will be given to charity.
DJs have succeeded in making Fraser-Kirk look like a gold digger by revealing she won’t give any money to charity as part of the settlement. Poor PR advice from her advisors.
McInnes clearly has paid a price – both in dollar terms and career wise. Sadly I suspect he’ll be back in the boys clubs known as directorships soon enough.
DJs has arguably won the PR war from where I’m sitting. Sure, one of their employees committed sexual harassment, but the allegations of endemic cultural issues haven’t stuck.
Lastly – the settlement makes little sense. Reports indicate the initial offer in this case was of the same order of magnitude as the final settlement. Surely the realities of a dirty, in your face court case were known to Fraser-Kirk even before the disintegration of her fellow anonymous complainants? If so, her settlement makes it look like she has either been naive at best, or a gold digger at worst.
loading...
I keep on thinking of that Arested Development episode where the Bluth family lawyer keeps on making homophobic insults to his gay secretary and the secretary just keeps suing him. It gets to the point where, anticipating an outburst, the secretary simply holds up a dictaphone and says “say it sweetie, I’ll re-do my kitchen!” And finally the lawyer learns to keep his mouth shut.
I think this is a win for Fraser-Kirk. She made it clear to the DJ’s board that sexual harassment was unacceptable in probably the only language they know- that of money. And for those people saying that there was too much publicity involved: It’s David Jones. Not a little corner shop or bi low or go low or anything like that. Of course it was always going to be a media circus.
loading...
I agree, particularly with your last paragraph & particularly with this part: “She made it clear to the DJ’s board that sexual harassment was unacceptable in probably the only language they know- that of money.”
loading...
So, you’re confirming that she was in it for the money?
loading...
She used their fear of losing money to make her point, not to profit herself. Are you a journalist?
Just the way you are attempting to extract your own meaning from that comment made me think maybe you are.
loading...
Well what were the assorted objectives?
Ms Fraser-Kirk had intended to strike a blow against institutionalised naughtiness by winning a high profile case that would publicly shame both corporation and culprit and deliver related charities a multi-million dollar windfall. Either that or the cynics were correct and she wanted money.
David Jones was desperate to prevent the court ruling in favour of Ms Fraser-Kirk as it would definitely raise a lump on their friendly face.
Mr McInnes wanted his reputation to survive.
It seems to me that David Jones has come of this come through very well, sacrificing Mr McInnes and avoiding the gavel. Ms Fraser-Kirk might have personally done wellish from it but if anything I think the settlement has harmed her stated aims, though perhaps McInnes’s fate will have the desired effect.
Nobody won, but David Jones lost less than the others.
loading...
I don’t think there was ever going to be any winners… after someone has been sexually harassed or bullied…is “winning” the right term?
I think Fraser-Kirk was smart to bring such a large financial claim against DJ and McInnes because it guarantee publicity and meant neither parties could continue to sweep unpalatable behaviour under the rug.
I agree with another commenter that said McInnes will pop up in a high paying position on some board.
loading...
I think you’re right. The term ‘win’ does seem inappropriate in the aftermath of a sexual harassment case. Women should be applauded for publically taking a stand against sexual harassment in all contexts. Perhaps if anyone ‘wins’ – it will the women of Dj’s who no longer have to put up with McInnes advances and inappropriate behavior. But sadly, it seems that such disgraceful behavior doesn’t mean you can’t get into another boy’s club in another corporate setting. Patriarchy ‘wins’ again!
loading...
I tend to think good on Miss Frazer-Kirk for making a big, attention-grabbing fuss. There are still a lot of very stupid people (men and women) around who behave outrageously to others in the workplace and they get away with it because people don’t make a fuss.
loading...
Hear hear!!
loading...
Maybe Mark McInnes will win a job with channel 7 and follow the likes of Matthew Johns and Matthew Newton?! Good on her for standing up for herself and other women. No one would put themselves throught that much stress for no good reason.
loading...
completely agree with the last sentence pinkgirl!
loading...
Pinkgirl – for no good reason?? How about the equivalent of 10 years salary………….
loading...
In my opinion, I dont think she started this lawsuit because she decided that she wanted some extra cash.
loading...
She was on less than $70k a year (at age 27), so the settlement amount – which is tax free – is actually the equivalent of 15 to 20 years salary. I think she might have been just a little motivated by the dough………..
loading...
I think Fraser-Kirk has done well, because it really has damaged her career. She could have just changed jobs and left McInnis to harass other women, but she stood up for herself. It isn’t right that David Jones executives let the behaviour pass without reprimand.
I think she should donate some of the money to charity – I know punitive damages were not awarded, but it’s hardly good self publicity after making that public declaration and she is a publicist!
loading...
Its never easy to bring a case against someone, especially someone so senior so I say “Bravo” to her, she had tremendous courage to do that in the face of public judgement. Harrassment of any kind is wrong. I’ve been bullied at work but would never have had the courage to do anything about it – apart from leave the workplace. When the person is the most senior person its just too hard to fight them. There is a power imbalance. The system in is tipped in their favour because even when there is systemic and repeated bullying of staff (typified by staff turnover as it was in our office) no one wants to take it on. You may tell someone but its so horrid no one wants to believe it. My boss could also be very charming too. So the response you get is “You must have misinterpreted them” ie it was your fault, you are too sensitive, its in your mind…My answer? No, certain actions, words and behaviour are inappropriate, hurtful and wrong. There is no getting around it. Only accept treatment that is made with respect and courtesy.
I wish her all the very best as the road ahead will be difficult, but this moment will pass and she will reclaim her life.
The man concerned needs to get some counselling to gain insight into how this happened and why his behaviours are inappropriate. He no doubt has good qualities but he needs to know where the line is.
loading...
This is the hot dinner party topic of discussion/debate. On Saturday, a group of 6 all in their 40s; 3 men, 3 women, all with long experiences of a variety of workplaces. Overwhelming agreement that; 1) McInnes should not have harrassed anyone and workplace harrassment should not be treated lightly. The men were gobsmacked that in this day & age he was silly/naive/ arrogant enough to put himself in the situation to start with. The women wondered why she didn’t pour a drink over his head the first time if he was that offensive.
2) The $37m claim was ridiculous and unfortunately lost Fraser-Kirk credibility.
3) Two careers currently lie in tatters. Maybe once everything settles down both will be able to rebuild, but it will be a long hard road for Fraser-Kirk. It would not surprise us that McInnes will pop up on in board positions, unfortunately the boys’ club still exists.
4) There were no winners except the legal teams who will still get their fees paid.
Best of luck to both of them.
loading...
I agree Fashionista, she still could have gone public with her claims to force a change of culture at DJ’s without asking for $37 mil. She lost all credibility as a genuine complainant by doing so and now that she has settled for a much lower sum and isn’t going to give any proceeds to charity (her very publicly stated reason for asking for a large sum of money) only reinforces the “Gold digger” perception. As it stands the $850k payout is approx 12 years of wages.
loading...
“now that she has settled for a much lower sum and isn’t going to give any proceeds to charity”
Please read the rest of the comments before making unfounded claims like this.
loading...
What because she didn’t get awarded an punitive damages – don’t you think it’s all a bit convenient??
I’m asking for a ridiculous amount of money but don’t worry people I’m going to give it to charity…. I’ve won a payout that is soooo much more than the average person could expect but I won’t be giving any money to charity because it wasn’t a component of the punitive damages – an amount that no person could reasonably expect to be awarded. But hey I did originally offer to donate some to charity so I’m a good person right?? Go the sisterhood let’s fight the man.
Sorry but she has completely discredited herself.
loading...
She originally said she would give money to charity from the punitive damages. She did not get any punitive damages, so if she had given money to charity from the money which she did get, *that* would have been going back on her word.
Oh, and I wonder how much McInnes earned last year? I suspect it was at least $850K – in ONE year.
loading...
What SHE earned is the only relevant figure, when comparing against settlement received. And she wasn’t forced from her job at DJ’s, she was employed the whole way through and the source of her alleged harassment was removed from the company. She didn’t appear to stressed about her employment situation in the photos from The Hamptons either…………
loading...
Hi Fashionista, I absolutely agree with your comment. It is a perfect summation.
loading...
I don’t condone any sort of sexual harassment and think Kristy Fraser Kirk did what she was lead to believe was the right thing to do.
I DO remember reading/hearing, however, that whatever monies she was given were not going to her, but to charity. Now that she’s not getting the $37mil she’d hoped for, is this forgotten???
loading...
It was the punitive damages she was going to give to charity (none awarded, it didn’t go to court).
loading...
All these comments about “the only winners are the legal teams” seem a little resentful – certainly all of the barristers involved are so busy that this would hardly count are a “win”!
loading...
They might be busy but they’re earning a fortune for their time…
loading...
And do we begrudge surgeons, bankers and other big earners their huge salaries? Same deal. Barristers have a particular skill which they’re remunerated for.
loading...
Exactly right! I’m so sick of all the anti-lawyer sentiment around. I haven’t even started practising yet and I’m already tired of telling people what I study because the reaction is so negative.
I would add, although it’s a little unrelated, that while this case might have been lucrative for the legal team involved it doesn’t mean that all lawyers get similar paypackets!
loading...
I’m continually amazed by it too MelbourneGirl! Frankly, I wouldn’t want my doctor or accountant to be earning a pittance – we pay them well and they’re busy because they’re damn good at what they do!
loading...
I absolutely do not begrudge them for earning huge salaries – I agree they deserve it! I just think it’s wrong it say that they’re unhappy because they’re busy – they’re earning money for their time and (hopefully) doing something that the love = happy.
loading...
I agree… they have been working on it for months, and there is a whole team, not just one person, so I hardly think $300K is an enormous amount of money when divvied up between them, considering all the time they have put into it.
loading...
I think this has done bad things for future sexual harassment claims. It has just opened women up to ridicule and set a precedent that women do make claims for money. There was an article that pointed out people who become quadriplegics after accidents, victims of rape, people wrongly accused of crimes and put in jail suffer MORE (I know that is a hard thing to judge the amount of suffering but I would be fairly confident to say being raped would be very traumatic and dare I say more so than an “unwanted sexual advance”) these victims don’t even get the sort of pay outs this woman wanted. As I’ve pointed out before it’s also completely unfair that the fact she works for a large company somehow enables her to demand a large pay out when other situations that pay out would actually not be possible. This case has also opened my eyes to this “blind sisterhood” which I find really scary. People were commenting here and at other news forums saying “where is the sisterhood ladies support ms fraser-kirk” WHY just because we are female and she is female we should just blindly definitely believe whatever she claims. That’s a dangerous way of thinking. Just because I am frustrated by Ms Fraser-Kirks actions doesn’t mean I’m anti-women.
loading...
I agree completely. I think its a double standard to say that we are so upset about the “boys club” and then do exactly the same thing ourselves… supporting women just because of their gender, this “blind sisterhood”.
I don’t agree with KFK’s actions, nor do I agree with McIness. I don’t think anyone is right here.
I was sexually harassed at work- he was fired, I kept my job, justice done. I didn’t even think to ask for a payout. I think its crazy. Especially compared to my rape and domestic violence… no comparison. I can’t imagine asking for that kind of money. Real, long lasting trauma has no price on it.
loading...
What bothers me about that News Ltd piece is that it seems to imply that Fraser-Kirk has gone and ‘stirred up’ trouble for everyone – it comes across as a ‘look what she’s gone and done’ story with a tone of disapproval. Except that she is the victim in this situation. Not everyone would have taken the action that she has taken, but this was her way of dealing with it.
Of course there are no winners in this situation. Would we really expect there to be? The winning, if there is any, will be in the fact that other high profile CEO’s might see this as a cautionary tale and that hopefully this will put an end to McInnes’ innapropriate beaviour for good as well.
loading...
I am fully opposed to sexual harassment and believe that any person who engages in it should absolutely be penalised. However, I do agree with the tone of the article in that the way that Fraser-Kirk pursued her case turned the whole situation in a media and legal circus. To me she came across as someone in this for her own gain rather than because she felt it was right, as harsh as that sounds. As a law student I’m stunned that she attempted to put forward evidence of other anonymous women – this would presumably have prevented their evidence from being tested in court which is something the defence should be entitled to in a fair trial.
loading...
Her own gain/because it was right – surely there’s a pretty fine line there. It’s not up to her to single-handedly champion all the other sexual-harassment clauses. It’s only incumbent on her to do what is right for herself.
So what if she is only in it for her own gain and trying to make good the loss she experienced – I don’t think we need to expect people in her position to do any more than that.
How would putting forward the evidence of the other women in court prevent their evidence being tested in court?
loading...
I think that when she was claiming such an enormous landmark payout she took on something akin to championing all other sexual harassment cases. I’m not saying the way I feel about this is right – just that something about the way the case was conducted put me offside (not that it’s any of my business!). In relation to the evidence, her legal team sought to adduce the evidence anonymously making it very difficult if not impossible for the defendant to investigate and test the claims.
loading...
Putting aside the sum of money (reported 37million **cough cough**) to the reality of $850,000, I still think this is a good outcome for cases of sexual harrasment. In my opinion, its not about making a profit, its about covering one’s losses (monetarily) and a little extra for the pain and suffering.
Sadly, I think this will have somewhat damaged Kirsty’s reputation in the business sector from ‘the old boys clubs’ as well as those close minded pesimistic sisters who want to believe the worst…and I feel sorry for Kirsty when this happens. However, the damage to Kirsty is nothing compared to what I believe has damaged Mr McInnes reputation and his job loss and reported misconduct claims going back 20 years will deter many companies here in Australia from hiring him.
Good on Kirsty, I wish there were more gutsy women out there like her!!
loading...
Her position back at David Jones would have been untenable anyway, she wouldn’t have been able to go back, with or without the court case.
I suspect all the publicity will however make her unemployable in at least the short term.
loading...