I think that's a nothing-burger but it's enough to force him out. They probably have more cards in the play. Unfortunately we will never know of them.

▲

fuussssip 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Having sex with a report is a very serious no no. There are very valid questions of one's ability to consent when your boss is also your partner.

▲

zarzavat 2 days ago | parent [-]

Oh come on, having sex with a coworker is rape now? This is getting ridiculous. Why not just go the whole way and require all sexual activity to come with with a signed and notarized consent form?

	▲	fuussssip a day ago \| parent [-]
		No? Having sex with a coworker is not rape, and no one said nor insinuated it was. Go forth and consensually bang your coworkers. Knock yourselves out. When you have the ability to fire or promote someone, however, you hold significant power over their life -- potentially impacting their ability to eat, house themselves, etc. In those cases, it's valid to ask, "Is there a possibility someone is being coerced into sex because they can't afford to say no?" This is question of consent. It's not an allegation of rape. It's only a question and there are probably times the answer is no. You don't have to knee jerk react to someone pointing out an obvious potential conflict of interest and go "so everything is rape now?"

▲

twodave 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Quid pro quo sexual harassment is not a “nothing-burger”.

▲

baobabKoodaa a day ago | parent [-]

No sexual harrasment has been suggested, except by you, from your imagination

▲

twodave a day ago | parent | next [-]

Ok, well there’s already a third mistress reported so why don’t we both sit back and see how my position ages :)

▲

baobabKoodaa a day ago | parent [-]

Are you genuinely confused over the difference between "mistress" and "sexual harassment"?

▲

twodave a day ago | parent [-]

No, I don’t think I am. You can disagree with me without me being confused.

	▲	wiseowise 19 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There was no sexual harassment reported. Having multiple partners is not a sexual harassment.
	▲	baobabKoodaa 21 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"Disagree" on what? There could be sexual harassment related to a mistress, but no-one has alleged that, except you. You simply made up an allegation that didn't exist.

▲

mcmcmc a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Someone skipped all their HR trainings

▲

baobabKoodaa a day ago | parent [-]

Who? Me or that other guy? If you want to insult someone, at least make it clear who you're trying to insult.

▲

mcmcmc 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sleeping with a direct report is de jure sexual harassment and a violation of hostile workplace environment laws, especially when not disclosed. If you feel insulted because someone called out your ignorance that’s on you. This is common knowledge in corporate America

	▲	baobabKoodaa 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is not true. Go ahead, show which specific law defines all relationships with direct reports as being sexual harassment.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

4ndrewl 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You don't think the board of a listed company care about the CEOs bit on the side is being promoted? That's really not a good look for a company to admit that.

▲

ferguess_k 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's one thing to happen and another to put that out in the open.

Officials are corrupted? CEOs sleeping with other women including his subordinates? Snow is white? What's the deal? People at that level are basically playing politics, not laws.

However, the fact that someone decided to release all those information as PUBLIC, and followed that up with ANOTHER scandal, means that they are determined to get rid of them. As you said, it is indeed serious matter.

As the Chineses say: "Something weights as light as a quarter of pound if it's left alone, but can weight a thousand tons if put on the scale".

▲

verdverm 2 days ago | parent [-]

> CEOs sleeping with other women including his subordinates? Snow is white? What's the deal?

The problem is that you don't think it is a problem. It goes on because there are no consequences.

Maybe in '29 the Epstein perps will actually be prosecuted

▲

ferguess_k 2 days ago | parent [-]

Because reality deems that this is not really the problem, I was about to mention the Epstein thing -- everything in that file is 100x worse than what Jensen did.

If we (the common people) really want consequences, we will need to do a LOT more and put things in our own hands instead of relying on our representatives -- oh but that's too populist for HN's taste.

	▲	verdverm 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> we will need to do a LOT more and put things in our own hands instead of relying on our representatives -- oh but that's too populist for HN's taste. I'm with you on the first half, and see the second half changing. The fever may have broken in the US electorate.