Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, if the FDIC fired one of the harassers years after the fact, it would lose the subsequent lawsuit.
I'm trying to figure out why you think this?
Is it some application of Douglas factors?
You wouldn't even need to go for misconduct....you could go after the underlying suitability, particularly if they had a clearance....
Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, if the FDIC fired one of the harassers years after the fact, it would lose the subsequent lawsuit.
Anonymous wrote:^^^ Management found this thread.
Anonymous wrote:Just hours after the story appeared, FDIC chair Marty Gruenberg announced they were hiring an independent consulting firm to do a review of sexual harassment at the agency.
Why wasn't this done after the 2020 IG report on this came out. Or a month ago when the WSJ gave the FDIC a head's up about the story?
Anonymous wrote:Less of this stuff happens when people work from home. Ask any employment lawyer, conduct like this dropped off significantly during covid.
Really sketchy for management to be pushing people to come back to the office more than any other financial regulator when there are these serious workplace culture issues.
Anonymous wrote:The WSJ story basically just discussed white collar American “road warrior” culture. The same crap happens in elite consulting, Big 4 accounting, I-banking, tech….and also apparently the federal government. Anywhere you have heavy travel involved, you get people drinking too much and crossing professional boundaries.
This same story can basically be written about any major corporation or institution. This article is pretty tame compared to what happens in the Secret Service, DoD, or IC agencies.