[ad_1]
S in. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Made the right decision in accepting the resignation of a long-time staff member credibly accused of sexual harassment. But the California Democrat will be controversial because of the timing.
Larry Wallace had been Director of the Law Enforcement Division under Attorney General Harris at the time, reports the Sacramento Bee. He was accused by a management assistant of "gender harassment", specifically asking him to slip repeatedly under his desk to change the paper of his printer while she was wearing skirts and dresses.
The lawsuit was filed on December 30, 2016, while Harris was still Attorney General but was preparing to take an oath in the Senate. Her staff insists she had no idea for nearly two years.
"We were not aware of this problem and take the harassment charges very seriously. Tonight, Mr. Wallace offered his resignation to the senator and she accepted it, "spokeswoman Lily Adams said in an email to Sacramento Bee.
Apparently, Harris was unaware of his decision to hire Wallace in March 2017, although the trial was only settled later in May. Under the leadership of his successor, Xavier Becerra, who was appointed Attorney General in his absence, the California Department of Justice reached a settlement of $ 400,000 with the executive.
According to the Sacramento Bee, the woman leader had to resign from office, agree never to seek employment with the California Department of Justice and, more importantly, sign a confidentiality agreement. She could not discuss the rules. The audience remained silent until journalists began to ask questions.
It is this moment that will haunt Harris when she wonders if she will launch a candidacy for the presidency during the holiday season.
Harris is deliberately forged a reputation as a champion of the # MeToo movement. She was one of the first to seek the resignation of the disgraced senator, Al Franken, D-Minn., After several women accused her of sexual harassment. She then stepped up proceedings against Justice Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court a few months later. Now the best defense is ignorance.
Suppose the senator does not know anything about Wallace's misconduct or the confidentiality agreement that his victim was forced to sign. This would mean that Harris was an unfortunate prosecutor with no idea of what was going on in her own Department of Justice. It would also mean that Harris is an unfortunate senator who does not properly examine her staff.
This is not a good look. It is better that the other solution, namely that Harris diverts the #MeToo allegations and finds excuses for a privileged staff member.
[ad_2]
Source link
