From WXXI news.

This is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Our connection this hour was made in a billboard at the Syracuse airport.

By now, you've probably seen countless billboards at any airport advertising health care systems, bars, cars, just about anything.

The billboard in question was rejected.

The Syracuse airport refused to put it up.

The billboard advertises a law firm based locally focusing on sexual harassment cases.

The lawyer's name is Meaghan Thomas and her picture is on the billboard, accompanied by these words.

When H.R called it harmless flirting, we called it exhibit A. That's it.

The lawyer's contact information is then listed below, but the airport decided it crossed the line by implying that workplace interactions could rise to the level of sexual harassment.

Thomas has said that the airport, after initially agreeing to put the billboard ad up, circled back to tell her they weren't going to put it up unless she soften the language.

She said that the airport indicated that the ad would be viewed as threatening or intimidating, especially to male travelers and maybe the local politicians might find it offensive.

The airport authority's board recently updated their advertising policy.

Here's how Syracuse.com reports the new policy.

Quote, the new policy expands on what is permitted and prohibited in advertisements.

It says that advertising must not negatively impact or agitate travelers or tenants, nor disrupt airport operations, and must ensure the airport is a welcoming and attractive space for its diverse travelers.

End quote.

The attorney, Meaghan Thomas, has was stunned by this.

Why would a simple billboard that alerts travelers to our services for potential harassment victims be deemed negative or disruptive?

We reached out to the airport, but they declined an invitation to speak or appear on connections today.

In a statement to Syracuse.com, airport management said that the message in Thomas's billboard was unprofessional, inflammatory and unnecessary.

So Thomas is suing, and meanwhile she's wondering if this is part of the backlash to the MeToo movement, a kind of realigning how we view workplace interactions.

And we're glad that she's come all the way in to discuss it.

Megan Thomas is an attorney and owner of Meaghan Thomas Law, based in Syracuse.

Welcome to the program.

Thanks for being here.

Thank you so much for having me.

Lauren Burger is with us, interim executive director of Glow Out.

And Lawrence been here in the past talking about a number of issues.

Kind of, I think related to what we're going to talk about today.

It's nice to have you back here.

Thanks for being with us.

Thanks so much.

It's good to be back.

And tell us what glow out is.

So glow Out is the glow part is an acronym.

It stands for Genesee Livingston Orleans Wyoming.

So that's a four county, fairly rural, small nonprofit for LGBTQ plus activism, support and education.

So a lot to talk about here.

And I want to, first mention that, I think are we going to can we post on the YouTube channel?

Yeah.

So we're posting on our YouTube channel, if you're watching on Sky news YouTube channel, you can see the billboard.

I admit, when I first heard about this, I had an expectation that the airport was going to reject the ad because maybe it was like, a bosses hand on someone's backside or something like that.

You know, it was something like, I don't know, but it's just is just your picture.

Yeah.

And again, I'm going to read the, the content on there.

All it says is when HR called it harmless flirting we called it exhibit A. So we I imagine you were surprised that this was then take me through the story.

Sure.

So it's funny, I was sharing with Lauren before we went on the air that I actually thought it was a joke.

You know, I truly thought that this was, not real.

Because when they told me, men might find it intimidating, you know, it's kind of ironic.

It's like, this is exactly what I do.

I support victims of sexual harassment, and I support equality in the workplace.

So, yeah, I did.

I actually thought she was joking.

Actually.

She was very apologetic when, when I spoke to her, she's like, listen, you know, when I talk to the higher ups, you know, something that was said is that it could intimidate men.

And she was, again, very apologetic.

From there, you know, I spoke to, one of the higher ups who said, essentially, you know, we're really concerned about how local politicians are going to see this, which I said to him, I think local politicians are going to be upset.

You're not putting it up.

And then I said, hey, listen, I've got, you know, nine other slogans.

Take one of them.

And he said, okay, okay, I'll take a look.

He never responded to date.

He has never responded to any of those.

Instead, he patronizingly sent me his own suggestions, which were verbose, not effective and, you know, just not worth my money, essentially.

Which I rejected.

And so, you know, we went back and forth several times, and ultimately I filed a lawsuit.

Oh, man.

I'm absolutely curious to know what the airport's suggestions for your billboard were.

You can't reveal what what they're.

Oh, I kind of get.

That's all.

You know, that's not part of the lawsuit.

So.

And it's actually all public online I did I did bring that.

So I'll share them with I'll get them out of my bag later I did I did bring them.

But I'll tell you some of my alternatives, which I think we're more edgy.

I said things like, you know, we all have 99 problems.

A creepy boss shouldn't be one.

And that was actually when I toured the airport.

That was the slogan that was in my mind.

I had had this in my head for a long time.

Another one I had was harassed at work.

Question mark MeToo, hashtag MeToo, which I love, which I've since learned someone else did in PR.

But I started this firm because I've dealt with these issues, and I remember one time I was, you know, dealing with something, and I called around trying to find an attorney to help me.

And this guy said, well, you offended them.

And I remember being like, what?

Like the law is so protective of victims in New York State, federal law is also pretty protective.

But New York State certainly is.

And then I couldn't even find a lawyer to help me when I had, you know, this case.

And so I just remember thinking like, there's a market here.

So eventually I started my own firm, and, you know, here I am.

But that was kind of it was my head.

We all have 99 problems.

A creep boss shouldn't be one.

Nobody batted an eyelid when I brought it up the first time.

And then suddenly my more I think softer version was rejected.

So the funny thing is, they're telling you you have to soften the language, and you're thinking, I already did.

Correct?

Yes.

And when they tell you or when they told Syracuse.com and I imagine it's similar to what they told you, they say that it's inappropriate.

That's right.

Unprofessional.

Yep.

And inflammatory.

What is inflammatory about the idea that some people's experience at work might, you know, might be an actual case for harassment?

What's inflammatory?

I agree.

And to be fair, they have said so many different things.

You know, in my papers, in my court papers, I say they're ever changing sand.

You know, they just keep changing their mind.

Clearly, they're uncomfortable with with what I am saying, but they kind of can't decide why.

And so sometimes it's that it's misleading, sometimes that it's it's that it's disparaging.

Sometimes that it's too provocative and disparaging to who I. I'm still trying.

I'm.

Yeah.

I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to pick a side.

I want to talk to the airport.

I wish they would have come on today.

I wish they would have to.

Yeah, I really do.

I think, you know, this is a really important conversation, and it's indicative, as Laura and I were talking about earlier, have some other issues that are happening right now.

But, you know, they mentioned that it's disparaging to air, which I thought was curious, and I pushed back.

I said, listen, it's not disparaging to any certain group, for frankly, men and women can be harassed or harassers.

But it's just, it's a my ad is directed at the idea that harassment is okay, the idea that it's okay to gaslight victims, which I see every day in my practice.

You know, I have women call me, say they're call me saying, like, you're the 10th firm I've called.

Sometimes you're the 20th firm.

I've called.

No one says they can help me because there's not enough lawyers doing this.

And frankly, a lot of people who are doing it are totally, like, overwhelmed with work.

So, I don't know who it's disparaging to.

Frankly, in my opinion, it's only disparaging if you're engaging in problematic behavior and you're worried about getting caught.

Lauren, what did you make of it when you first heard about this story?

It was pretty surprising because I thought it was a good advertisement.

It's it's effective, it's catchy, it's succinct, and that's what you're going for in advertising.

Pretty much.

And yeah, this idea that we're going to respond and say, you know, this is inflammatory and this might cause people to to feel offended.

It almost seems as though the person who's, who's saying that is telling on themselves a little bit.

I know, I, I hate to say it because I don't want to get my own lawsuit with Syracuse Airport.

I want to say to everybody involved with the Syracuse airport in this decision, you're welcome on this program any time to to speak your piece.

And I don't know you personally, and I don't, make any assumptions about you.

I understand why someone's reaction would be, whoa, like, who would have a problem?

You know, if you find the notion of the existence of sexual harassment threatening, it is at very least to me, it requires more discussion.

I'm going to put it that way.

I'm going to try to say something really anodyne, like, absolutely.

And I, Meghan and I were talking before we came upstairs was if there's an opportunity to have a conversation, then that's an option.

Then if there's something where, you know, a part of this language or the way that this ad is laid out, is is making me uncomfortable and I have some more questions is very different from we're going to reject this advertisement on the grounds that it's inflammatory, because at that point you're sort of obliged to explain, you know, who who is defamed or who is offended by those things.

Because if we're holding folks accountable for sexual harassment, that ought to be a goal everyone has in a workplace.

And so if your response is actually we we want to move away from that, then that's very telling.

Yeah.

Is there a bigger picture in this story to you?

I mean, is it about more than just one billboard at one local airport to you?

I think that's a great question.

And I think it's been something that all of us have experienced watching, you know, hashtag MeToo dropped.

I think it was eight years ago.

Yeah, it's literally eight years ago, I think this week.

Wow, wow.

Yeah.

Wow.

So in that time, you know, in a media universe that feels like several lifetimes, but at the same time, each person has digested all of these cases that happen that are, you know, viral in the media who are happening between people that we've never met all the way to discourse around things that do happen in our own lives because we have each case or each viral moment that everybody sort of reacts to, and that tends to affect people a little bit more is, you know, people like, you know, Brett Kavanaugh, Jeffrey Epstein, a couple of these other, like, big names.

We might not ever be impacted by those individuals, but the ways that people in our lives respond to those individuals is very impactful of of survivors and the greater community.

And the conversation around this so in those eight years, there were certainly lots of gains in terms of the consciousness and understanding this issue.

But this issue is about power and who has the power.

And so as you kind of the pendulum sort of starts to kind of swing back and forth, there's the effort to, you know, for those who enjoyed power in, in the ways before MeToo and, you know, wanting to bring things back to a kind of status quo or a kind of reassert ment of, of the dominance that they might have once enjoyed, is maybe feeling threatened by the attempt of accountability or by another agency that's trying to, rebalance that power.

Yeah, I think there's a lot there that Lauren is talking about because I think that policy is downstream of culture.

And if the policy of an airport, if the policy of a government has changed in the last 5 to 7 years, it's an indication that often that the culture that there's some sort of a backlash and it's not a secret that there was some backlash to the MeToo movement.

And I also wouldn't put the MeToo movement in one simple sentence, even though people maybe think of it that way.

And we're going to get into some of that that, listeners would love to know, you know, sort of where what you think of this.

I mean, I want you to look at this billboard.

You got to jump on Sky news YouTube feed and take a look at this billboard that we're talking about, and ask yourself if you think it should have been banned from the Syracuse airport, not the Rochester airport, the Syracuse airport.

I don't even maybe she'll try to put it up in the Rochester.

I made some calls.

Yeah.

Have you really?

Yeah, I actually have.

Oh, and I do have their alternatives.

Oh we're going to get to that too.

So so listeners, I want to hear from you.

I mean, you can react to what you're seeing in the billboard and the rejection.

Do you think this is a moment of a backlash to to the MeToo movement?

Is this an indication that the culture, has rejected some of those ideas that rose up eight years ago?

What do you think about the notion of harassment at work?

I mean, I already have an email from someone saying like, is the implication that we're not allowed to flirt at work?

So we'll talk about that.

But if you want to call the program, it's 844295 talk.

It's 844295825526365.

Call from Rochester 2639994.

Email the program connections at skywalk.

Join the chat on YouTube there.

So there is a lot there.

But in general, Lauren, do you think thinking about the way the policies downstream from culture, do you think that it it's not picking winners and losers, but you think the MeToo movement has seen a pretty significant backlash?

Do you think that some of the early ideas that we had talked about on the show years ago have been rejected by the stakeholders, the power holders in our society?

I think probably both yes and no, which kind of seems like a very hedging answer, but I think that it's about a lot of different implications.

Like there's there's policy implications, there's cultural implications.

And at its core, the, the meta piece is that it's a consciousness.

And if we think about me too, as, a reformation of consciousness and a expansion of what we understand in terms of dynamics of power, dynamics of consent, the ways in which those things can come into play, and the ways in which power is maintained or wielded against those without it, that kind of ground cannot be seated like we can, you know, have, alternative policies that might regress or we might have a contraction of resources in terms of programs or initiatives with certain types of funding or donations, and that could wax and wane.

But the idea of our understanding of sexual violence and the role of survivors cannot be seated.

Rob is going to hate that I do this, but I do this sometimes because it just comes to me, Rob right in the middle, and my brain is a little broken lately.

So, I wonder if we still have the audio clip of President Trump talking about domestic violence and how it affects crime statistics.

That was a few weeks ago.

We may not have that in the system any more.

If we do, I want to listen to it.

Just because Joel writes in to say he's reminded of the president last month complaining, literally complaining in public that as he looks at the crime statistics, his administration would be doing better if they could just not count.

When a husband gets in a fight with his wife at home.

The implication being that when a man strikes his wife and it counts as a crime stat.

The larger picture here is the president.

What he's really saying is he sent federal troops in to Washington.

They're talking about Chicago.

They're talking about Portland and people and news conferences were pointing out crime rates are actually higher in red states.

And his rejoinder to that was, yeah, but if you just take out when a husband is fighting with his wife, then we'd be doing a lot better.

And, you know, they count that, unfortunately.

And Joel is saying this feels like that.

This feels like, well, if you if you if the perspective of someone is it was a harmless flirtation.

But the person who called Megan Thomas's law firm didn't feel like that.

That wasn't a harmless flirtation, that it was a lot more than that, that it felt like pressure, that it felt like coercion, that it felt like something where your job was on the line.

Joel is equating some of these sentiments.

Do you feel that way?

Megan?

100%.

And I feel that way.

On behalf of my clients who call in every day, you know, they're saying, you know, I mean, I have to listen to this behavior.

I have to not push back when he's commenting on my legs, or I have to not flinch when he's touching my back.

I mean, your job is on the line, and when someone is in a superior position is doing those things to you, you don't feel like you can say now, similarly with my ad, yeah, harmless flirting is not always harmless to the person who's on the receiving end of it.

And I've personally been in that position and it's like, I, I don't want this, but I don't know how to stand up and say no when you're, you know, the one who's making decisions about my job.

So that's really, really challenging.

Okay.

And so one of the first emails this hour we had was, is, is harmless flirting banned in the workplace?

What do you say to that?

That's a great question.

So the law in New York State is anything more than a trivial, inconvenience.

Is can amount to sexual harassment in the workplace.

So in other words, if the person on the receiving end feels uncomfortable, that matters under New York state law.

So, you know, if it's mutual, that's one thing.

If it's one person feeling uncomfortable and not returning it, I would really question that, you know, if I was the person engage in that behavior.

Furthermore, I probably wouldn't recommend as an attorney who does this work every day engaging in that behavior at work, because you never know how the other person truly feels.

Or what.

If you know the relationship goes sour and then, you know something happens later, it's just not a good idea.

It really isn't.

To the phones we go Colleen in Brighton with the question, hey, Colleen, go ahead.

Yeah.

Hi, everyone.

I'm glad to hear this topic.

It's very interesting and local.

I am curious if Megan Thomas had the opportunity to compare her proposed bill board to all of the other billboards that have been on display recently at the Syracuse airport, and if so, could any of them be seen as possibly offensive by travelers that, might see them while using that airport?

Thank you.

Kelly.

Go ahead.

Megan.

Colleen, I'm so glad you asked that question, because that was my first thought and I quickly foiled every single advertisement that has been at the airport for the last three years.

And what I found it is that, yeah, a lot of these ads could be considered disparaging, misleading, provocative.

So recently I got my full request, the results back.

There's a woman who's naked in a bathtub with her breasts largely exposed.

There's other, like, not fully exposed, not fully, but like.

But but like I'm fully clothed in my ad, you know, you get you get you.

There's advertisements for, male enhancement, for breast augmentation.

I mean, when you walk into the Syracuse airport, it's like shocking.

I mean, it's it's like breast augmentation, you know, Botox.

All this stuff is on display.

The second you walk in my head was going to be, like, in a corner past security.

But again, that was that was concerning to them.

There's other law firms too.

And listen, these law firms are great.

You know, they're people that I really support.

But a lot of them are male, men on the billboards and they're allowed to say whatever they want.

I mean, they told me my ad was misleading, but other ads say we're the best.

You know, we're the best litigators.

Whatever it is.

I don't remember exactly what was said, but something about being the best.

They said to me, your ad is misleading because it suggests all harmless flirting is actionable, which I disagree with.

But furthermore, no one else's ad was put under that extreme spotlight.

So yeah, I think it's a total double standard.

Again, if you're just popping in here, you should probably see the billboard that we're talking about from attorney Megan Thomas, an attorney in Syracuse, the owner of the Megan Thomas Law focus.

I said, you focus a lot on these kind of cases.

Do you want to just describe your practice briefly?

Sure.

So I do focus a lot on sexual harassment in the workplace, but also on discrimination in the workplace on the basis of a protected class such as sex, gender, religion, etc.. Okay.

And the current status is that the Syracuse airport decided that Meghan's billboard for her firm was inappropriate.

It was possibly offensive.

It was unprofessional.

It might upset men in particular, you know, who didn't want to be confronted with the idea that harmless flirting at work could be actionable by law.

And so the airport came up with their own suggestions instead of your slogan, which was when H.R.

called it harmless flirting, we called it exhibit A, the airport decided to have a their marketing team was going to help you out.

That's right.

Yeah.

They needed so what were there signature appreciate you know and notably when I looked at the foil request response I said, you know, was anything else ever rejected?

One other ad was rejected.

I never saw any communications about hey, here are alternative suggestions to your ad.

So I thought that was telling as well.

Here are their suggestions.

When your concerns were brushed aside, we took them seriously.

Workplace harassment is real.

Let us help you hold them accountable.

That's all.

On one billboard.

That's a lot of words.

Yeah, that's for both.

It's not effective advertising.

When no one took it seriously, we did leave legal advocacy for those facing sexual harassment and workplace discrimination.

Another one.

You deserve to be heard.

We make sure you are standing up for victims of workplace harassment and discrimination.

Finally, you spoke up.

We listened and we took action.

Legal support for those navigating discrimination or harassment.

Again, that doesn't even fit on a billboard.

You know, like, not only is it not effective, but I would never put all those words on a billboard.

You know, no one's going to sit and read that.

You.

Are you trying to be catchy?

I mean, I guess that's part of advertising.

Yeah, totally.

Okay, so let me play devil's advocate here.

Sure.

But this implies that all bosses are creepy.

And that's not fair.

No, it doesn't, because where does it even say bosses on my ad it says when they called it harmless flirting, we called it exhibit eight because oftentimes, again, my clients are coming in saying, H.R.

told me it wasn't a big deal.

And I see this a lot HR gaslighting H.R.

said, you know, I don't have a cause of action.

Well, I looked at it and I said, yes, you 100% do.

Because, again, the law in New York State is favorable, helpful to plaintiffs.

And that's really important because without that, we don't have an even playing field.

Okay.

Playing devil's advocate.

Yeah.

You see a claim there because it benefits you as a lawyer.

HR is more neutral and they're the better arbiter.

It doesn't benefit me if there's no claim right?

I there has to be an actionable claim.

I'm incredibly picky with the cases I take because I lawyers largely work on contingency, which means I only make money if my clients make money, so I only will take cases if there's something real there.

One other kind of response is, and I read this in a number of places before this program today, and criticism of the MeToo movement, one common critique is that the MeToo movement overemphasized the value and power of accusation, and under emphasized the need for evidence.

So I'm going to ask both of you about that.

What do you make of that first, Meghan?

I mean, you have to have evidence in order to bring a case.

And it's interesting.

I hear a lot of comments like this.

And I can't bring a case to court without any kind of evidence.

I can't even negotiate a case litigation without any evidence.

I need that.

So the idea that I'm just like throwing out these wild accusations about people and not supporting them is ludicrous.

Of course I am the second to a client calls me.

I say, what evidence do you have?

What evidence exists?

If you don't have it?

I tell everyone you know.

If you are in a bad situation at work, screenshot everything that could support your case.

You know if you don't have it and you find out later, you know you want to bring a case, well, what evidence exist?

I can get it in discovery, right?

But if there's no evidence, like I can't really help you.

What do you make of the concern that is sometimes expressed, usually by men, but not always.

That whether it's on a college campus, whether it's in a workplace that all it takes is one accusation and it can ruin someone's life.

Usually a man, sometimes a young man.

Yeah, I do hear that a lot, too.

Again, there has to be, evidence to support these accusations or they do go away.

And that's the thing.

It's like you can't, you know, we can't just make these statements, these blanket statements that these men were accused and there was no evidence to support them when they don't know that that's true.

Again, as an attorney, as an ethical attorney, I can't bring cases, you know, when there's no evidence in the court, I'm I'm gonna lose if I do that.

So I, I just don't see a lot to support that.

You know, if someone's accused, then they should get an attorney to if they don't feel like they're if they feel like they're wrongly accused and, you know, figure it out.

I think maybe extending Lauren's point from earlier, when I think about the airport's response to this, I think the implication whether they intended this or not is that as an attorney, you are fishing for possibly harmless comment and looking to amplify them into legally actionable ones so you can go to court.

But why would I do that again?

It's like my reputation's on the line, and again I would be thrown out of court laughing like they would laugh and put me out of court.

And again, I'm taking cases on contingency.

I'm only taking cases.

I have a ton of evidence.

My goal truly is to be the voice of, you know, you have other options to these women, these people, whether it's me or someone else, I frankly don't care.

I've got loads of work, but I want people to know people who are in a situation similar to that I was in earlier points in my career.

You have options and the law is on your side.

Lauren, what do you make of the rather consistent complaint that, that evidence is is not prioritized enough?

The accusation trumps evidence in the MeToo era.

I think it's understandable that some people feel that way because of the way in which these types of cases are often disseminated, because it's usually a kind of flurry of virality and discourse.

When an accusation comes out, particularly of somebody who is high status or well known or a celebrity, and the pieces of the investigation that happen after that are much quieter for the reasons of, you know, any investigation is often kept very private until those things are ready to be publicized, in the cases ready to be made.

And at that point, the virality and the discourse is sort of on to the next thing, because our attention span collectively thinking like social media can be very, very short.

And so there's a lot of energy around, oh, this person was accused and and that's sort of the entirety of, of the case and not necessarily understanding that in reality, there's a lot of material that most people are not seeing.

And it's similar to when cases of sexual assault happen, you know, in our own community, as opposed to being just like talked about in the abstract, like if they're talking about like a celebrity or famous athlete, things like that, because there's often this energy around, you know, well, we should make sure that this is actually true before we, you know, bring charges or harm to this individual.

And the reality that we know from data, from statistics, from surveys that are done through crime victim studies all over the country, is that the likelihood of somebody going through the process of making a formal complaint, going to H.R is very, very low for things that are genuinely false reports.

I think there's a lot of desire for people in, in society, even if it's somebody that you know and you care about, you have esteem for or even, you know, a celebrity who you have a kind of parasocial relationship for, because we do think, oh, they wouldn't do that.

They wouldn't.

That person would never do that.

And it's much more comfortable to reject the idea that this person has done harm.

Then the idea that this person might not be who we think they are.

And so that energy has been true.

You know, before MeToo and still even now.

And the other piece is, again, who has the power.

And if we think about MeToo in, you know, not exclusively, but it was disseminated in a fairly heterosexual gendered lens that, you know, this is a movement to believe survivors who are mostly women, to bring accountability to those who have done harm, who are mostly men.

But what that didn't capture is that when we talk about survivors and perpetrators is that those don't discriminate with regard to gender.

And so we have a huge, resurgence of, you know, but but what about the men who are falsely accused?

But what about how much they have been harmed without acknowledging that there are men who are part of the MeToo movement as survivors, too?

And if we were to look at it as, you know, again, who has the power?

How can we support all survivors, then we might be much less ready to jump to the defense and say, you know, well, what about how this, this thing that somebody, said one time is has absolutely, thoroughly ruined their lives.

And then, of course, we see in the reality that that's almost never true.

And briefly, when you talk about sexual violence and I'm going to include domestic violence, I want to ask you directly, this is what I'm going to use the president's own words.

I was alluding to what he said, but this is the actual quote from President Trump three weeks ago.

He says they said crimes down 87% in Washington.

I said, no, no, no, it's more than 87% down.

It's virtually nothing now.

It's much lesser.

But now they take these things that take place in the home and they call them a crime.

You know, they'll do anything they can do to find something and call it a crime.

If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say this was a crime.

Now, see?

So now I can't claim 100%.

Crime is down.

But we are.

That's the president.

What do you make of that?

I think it speaks to this issue of, again, who gets to decide?

Who gets to decide what is harassment?

Who gets to decide what is harm?

Who gets to decide what is a crime and who is deserving of justice, and who is deserving of being held accountable.

And it's unfortunate that people who have such agency and such power over our society and over our collective understanding of these issues wants to, you know, redirect our attention from something that we have recently understood.

You know, recently being in the last several decades is very real, very harmful and very destructive to our society, and that rightfully should be considered a crime.

And persecuted as such.

And when we have this sort of jockeying for control, again, to reassert the dominance and to maybe go back to a pre MeToo era, an era where those things were just a private family matter.

And I get that phrase from it's the title of of a book of Victor River's Rivers.

He's a survivor of family violence in, you know, the 60, 70, 80 is both his mother and himself were abused by their father.

And when they try to reach out for help, they were often told, you know, well, that's something you deal with in the home.

That's a private family matter.

And it's so pervasive and destructive on an individual and a collective level that when we're redefining what is even considered something that society ought to treat as a crime, it speaks to this intense tug of war over again.

Who has that power?

Yeah, I can't help but connect this local story to the president's words.

I think Lauren is right.

The president used the word fight.

Megan.

He said when a man has a little fight with his wife, now, they call it a crime.

And he's lamenting that.

Yeah, in the same way that the the airport is lamenting the idea that, you know, you're making people feel like flirtation that might be unwanted is actionable, right?

I mean, there's a complete lack of empathy here and a complete lack of putting ourselves in other people's shoe.

So, you know, to to complain, you know, these men's or their jobs are being, destroyed.

Their reputations are being destroyed.

What about all the women who for, you know, all the time, really?

But like in modern history, let's just think about that.

But in modern history, who are who are the victims of these situations?

And just let's think about the workplace.

In the workplace, how many women have left jobs because they were being harassed on a regular basis, and they felt they had no other choice than to leave?

I mean, that is really sad.

Their their careers are being changed, destroyed, what have you.

And they have no one, had no one for a long time.

To stand up for them.

Is the price of the pendulum swinging, though the idea that there might be some overreach and some people might have their lives destroyed with false accusations.

So I think it's true in the social media movement, for sure.

You know, there there can be accusations that aren't supported by evidence.

But again, in the legal world, you have to have evidence to move forward.

So I'm less sympathetic to it in that world.

I do see, you know, on social media we see all sorts of issues with a lack of evidence.

I think that's a really good distinction.

And this is becoming a theme of the week here.

Everybody knows how I feel about social media.

It's the worst thing that's ever happened anywhere.

And, I haven't made a secret of that.

But I think the distinction from the attorney in the room is really important here.

There's a legal standard of evidence, and then there's what social media will do with something.

And I don't think social media is a good way to adjudicate things.

I don't think it's a good way to have a conversation dialog hash out difficult issues.

It's mostly just a place to amplify, really acute emotion.

So, I take that point and I think it's a really, really good one.

So when we come back here, I've got a little bit more of your feedback that I want to share with our guests.

And, and then I want to talk about where we go next here.

We're going to ask Megan Thomas where this case goes next.

Christy, if this billboard ends up in Rochester's airport, maybe all airports feel the same way.

I don't know, I will not speak for the Rochester airport at all.

They're also welcome if they want to come talk about this.

But I also want to read a little bit about how, companies, and organizations are training employees to try to understand harassment and boundaries and ask both of our guests if they feel like we are going in a better direction with that.

So we'll come right back with more your feedback on connections.

I'm Evan Dawson Friday, I'm the next connections.

In the recent Rochester mayoral primary, we heard a lot about modular homes, prefab homes and the like.

Now Rochester is moving forward trying to create a couple hundred new units.

And we're going to talk about what these homes are, the price, how it works and who might be eligible.

Then in our second hour, a conversation about the upcoming Rochester Fashion Week and who benefits.

Talk to you Friday.

Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Mary Carrie Ola, center, proud supporter of connections with Evan Dawson, believing an informed and engaged community is a connected one.

Mary Carrie ola.org.

This is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

If you're just joining us, the root of why we're here started with a billboard in the Syracuse airport, or at least one that was supposed to go in the Syracuse airport, but the airport decided it was too offensive.

It was too inappropriate, it was too unprofessional.

And it might offend especially male travelers.

It was a billboard from the law firm of attorney Meghan Thomas and Meghan Thomas Law, a firm in Syracuse that focuses a lot of their work on sexual harassment cases.

And all the billboard had was a picture of the attorney, Meghan Thomas, who's with us in studio along with this phrase, when HR called it harmless flirting, we called it exhibit A, and the airport said, you might be too inflammatory with that, let's tone down the language.

People might find that offensive.

Well, one of our listeners says it does disparage H.R.

People.

It implies all HR persons are dismissive of sexual harassment.

HR personnel who take their responsibilities seriously could be offended.

Meghan, thanks for that comment.

So first of all, you know, for any HR people out there who are taking these things seriously, I so appreciate you because I have so many clients who are calling me saying, HR told me it wasn't a big deal.

HR told me to let it alone.

So I see you know the other side of that, sadly.

But it's a disparaging to HR.

You know?

I don't think so because I'm not saying all HR is saying X, but it's just an example.

When HR called it this, we called it that.

And again that implies that there's additional evidence.

There may be a text that says hey, you know, you looked great in that dress today or hey, you know, want to go grab drinks after work, whatever it is.

And again, these things in isolation are one thing, but altogether often is when we see a case being built.

So I don't think I'm being disparaging to all HR, but I have offered, you know, on multiple occasions, you know, and I would this offer still stands, you know, I would take out HR and right.

They when they called it harmless flirting, we called it exhibit I, I have no problem with that.

Okay.

And I again I want to make sure I understand your perspective as an attorney who works in this world for listeners who are kind of tuning in late here, I would sum up your points about the notion of workplace interactions like this.

Number one, it's probably just not a great place to be flirting.

Probably not.

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend it.

So so that's a good start.

But number two, there is a difference between harmless flirting and actionable flirting.

And it has to do with a number of things.

Sometimes it's power, sometimes it's the repetition and ignoring an indication of someone wanting it to stop.

You know, it can look a lot of different ways and different people may perceive it differently.

But you don't feel like your work includes just taking small interactions and trying to amplify them for legal purposes.

No, because again, I would not make any money on those cases like I get.

I'm a business person.

I run a law firm.

Where I take only the most serious cases, frankly, and help these victims, have you have some kind of result that is better than what they're in, whether they move on with a settlement where they they go to court, whatever it is.

But I would never do that because it's not beneficial to my practice financially, period.

In addition to it being unethical.

Right.

I'm not doing that.

How often does it involve someone in a superior position of power actually putting hands on an employee?

A lot of times a lot.

Yeah.

It's disturbing.

And a lot of it's almost always almost everyone who calls my office with a legitimate case has someone in, you know, a position of power, harassing someone who's not in a position of power.

That person in a position of power doesn't think what they're doing is problematic or doesn't want to think what they're doing is problematic, but they're not being an active listener.

They're not paying attention to the reactions of that other person.

Or, you know, they simply can't be because they've never been in that person's position.

Understand what it's like to be in their shoes.

Now, something else that I'm a big advocate of and law, and you might have some thoughts on this, are so many women are victims of sexual violence that it's really hard for someone who's not been in that position to understand what it feels like to again, be placed in that position where you're in a vulnerable place with someone who's more powerful.

It's very victimizing.

And a lot of women kind of freeze in that position.

So that's something I'm, I talk about a lot.

Can you elaborate on that?

Lauren.

Yeah, I think it's you're absolutely right.

You know, a lot of people have already been impacted by sexual violence.

By the time they enter a professional environment.

And so something that, you know, a person who might again, think that it's a harmless joke, think that it's a harmless flirtation, doesn't realize those implications because there's so much perspective that is unknown to them.

And that's not necessarily their fault, but it does oblige them to be aware of the potential harm that they could be doing in that environment.

And it if survivors are in that position, it's very normal to have like the central nervous system response of fight, flight, freeze, fine.

And many people will revert to certain behaviors that are on the surface cooperative out of a need for survival.

And that could be just a physical environment.

If you feel, you know, physically afraid, physically threatened.

But at the same time, we are in, you know, an environment where our health care is tied to our employment.

And so there's a very real pragmatic need to keep things copacetic in the workplace, lest there be harm, you know, to my income and, and therefore my health care.

And we think about, you know, people who might have families.

And so there's all these existential, gravity placed on keeping everything good, you know, in the office.

And so if there's somebody who has power over this person and, you know, privilege in their own right, whether that be, you know, by virtue of, of being male, of being white, of being upper class, you know, any of these things is going to, have even more of a, kind of oversight in terms of the ways in which that behavior might affect other people.

And, you know, ideally, we would be in an environment where, you know, we could be open about those things.

And, you know, anyone in the workplace could take a comment or a joke and say, hey, not really my thing, really.

Just you as a coworker want to keep it that way and and sort of move on from there.

We're not in that kind of place yet.

There's still this sort of the politics of politeness and making sure that everybody, you know, plays nice with one another and often the dynamics of power in terms of, again, being in a superior role in the office, being the person that signs their paycheck or just it the the historical marginalization and dynamics of power that exist between, you know, men who might be in a position of power versus women who are working for them.

That workplace distinction, I think, is probably also important to keep in mind here, because that that is a lot of what we're talking about, this dynamic at work.

One of our listeners directs me to the case, Lisa mentions that last hour.

I mentioned the YouTube journalist Andrew Cunningham, who recently interviewed Pete Buttigieg.

We played a clip last hour.

Someone alerted me to the fact that in 2023, a number of women came forward.

And, Cunningham apparently put a public apology out and said that he did not realize that his persistence with women around him were viewed.

And, in an unwanted way.

And the quote from him was along the lines of, I thought my persistence would be seen as flattering, like, I'm not trying to take.

I'm not trying to not take no for an answer.

I'm trying to let you know that this is something I think that you and I would both enjoy, and that I want to convince you.

And the culture writer Kat Rosenfield has essentially said the same thing, not in the workplace context.

I think that's what's probably different.

But Rosenfield is arguing that we are, we're sort of paralyzing dating because we're implying that if someone says no the first time and, someone who might be a potential romantic partner says, I really feel like would be a good fit.

It's like legally, are you allowed to keep trying to convince them to go out with you or to sleep with you or whatever?

Like, or do you have to take the first?

No.

And if you make another attempt, is it actionable?

So I think there's a difference when there's work and there's power that Lauren is talking about.

But I mean, I think these are all important questions for us to consider.

What would you say to them?

Yeah, I mean, a great distinction, like whether we're in the workplace or not really matters if you're not in the workplace and the context matters, like, are you in an intimate situation and someone's saying, no, and you keep asking, that's a problem.

But if you're, you know, asking someone who said no, if you can go on a date with them again, I think that's fine.

But you there is a you've got to be socially aware enough and emotionally intelligent enough to know when to stop.

Right?

There's many relationships, my mind included, that would never have happened if someone wasn't more persistent.

Right?

But again, that wasn't in the workplace.

And, it was totally, respectfully done.

And I think, again, just being empathetic, putting yourself in someone else's shoes, how would this make you feel?

I remember one time I was, at the gym, and it was so uncomfortable for me.

This young woman, continuously was being hit on by by the guy who has worked there.

Every time she came in, he'd be like, hey, what about now?

Hey, do you want to go out now?

It's like this tiny gym and this guy's hitting on her over and over again.

Like, that's not okay.

That makes her feel uncomfortable.

She's basically trapped in the small space.

But is that legally actionable?

No, I don't think it's legally actionable at that point.

No.

Okay.

So that's the distinction.

Is we should have cultural conversations about how to understand what's appropriate.

Yeah.

And then there's legal conversation about where actual lines are.

Right.

Right.

So important distinctions there.

Another listener wants to know, I understand that there are exemptions to the statute of limitations for sexual assault, but why do we have a statute of limitations for sexual assault in New York?

Are people trying to change those laws?

Is that accurate statute of limitations?

Oh, okay.

So there are there are, a statute.

There is a statute of limitations on sexual assault.

I deal with workplace.

So I know those kind of off the top of my head, but essentially, you know, there was, the victim Survivors Act.

Probably what this person's referring to, where we put a pause on all statute limitations.

We said everyone who ever had a claim can bring it.

That has now ended, you know, and so essentially, you know, yeah, there's statute limitations on on issues.

And I that is an unfortunate reality for a lot of people.

Call me and it's too late.

You know, that's that's a problem.

But at the same time, you know, thinking about from the other side of the table, people need to understand that there's a limitation to when, you know, things can happen.

So I think it's complicated.

Do I wish the statute of limitations is longer?

Of course.

But I'm a plaintiff's lawyer.

Okay.

I think that those distinctions go back to what you were talking about, where, you know, within a workplace where there's, like, established and arbitrary benchmarks of is something, particularly egregious is something persisted, those type of, of ways in which we can catalog, whether or not something is escalatory or offensive, but culturally it's much more muddy.

And so when we think about, you know, laws around sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual violence, it's, I think, important to remember that those are born from a need to, you know, operate from a written word for a judicial system.

And in many ways, that system is older than what we understand about the ways in which someone can be harmed.

You know, most of the laws were written, you know, for like, you know, Megan has a sheep.

I still Megan sheep.

You know, we get the sheep back and I pay reparations and they're sort of like property exchange.

That's, that's rendered, healed in that way.

But when someone is harmed in a way that is of a sexual, violent nature, there's something qualitatively that has been taken but that we can't necessarily quantify.

And so we're trying to do this in a written system of laws that is entirely too old and in some ways not designed.

And to actually capture what justice for that person might look like.

And so it's again, it's this kind of parallel conversation where we have the justice system and kind of remittance of any kind of reparations or justice or healing.

And then we have that cultural side where it's more about how do we communicate with each other, how do we, you know, engage in flirting, coming out of a culture where we were taught, you know, women are supposed to say no because that's, you know, makes you look more pure and chaste, even if you do actually want the person we tell boys, you know, never like don't take no for an answer.

Make sure that you, you know, pursue and dominate and like all of these really harmful, norms that people are sort of trying to evolve from.

And none of us have done this before.

So it's all of our first time on earth.

And so the ability to be authentic and honest about that is the path forward.

Although it's a little clunky to say to somebody, you know, okay, so when you rejected me, did you mean that?

Do you want me to stop or did you want to maybe think about it, give me another chance?

Like it feels weird to say those things.

But it might be the only way forward.

Important distinctions.

Here.

Let me.

We got a lot to try to squeeze in in the last few minutes.

Jane says.

Great discussion today.

A reminder for people regarding H.R.. H.R.

is there to protect the company, particularly from litigation, not the employee.

Do you agree with that 100%?

I say that every day of my life, like I'm always telling clients, H.R.

doesn't protect you.

You cannot trust H.R.. These H.R.

investigations, you know, they are buying them time and they will find against you.

And I, you know, so much, so many person.

I'm just going to tell you, I think our H.R.

here does a great job.

I'm sure you have a good one, but obviously I'm not getting calls where the good ones are involved.

Right?

I only get calls where H.R.

is not doing a good job.

Do I hate H.R.?

No, of course not.

Like, there's plenty of people I friends in HR, and I think a lot of people do a great job.

But a lot of times it's true HR is there to protect the company.

Just like I tell my clients, just like I'm there to protect you.

And at the other side, they are there to protect the company.

That's their job.

All right.

Quick one for Michelle.

Question for Megan.

How often do you find the potential clients come to you.

And you eventually have to tell them that it turns out they do not have a case?

That's a good question.

I would say, you know, not very frequently, because by the time someone works up the gumption to call me, they usually do have a case.

And in fact, so many of my conversations start out by people saying, I probably don't have a case, but and I'm like, oh my God, you've got like, get out for causes of action.

And this is egregious and all this stuff.

So that, that doesn't happen that much.

All right.

Lastly, the Harvard Business Review took a look at surveys of men and women in the post MeToo workplace world and examined how much the movement was affecting workplaces and their conclusion is not a whole lot to change for the better in the last decade.

And here's why.

In response to me, two companies have required more mandatory sexual harassment training, often in the form of videos and seminars.

Mostly, the Harvard Business Review found they don't work and this is their conclusion.

Researchers have several recommendations for organizations looking to reduce harassment, a number of which involve prevention training.

Their study shows that traditional sexual harassment training has little effect, perhaps because much of it focuses on helping employees understand what constitutes harassment and the data shows they actually already do.

Instead, the researchers say, companies should implement training that educates employees about sexism and character their data shows that employees who display high levels of sexism are more likely to engage in negative behaviors, and they believe training can reduce those levels.

Their data also shows that people of high character those who, just by virtue, such as courage, are less likely to harass and more likely to intervene when others do.

Though character building in organizations is on the cutting edge and consultants are just learning how to do this, there are training resources available.

Our researchers write and quote.

What do you think of that?

I would add that empathy training is really important when you can put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Yeah, you can have a better understanding of what this makes me feel, uncomfortable or not.

I think in New York State, the training is actually better than in a lot of other places in the country.

It's, you know, there's some really good guidelines in New York state.

And I have had a lot of people say first hand to me, I didn't even know this was actionable until I went through this training.

So I actually think it's been helpful.

I don't have statistics on it in New York State, but I'm a I'm a big believer in it.

But I do think that and let's work on character building.

Let's work on empathy training, etc.. Awareness building would be more helpful by the minute.

What do you make of that?

I think that having training is never a bad thing.

I think that most companies might have a further benefit if they took it one step further and dealt with kind of the practical application, you know, rather than the state wide video training, which is valuable beyond that.

You know, what does this look like in this restaurant, in this law firm, in this auto shop and every specific place of navigating that with each other?

Because at the end of the day, it's about these conversations and the ways that we interact with each other and the ways in which we can try to understand these things before, we have to call Megan.

And, you know, if HR is a part of those conversations.

I know people in HR do wonderful work.

It's often very difficult and very thankless, but they have a key role to play in that, too, because the more that this is normalized and equalized and people can have authentic conversations, the more we actually can, you know, prevent some of these things before it's an actionable item.

All right.

Last 30s, what sparked this whole conversation was, a billboard that the Syracuse airport rejected from your law firm.

Megan.

So what happens next?

So I filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which essentially means that it'll get before the judge sooner.

And we have submitted all of our papers on that.

So we're waiting for, response from the judge.

So I'm really, like, holding my, you know, breath here.

Crossed my fingers, all of that, hoping that my board will be my billboard will be placed up.

I actually think to end up going to be gonna end up being good for you.

You know, we're here, we're having a bigger conversation because of it, but I know it's not what you wanted.

That's right, that's right.

And I will say the airport is absolutely welcome to come on here.

I would love to talk to them about why they made that decision and some of the parameters of their advertising policy.

So, maybe they will probably not.

But it's an open door.

In the meantime, let us know if the Rochester airport takes your baby.

All right, I'll do that.

Will you let us know for sure?

I'll let you know.

Thank you for being here.

Where can people learn more about your work?

You can go on to my website, mQTT hyphen Law.com.

You can follow me on LinkedIn and I look forward to it.

Thank you for your time.

And Lauren is the interim executive director of Glow Out.

Maybe we'll talk on a separate occasion about some of the work you're doing there.

I'd love to do that.

Come back any time.

I really appreciate your expertise here.

Well, thanks so much.

And, listeners, thank you for a provocative hour.

A lot of really good, important conversations and emails there.

Got as many as we can.

We are going to be back with you tomorrow for Friday on member supported public media.

This program is a production of WXXI Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station.

Its staff, management, or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience, any rebroadcast or use in another medium without expressed written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the connections link at WXXI news.org.