There is no presumption of innocence in a sexual harrasement case
I deal with grievances and arbitrations as a union official. Occasionally, there is discipline that reaches the stage of sexual harassment or discrimination. This amounts to a hostile work environment.
These cases, at every step of the way, up to and including arbitration or a hearing before the State Commission Against Discrimination is not an "innocent until proven guilty" situation or a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Those standards are just for criminal trials. They are not for civil trials or work place discipline.
The standard that I have to work under isn't even the "preponderance of evidence" standard. It's just "what is more likely to have occurred". It's a 51% to 49% standard or, who is more credible.
You see, this "innocent until proven guilty" is only if an accused that is going to lose his or her freedom. It has nothing to do with work place harassment or a Senate hearing.
In the case of losing a job, if a complaint is a close call, the accused may get a suspension instead of termination. But Kavanaugh's case is more like a hiring or promotion case. There is no entitlement and no need for compromise. The accused is not entitled to a job or a promotion and not receiving one is no punishment, it's just not getting a reward. It's an erring on the side of caution. If a company found the accusations credible, even if they were not provable, the applicant would be passed over and the next candidate would be interviewed.
That's where we are now with Kavanugh.
= new reply since forum marked as read
