Um, what kind of team are they trying to build?

I like how the article says that it isn't discriminatory because both men and women were "paddled." I feel like I should have more to say, but I can't even find the words.

If both men and women were paddled, how was it discriminatory? I can see calling it innapropriate, but discriminatory?

I'm having a hard time finding words as well... here's some that come to mind: frat house, boys club.

"Spanking?! What'd you do, kill him?"

Somebody in the HR department's getting reamed out for this one, I think.

Actually, since she is suing for assault and battery and infliction of emotional distress, it doesn't matter for those two causes of action whether men were paddled or not.

As far as sexual harassment goes, you can argue that it was discriminatory if the way that women were paddled was different (i.e. sexualized.) Also, I think that the 9th Circuit does not recognize the so-called "equal-opportunity harasser" defense, which is the defense that if you harass everyone, you're in the clear. So the men may be able to recover as well.

"spankings were part of a voluntary program�

Voluntary, by my way of thinking, is "opt-in" ... what sort of moron would voluntarily subject themselves to such a demeaning (not to mention sexually warped) exercise.

Voluntary, must surely mean, everyone heckles whilst participants are "coerced" into submission for fear of ongoing reprisals.

I always thought American psycho-babble was weird, but this shit goes even beyond ... if that is possible.

Voluntary my ass! (couldn't resist) So called team building exercises are never truly voluntary. You can expect reprisals from management if you opt out.

She got $1.7 million.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/29/spanking.case.ap/index.html

I guess it remains to be seen if they will uphold the $1.2 million punitive award on appeal.