> Frank’s chief software engineer, Patrick Vovor, testified that Javice had asked him to generate synthetic data to support her claim that the company had more than 4 million users. When Vovor asked if that was legal, prosecutors said, Javice and Amar assured him that it was — and told him they didn’t want to end up in orange prison jumpsuits. Vovor testified that he refused to help. “I told them I would not do anything illegal,” Vovor told jurors.
> Seeking to dent Vovor’s credibility, defense lawyers suggested he was resentful that Javice didn’t want to date him.
This should be used as an example in engineering ethics classes for how important it is to say "no" to your employer when you are asked to do something that doesn't pass the smell test, no matter how trivial it may seem. This simple act saved the guy his career and (potentially) freedom.
Yeah, I think it's an ABET requirement for accreditation of engineering degrees.
Lots of people with an engineering title don't have an engineering degree though. And of course, passing the class doesn't mean you'll be ethical. Knowing the material and acting on it are different. Also, understanding the requirements and working right at the edge of them is engineering...
If you're a witness with damning evidence, literally anything you will ever do, as well as anything you didn't do will be used to impeach your credibility in court.
That's what lawyers do. They throw shit and see what sticks.
This is the job of a lawyer. And it's a knife that cuts both ways. You hate them when you are on the stop, and you love (?) them when they do your dirty bidding.
What do you call 500 lawyers lying on the bottom of the ocean?
A good start...
(The War of the Roses, 1989)
> How would that help defend you against the accusation that you resented her
That's the "cordial and friendly" part; if you've never expressed any negativity about her it boosts your credibility.
> not wanting to date you?
That's the "distance" part.
If you've never approached her in private, or for watercooler chat, or had lunch in the cafeteria together, or got coffee together ... that buys you some credibility.
In short, you never reached out to her for anything other than a work request, made in a work-provided channel (email, slack, etc), and only reached out verbally/telephonically/in-person when urgency was required.
I agree with you. However, there are cases were even that kind of behaviour is turned around to stab you as a male... Not making any personal connection is considered creepy by some, and there have been cases were that was reported to HR.
> This kind of risk mitigation is probably a losing strategy. Lawyers will find any reason to crucify you.
Right, but much better for them to have flimsy reasons that literally won't pass even a cursory glance by a court (like alone time with someone), than give them situations which allows them to introduce doubt about your innocence.
Because if your relationship is friendly, cordial and appropriately distanced, there would then be no evidence that you resent her not wanting to date you.
No, the stories are very careful, but i get it - they parse words.
AFAIK, he did not deny that he made romantic overtures (or whatever the hell phrase they used, i can look it up again if you care).
If he denied it, i don't see it.
What he denied was that he was resentful she said no, and in any way used it against her :)
If they had no evidence, etc, it would not be an even mildly viable way of attacking his credibility (IE ignoring whether it's smart/dumb/ethical/etc, if wouldn't be effective).
It would also be cut off by a judge very quickly because you'd lack any foundation.
So it would be a very short questioning, too.
IE you'd end up STH like this:
"Q:Did you ever ask her out on a date
A: No
Q: Did you ever flirt with her
A: No
<3 other ways of asking the same question>
Q: So you weren't resentful she declined to date you or flirt back
A: No
"
At this point, if you try to go further, you have no basis on which to do so, it will be objected to, you will be forced to move on. Actually, you probably won't even get to ask the last question if they answer no to all the others, it will get objected to, you will have to withdraw it, the jury will think you are an ass.
You'd have to have evidence to impeach them or ask them about (IE conversations they admitted to, etc).
Or they'd have to say yes to one of these questions, so you could hammer them some more.
A ton of no's like the above where you have nothing else just make you look desperate to a jury, and worse than doing nothing, so you really wouldn't do it, even if you are losing badly.
A particularly revealing aspect of Menchel’s cross-examination focused on Mr. Vovor’s feelings toward Ms. Javice. He admitted to sending her flowers, messages, photos, playlists, and even a card without signing his name, instead using a heart emoji. His behavior had previously led to a human resources complaint by Ms. Javice, resulting in a discussion with the company’s legal and Human Resources representative.
[EDIT: All of the below is now inaccurate]
> AFAIK, he did not deny that he made romantic overtures
Depends on how it's phrased - it's common to preface with "What's not explicitly addressed is denied. My Client reserves the right to address the unaddressed claim in the future." in court papers, but I'm not sure if that works for witness-box testimony.
TBH, if he neither denied it nor admitted it while in the witness box, then it is unlikely he was asked the question "Did you make any romantic overture to $X" at all.
And, to be even more honest, if her lawyer avoided asking that question, it's because he knew the answer already.
> (or whatever the hell phrase they used, i can look it up again if you care).
Actually I cannot find the court transcript (my google fu is failing). Do you have a link?
It seems a pretty important part of this thread's premise; assuming that the main witness [did/did not] ask out his boss on a date.
No surprises here, companies will tell this to your face on day 1. Asking your boss/subordinate out on a date is frowned upon and will be used aggressively against you.
No, this story shows that if you ask your boss out on a date, and they say no, and your boss gets in trouble and you are the star witness, they will try to use your idiocy against you.
Why do you insist on making this about one-way false claims of sexual harassment, etc, that didn't happen, when it's about something that did happen.
This guy did ask his boss out on a date. Which is just ... beyond stupid. Yet somehow you insist on making this about things that did not.
It's not only about having a boss. When a man and a woman land on opposite sides, the man stands a risk to be accused of sexual harassment, misconduct and being misogynistic.
Modern sexuality might mean that avoiding the opposite sex is off little help. Instead you need to know how to avoid manipulative sociopaths - which takes years of experience to learn (and perhaps after you learn the skills you decide to join them).
Yeah, I slipped by not mentioning homosexuality. However, while we are at pedantry: Homosexuality isn't particularily a modern phenomenon either. So we both erred on the side of inclusive speech... However, it doesn't really matter in this context, I was particularily refering to male/female, given the whole metoo thing and "trust all women" and all that. As a male, you're particularily exposed to female claims usually being the end of your reputation.
> Seeking to dent Vovor’s credibility, defense lawyers suggested he was resentful that Javice didn’t want to date him.
That is one hell of a defense