Hotmail
NASCAR misses its chance to make statement
Join the discussion
The talk is raging over Jason Whitlock's latest column. We know you have an opinion too. Join the debate right here.
But NASCAR chairman Brian France doesn't want you to go thinking that one has anything to do with the other.
"Even if we take action on any official in this investigation, we might discover something entirely different that has been going on that has nothing to do with the claim, this lawsuit, but still is in violation of our policy," France said Saturday.
Which policy would that be? The one against stealing sparkplugs?
France missed an opportunity on Saturday. The high road beckoned, but he blew right past that exit.
Repeatedly he mentioned that he was "disappointed" in the alleged victim for not following company policy in reporting harassment, even suggesting she could have e-mailed him personally. At least twice he referenced the money being sought, as if that has any relevance to the possible wrongdoing within his company. And he even took a shot at our independent judiciary, what some consider the bedrock of a democracy.
"I think I mentioned earlier in the week that the most disappointing thing to me is that we found out about the alleged claims after you did in the media via a national lawsuit that seeks a lot of money," France said.
So let's get this straight: The most disappointing thing is the way you found out about it? Would having your employees expose themselves to a coworker and use racial epithets crack the top 10?
France continued with his disappointment theme, again focusing on the alleged victim and her shoddy adherence to protocol.
"That's very disappointing, because if any of those claims turn out to be accurate and have substance, we would have liked to have known about that two years ago so that we could have reacted and done something about it."
Like sweep it under the rug, for example. Or make it go away for a lot less money than it will cost now.
"She chose to make this about money and about a lawsuit, and we'll deal with that," France said. "That's the nature of the court systems."
Yes, it's true. Victims of crimes in America can seek redress from the courts.
France could have said something along the lines of "If any of those claims turn out to be accurate, my heart goes out to the young woman who had to endure such a hostile, demeaning work environment."
Probably could have saved his company $50 million right there in the inevitable settlement.
But instead of being sympathetic to the alleged victim — or even pretending to be sympathetic — France belabored his disappointment in the way Grant chose to air her grievances and suggests that seeking compensation somehow diminishes the validity of the charges.
The more France spoke of his disappointment in Ms. Grant and "what a lawsuit attempts to say in an attempt to create some monetary reward," you half-expected him to break out James Carville's old chestnut, "If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find."
In his comments France set up a fascinating paradox. If the allegations prove false, the claimant should be blamed for dragging NASCAR through the mud. If the allegations prove true, the victim should be blamed for not reporting them properly. And you wonder why some harassment victims are reluctant to come forward at all. (For the record, Grant's suit maintains that she repeatedly complained to her supervisors).
We don't have to wait for sworn testimony — hard to imagine it will ever get there — to have a pretty good idea of the veracity of at least some of the misconduct Grant alleges.
Former NASCAR official Mike Wilford, who is named in the suit, substantiated at least two of her charges in an interview with The Associated Press that he and NASCAR's lawyers will surely wish he never gave.
Instead of denying the behavior, Wilford suggests that Grant had no problem with it.
"Graphic and lewd jokes? She participated in them. She laughed. She would never say it was inappropriate," he told the AP.
He also admitted showing Grant some loose diamonds and rubies and suggested she should be his mistress in exchange for them.
"Yes, I made the joke, but it was a joke because Mo used to go around telling everyone she wanted to marry a rich man and be a kept woman and that was all she was after," Wilford said.
Good luck with that one in court, Mike.
With my knowledge of sexual harassment law limited to the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings and the Isiah Thomas-Anucha Browne Sanders case, I felt obliged to do some digging on the Internet just to confirm my suspicion that NASCAR has spun into the wall here. (Maybe France would do well to try Googling "Sexual Harassment Federal Law" sometime).
According to expertlaw.com, there are two primary forms of workplace harassment.
Quid Pro Quo Harassment — An employee is required to tolerate sexual harassment in order to obtain or keep a job, job benefit, raise, or promotion.
Laughing at lame, offensive jokes would seem to fall neatly into this category. And since Grant is now saying that the jokes made her uncomfortable, it seems highly unlikely that saying she laughed at them will fly as a defense.
The second category is more far-reaching and would encompass, say, being subjected to the exposure of a coworker's genitals.
Hostile Work Environment Harassment — Harassment at work unreasonably interferes with or alters the employee's work performance, or creates a hostile, abusive or offensive work environment.
Grant alleges 23 incidents of sexual harassment and 34 more of racial or gender discrimination. NASCAR must really be looking forward to going down that harassment checklist in open court to see which category each charge falls into.
But for the moment, the CEO and chairman is out front denigrating the plaintiff for not following company policy.
"I would tell you the most disappointing thing that all of times that this plaintiff, Miss Grant, had in her time at NASCAR through diversity and sexual harassment seminars and training — our human resources people were explaining, as we do multiple times during the year, what our policy is and how the environment needs to be," France said.
It's telling that France seemed more obsessed on Saturday with Grant's supposed breach of company protocol than with the 57 breaches of federal law that she alleges in her suit. A cynic might even find his remarks revelatory of a culture in which coming forward would be very difficult.
Mauricia Grant's suit claims prejudice.
And if Brian France's comments are any indication, she can consider herself pre-judged.
advertisement
