He’s handsome, he’s charming, and maybe he’s sexually harassed. Currently on file with L.A. Superior Court is a sexual harassment case by a UCLA male resident against his female supervising physician. He claims he lost a coveted position because he broke off sexual relations with her. He was to be the chief resident of his supervisor’s clinic, he alleges, but she denied him that opportunity when he broke it off. Her defense is that he is obsessed with sex, and that the liaison never occurred. [I assume the defense attorney thought the “obsessed with sex” defense was a pretty safe position to take regarding a healthy intelligent male in his 30s.]
To add to the drama, she has filed a separate sexual harassment suit against another UCLA psychiatrist, and she claims UCLA administrators retaliated against her when she complained of his sexual harassment.
Now back to the first drama, the one of him vs. her. In that one, UCLA states it did not allow him to become a chief resident because of the “appearance” that if you sleep around with the supervising physician, you will be more likely to get promoted. This defense, you will note, does not admit the “sex for jobs” relation exists, just that there is a feared appearance–something like a “ghost” of a chance.
Now, as a lawyer, I think resolving these convoluted allegations is best done in a public court of law, so that everyone becomes a public spectacle, and people can “act out” through their lawyers, which is much safer than acting out directly. On the other hand, these folks know the power of medication, and perhaps a little sedation would work just as well, while keeping things more private. The problem seems to be that old adage: “Physician, heal thyself”.
“If the pink slip doesn’t fit,