Willie Brown Broke the Law; Kamala Harris Benefited
Kamala Harris Entered the World of Politics by Participating in Sexual Harassment and the Creation of a Hostile Work Environment
Sen. Kamala Harris of California has positioned herself as a champion of women and a fighter against sexual harassment and other forms of sexual misconduct. As a U.S. Senator, she was outspoken in criticizing Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings when he was accused of sexual misconduct, and she called for Sen. Al Franken to resign following his sexual misconduct scandal.
In her own life and career; however, she has been a participant in and beneficiary of sexual harassment.
Sexual misconduct does not always have to include unwanted or nonconsensual attention, comments or touching. Sexual misconduct can also include situations where relationships are consensual.
In 1990, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidelines prohibiting “sexual favoritism” in the workplace. Essentially, if a boss or employment decision-maker gives a job to a person with whom that boss or decision-maker is sexually involved, then an implicit quid pro quo harassment or hostile work environment has been created. If other people are also interested in that job, or if other people are more qualified for that job, those other people can reasonably conclude that you have to engage in a sexual relationship with the boss to get that job. It does not matter if the boss is having a completely consensual relationship with the person who got the job. A hostile workplace has in fact been created in this situation. The EEOC says that if this happens once, then it might be excusable, but if it happens more than once, then a pattern has been established and a legal threshold has been crossed.
The California Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in 2005 in Miller v. Department of Corrections, a court decision based on a situation dating back to 1994 involving a prison official giving promotions to people with whom he was romantically involved. These were consensual relationships, but other employees asserted the promotion of romantic partners created a hostile work environment.
With this in mind, we can consider the job history of Kamala Harris, and her introduction to the world of politics.
After finishing law school, Kamala Harris got what seems to be her first job as a lawyer in 1990 by working as a Deputy District Attorney in Alameda County, California.
In 1994, while still in this entry level job, Harris was appointed by Willie Brown, Speaker of the California State Assembly, to a position on the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. This position paid $97,088 annually, according to the Los Angeles Times. Minutes from this Board during the time Kamala Harris was a member are not available online; however, minutes from meetings since that time show that this Board meets only once per month, and these meetings typically lasted about 1-2 hours. This means that a member of this Board puts in only 12-24 hours of work in the course of a year. A little simple math finds that Kamala Harris earned the equivalent of more than $4,000-$8,000 per hour.
Within a year, Brown gave Harris a second position on yet another state-wide board, the California Medical Assistance Commission. According to the Los Angeles Times, this position paid $72,000 annually at the time. According to the California Code of Regulations, this commission meets only once per month, and its sole responsibility is to approve contracts already negotiated by the commission’s Executive Director. According to the “online archive” of the California State Archive, minutes from this organization are not available online, so it is hard to judge the length of its once-per-month meetings.
Both of these boards represent some of the worst kinds of political patronage and corruption where people make the equivalent of a generous full-time salary funded by taxpayers for only attending a short meeting once each month.
Aside from the pure corruption represented by these boards, it is hard to believe that the State of California did not have hundreds or thousands of people with decades of relevant experience vastly more qualified than an entry-level lawyer with no related experience.
How did Kamala Harris manage to swing the jackpot of patronage hiring, not only once but twice, while still in her first job out of law school? Why did the powerful Speaker of the California State Assembly turn to the inexperienced Harris to fill these jobs?
The 29 year-old Harris began dating the 60 year-old Brown shortly before receiving these appointments. Brown used his authority to hire his mistress not once, but twice. Brown, a married man, used taxpayer money to support his side girlfriend. Both the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle reported on the relationship at the time.
Harris, the entry-level lawyer, catapulted over far more qualified people not once but twice, thanks to favors from her powerful boyfriend. Brown clearly violated the 1990 EEOC rules and twice created a hostile work environment for those who may have wanted these jobs. Also, the year Brown and Harris were violating sexual harassment laws with the two appointments, is the same year that the Miller v. Department of Corrections landed in the state court system. If you want to be named to a state-wide commission, your qualifications do not count, what counts is a sexual relationship with the man handing out the jobs, and Willie Brown was that man. Brown was no different than the Department of Corrections official who got smacked down by the California Supreme Court after rewarding his girlfriends with promotions. For her part, Harris helped create and clearly benefited from this implicit quid pro quo and hostile work environment.
Brown violated the law. Harris benefited.
One last comment on this matter. The aforementioned 1990 EEOC guidelines that prohibits this type of sexual harassment were issued by the man who was the EEOC Director at the time. That man was Clarence Thomas. For all the vilifying of Clarence Thomas over the years by Democrats and the left, it is ironic that when it comes to sexual harassment, he has greater moral authority on the issue than Kamala Harris.