In perhaps the second large scandal in the NBA off-season (the first is undoubtedly the referee cheating scandal), the trial of Browne Sanders vs. Isiah Thomas and MSG over accusation of sexual harassment took on multiple dimensions. Sanders claimed Thomas sexually harassed her and created a hostile working environment, and after she voiced her complaint to upper management, was fired as a retaliation. First let's keep in mind that in a civil trial, conviction requires the preponderance of evidence, i.e., more likely than not, while in a criminal trial, conviction requires a much higher bar of proof beyond reasonable doubts. Now let's dissect the case.
It is helpful to divide the accusations into two part: the first being Sanders' charge of Thomas' sexual harassment, and the second being Sanders' charge of MSG for unlawful dismissal. In the former, Sanders and her legal representation presented no first-hand eye-witnesses or material evidence; their entire case rested on Sanders' testimony again Thomas' denial. In other words, it was "she said versus he said". Due to their conflicting testimonies, obvious someone is a flat-out liar, but judging solely from their words, it is impossible to say definitively who it is. IMHO, this does not sustain a preponderance of evidence, and no conviction should be granted.
In the latter charge, there was ample evidence that Sanders was a valued and contributing employee, receiving raved end-of-the-year reviews and hefty bonuses annually. For the defense, they provided no written documentation that signals poor performance, but only witnesses who are current employees of MSG, and hence has substantial incentive to provide biased opinions in favor of their employer. In the light of lack of material to support the claim of dismissal due to incompetence, it is certainly more likely MSG took action to eliminate Sanders rather than resolving the complaint, and the conviction should be granted.
What is surprising in today's announcement of the jury's decision is that conviction was granted on BOTH counts. While it is clear that no one should condole unwanted and unprofessional sexual advances in workplace -- and in no way can I conclude Thomas is completely innocent in this case, it is frightening that only a woman's accusative words can convict in the court of law without any supporting materials or eye-witnesses. This sets a dangerous precedent in the future where a woman seeking a financial fortune can be rewarded by simply accusing a law-abiding male co-worker with nothing but her words and a determination to carry out the evil plan. US used to be a country where one is innocent until proven guilty; in the case of "he said vs. she said", it is an ugly exception getting uglier.
