Big bro/lil sis problem

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And risk management.

Protecting single-sex status IS risk management, i.e. not leaving yourselves open to getting slapped with a discrimination lawsuit is one way to manage risk.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Protecting single-sex status IS risk management, i.e. not leaving yourselves open to getting slapped with a discrimination lawsuit is one way to manage risk.

Yes, but it's not the only risk management item associated.

The whole "all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs" type logic equation.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Protecting single-sex status IS risk management, i.e. not leaving yourselves open to getting slapped with a discrimination lawsuit is one way to manage risk.

It's the not the biggest risk management issue, though. I'm not convinced that these informal cross-GLO little brother and little sister arrangements are a real threat to single-sex status. (Actual little sister orgs, on the other hand . . . .) Besides, in these instances, a lawsuit would have to come from someone who is already a member of a (single-sex) GLO.

The real risk management issue, as I see it, is that a non-member could be seen to be acting on behalf of the GLO in some capacity, so that a GLO could find itself liable for something a non-member did.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'm not convinced that these informal cross-GLO little brother and little sister arrangements are a real threat to single-sex status. (Actual little sister orgs, on the other hand . . . .) Besides, in these instances, a lawsuit would have to come from someone who is already a member of a (single-sex) GLO.

No, the thinking is that, if my org has "big brothers", then we can't systemically deny men bids, so the suit would come from, for example, a man who went through recruitment and didn't get a bid.

Is that a really risk? Well, I don't know, because I'm pretty sure it's never been tried in court. In fact, I think it seems a little far-fetched, but it was definitely cited by my HQ as the reason we weren't supposed to have "pledge dads", and the reason that our house sweetheart was supposed to be off-the-record.