What DC needs to fire Eddie Berganza?

[t hedge coke]

For the record, I have serious concerns that the term PTSD is being misused here. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a serious mental health issue that results from really bad experiences, things far worse than being groped at the office or on the bus, and to use it to describe any feeling of anxiety, upset, or discomfort is demeaning to people suffering from the actual condition. Unless a co-worker is accusing this fellow of doing something seriously traumatic worthy of more than just censure let's not allow hyperbole to cloud the conversation. It hurts the arguments supporting the people he is accused of harassing as much as people suffering from a legitimate mental health issue requiring ongoing treatment.

There has been more levied, than just "he groped someone some time," including persistent and pervasive workplace harassment of verbal, physical, visual, and conceptual natures. The person who brought up PTSD, which was a clinical diagnosis, wasn't saying "he grabbed me one time." But, regardless, she doesn't need your approval for a medical condition, that's what doctors are for. Unless you're her doctor, or actually know her case, how are you making a diagnosis sitting on a message board?

[Tayswift]

There has been more levied, than just "he groped someone some time," including persistent and pervasive workplace harassment of verbal, physical, visual, and conceptual natures. The person who brought up PTSD, which was a clinical diagnosis, wasn't saying "he grabbed me one time." But, regardless, she doesn't need your approval for a medical condition, that's what doctors are for. Unless you're her doctor, or actually know her case, how are you making a diagnosis sitting on a message board?

this is one of the reasons victims doesn't come forward, people just make light of their accusations.
other is that they doesn't wantt to get blacklisted, berganza has enough protetion to keep going

[Tayswift]

There have been no new public incidents--and no one has come out and said anything new since he has gone through training.

Unless more people do--this is coming across like a witch hunt.

He did something bad. He paid the price. He shouldn't have to suffer for the rest of his life.

Firings were not related. If you want to fire him because he's a crappy editor (he was definitely responsible for one of my least favorite Titans eras), then that's better justification.

many victim doesn't come forward, so it is hard to know. but dc shields him with only working with male staff

he didn't paid the price, innocent women paid the price.

he should get fired or DC is ok with sexual harassers?

[skyvolt2000]

many victim doesn't come forward, so it is hard to know. but dc shields him with only working with male staff

he didn't paid the price, innocent women paid the price.

he should get fired or DC is ok with sexual harassers?

Is there enough evidence to support the firing? Because if you do fire him-hello lawsuit and the DOOR opens for other DC antics that DC might want to keep private.

Most victims don't speak out because for every 10 that are telling the truth-you got another 10 lying.

Folks who see this stuff don't come forward because of RETALIATION. It's easy for folks to scream you need to talk but do you have a job for me? This is why you have cops & school employees that won't.

[Inhuman X]

There has been more levied, than just "he groped someone some time," including persistent and pervasive workplace harassment of verbal, physical, visual, and conceptual natures. The person who brought up PTSD, which was a clinical diagnosis, wasn't saying "he grabbed me one time." But, regardless, she doesn't need your approval for a medical condition, that's what doctors are for. Unless you're her doctor, or actually know her case, how are you making a diagnosis sitting on a message board?

As of yet, no there has not been more levied against him. We have one person saying my friend X is suffering PTSD because of him without any more information and some have taken to bandying the accusation about too freely and too lightly as a done deal with no supporting facts on tap to substantiate the allegation. It needs to be supported with details or its just hearsay. We don't know that there has been a diagnosis, doctor involved, etc. If so, then there is the basis for criminal suit here and that is a different matter. You don't convict a person on social media allegations no matter how sympathetic you feel toward the accuser and we shouldn't totally lambast some one off nothing more... There is a burden of proof and a responsibility to consider it.

Edit: And please understand. When i caution on the use of the term PTSD. I have a personal stake in this and there is no cure. Forgive me that concern. I want to make sure it is not used as a term flippantly. Mental health is no laughing matter or a thing to throw around casually.

[t hedge coke]

As of yet, no there has not been more levied against him. We have one person saying my friend X is suffering PTSD

We may be talking about separate Berganza-related cases.

And please understand. When i caution on the use of the term PTSD. I have a personal stake in this and there is no cure. Forgive me that concern. I want to make sure it is not used as a term flippantly. Mental health is no laughing matter or a thing to throw around casually.

I understand your concern for accuracy. I appreciate it. But, you're attempting to psychoanalyze and diagnose women via internet summaries. And, also making a huge assumption that they or none of us here have any personal stake or familiarity with PTSD.

I could be presumptuous and cast doubt on your concern or your personal stake in this, via you casually dismissing a diagnosis in people you don't know personally, and suggest you're flippantly invoking it to... et cetera. I would be just as wrong to do so.

I'm more than happy to take on faith that your interest, as it were, in an accurate use and application of the term PTSD and its effects, is a serious and, perhaps, very personal concern. I'm not prepared to dismiss someone else's vested interest on the basis of them being a woman who I read two sentences about on the internet.

[Tayswift]

Is there enough evidence to support the firing? Because if you do fire him-hello lawsuit and the DOOR opens for other DC antics that DC might want to keep private.

Most victims don't speak out because for every 10 that are telling the truth-you got another 10 lying.

Folks who see this stuff don't come forward because of RETALIATION. It's easy for folks to scream you need to talk but do you have a job for me? This is why you have cops & school employees that won't.

His HR is filled with reports,

Janelle Asselin ‏@gimpnelly
Berganza's actions are well documented at DC. They're not going to fire him because suddenly I named Beetlejuice aloud.

dc knows, protected and promoted him.

He has real power, a creator can get easily blacklisted and never work anymore for DC

[Inhuman X]

We may be talking about separate Berganza-related cases.

I understand your concern for accuracy. I appreciate it. But, you're attempting to psychoanalyze and diagnose women via internet summaries. And, also making a huge assumption that they or none of us here have any personal stake or familiarity with PTSD. I could be presumptuous and cast doubt on your concern or your personal stake in this, via you casually dismissing a diagnosis in people you don't know personally, and suggest you're flippantly invoking it to... et cetera. I would be just as wrong to do so. I'm more than happy to take on faith that your interest, as it were, in an accurate use and application of the term PTSD and its effects, is a serious and, perhaps, very personal concern. I'm not prepared to dismiss someone else's vested interest on the basis of them being a woman who I read two sentences about on the internet.

Not true. Look again. I haven't analyzed anyone or disparaged anyone. I wrote nothing about the accuser. My comments were a caution directed at "some of you bandying the term PTSD about in your posts rather loosely and in an encompassing manner you shouldn't almost like a weapon against some one else to twist allegations home harder." Don't. You are so eager to fight that good fight defending, you lost track of whom you're trampling on.

[t hedge coke]

Not true. Look again. I haven't analyzed anyone or disparaged anyone. I wrote nothing about the accuser. My comments were a caution directed at "some of you bandying the term PTSD about in your posts rather loosely and in an encompassing manner you shouldn't almost like a weapon against some one else to twist allegations home harder." Don't. You are so eager to fight that good fight defending, you lost track of whom you're trampling on.

Here's what I responded you:

For the record, I have serious concerns that the term PTSD is being misused here. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a serious mental health issue that results from really bad experiences, things far worse than being groped at the office or on the bus, and to use it to describe any feeling of anxiety, upset, or discomfort is demeaning to people suffering from the actual condition. Unless a co-worker is accusing this fellow of doing something seriously traumatic worthy of more than just censure let's not allow hyperbole to cloud the conversation. It hurts the arguments supporting the people he is accused of harassing as much as people suffering from a legitimate mental health issue requiring ongoing treatment.

Your quote isn't in there, at all. You may have said it somewhere else. It's not in what I was responding to, which directly addresses Berganza and his former coworkers. You introduced the idea that they were not "legitimate," by use of that word, specifically. You chose to dismiss people without any cause or evidence.

But, if you want me to say, "Yes, of course, you're right about all things because you are more knowledgable and have a more personal stake than anyone else possibly can in a case that's not about you at all," fine. Pretend I said that. Just like you're pretending I wrote a response to you saying, "some of you bandying the term PTSD about in your posts rather loosely and in an encompassing manner you shouldn't almost like a weapon against some one else to twist allegations home harder," even though, I didn't. A quote that I can't even find in this thread.

[Inhuman X]

I used the quotes to emphasize the point I was trying to make not highlight what was said before... To explain myself. That's not what I wanted you to write at all. And I am not special. Go ahead and convict him and everyone on accusations then without keeping a grain of salt. Use serious issues as beat sticks for guilt trips. You win. I give.

[t hedge coke]

I used the quotes to emphasize the point I was trying to make not highlight what was said before... To explain myself.

Quotation marks are not for emphasis, though, but for quotation or paraphrase.

I do apologize for misinterpreting your intent there, which isn't nearly as bad if you were just rephrasing. As they say, my bad.

That's not what I wanted you to write at all. And I am not special. Go ahead and convict him and everyone on accusations then without keeping a grain of salt. Use serious issues as beat sticks for guilt trips. You win. I give.

I'm not convicting him of anything, though. Seeing as we're not a court, we can't, anyway. Nor, are we his employer and capable of censuring, demoting, or firing him. I didn't even accuse him of anything. I said there were accusations levied at him.

I appreciate that you want to defend him, a man you seemingly don't know, from accusations by women you don't know, and that to do so you're comfortable suggesting those women are pushing an agenda, lying, or using "legitimate mental health" issues as weapons. But, why? Other than pushing an agenda, yourself, why must no one ever make accusations about this man, unless you feel they are acceptably bad?

Why isn't the matter of the accusations a "serious issue," and how are you the one to judge that?

You may be fighting a good fight, but it clearly isn't with me if you are, because I'm not convicting him of anything. Your zeal to keep him from being "convicted" is misdirected at me and probably most of this thread.

[Ms Lola]

He must be an incredible editor. He must make DC tonnes of cash. Hand over fist, yes? Superman and all titles under his command must be selling like hotcakes. Wow. What a trooper!

[Lairston]

He must be an incredible editor.

when's the final product going to show that?

Its bewildering that such a figure would be kept around when he's a liability waiting to happen and he's driven Superman into the ground twice.

[OBrianTallent]

He must be an incredible editor. He must make DC tonnes of cash. Hand over fist, yes? Superman and all titles under his command must be selling like hotcakes. Wow. What a trooper!

when's the final product going to show that?

Its bewildering that such a figure would be kept around when he's a liability waiting to happen and he's driven Superman into the ground twice.

And again if he is to be fired...this is the reason to remove him from his position not for something that happened years ago and has had zero reported occurances since. It's like throwing you in jail for speeding five years ago when you've already paid the fine.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

If he underwent his corporate-mandated HR "reconditioning" and there have been no new incidents of inappropriate behavior since then, they cannot fire him unless the books he edits start losing money on the same level that Vertigo has been. Otherwise, he could sue Warner Bros. for wrongful termination.

Does this make it a good situation? Nope. Does this mean anybody should be happy that he's still working there? Hell, no. But, that is the reality of working for a major corporation. Doesn't matter how much you complain about it on social media. He will keep his job until they have cause for firing him. If he doesn't give them one, what would you have them do?

Granted, he could certainly be transferred to a less prominent position in the company, but even then could open them up to potential lawsuits if they can't show cause for such an action.