Robert Scoble: I didn’t sexually harass women, as I lacked power over them

In a Wednesday blog post, Robert Scoble, the Silicon Valley pundit who was recently publicly accused of sexual assault and harassment, now claims that he didn’t sexually harass anyone because they were never his employees.

“I don’t have employees, I don’t cut checks for investment,” he wrote. “None of the women who came forward were ever in a position where I could make or break their careers. Sexual Harassment requires that I have such power.”

When Ars asked Scoble how he came to his understanding of what did and did not constitute sexual harassment, he did not directly respond but wrote in an e-mail that “the legal definition of sexual harassment has to do with the power position of the two people.”

However, the federal legal definition of sexual harassment does not always turn on whether the accused is the employer or even a workplace superior, according to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following,” the EEOC notes on its website: “The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.”

In addition, sexual harassment as defined under California law is construed more broadly than under federal law.

“I am deeply apologetic that I have wronged my wife,” Scoble continued in the blog post. “I apologize to women in general that I could have been a better man and husband. Every act of infidelity, every time I have watched an adult video online, every time I have made an inappropriate joke, or laughed at one, I have wronged women.”

“Just wrong”

However, law experts that Ars contacted largely say that Scoble is mistaken.

Joanna Grossman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who has written extensively on this issue, told Ars that Scoble’s understanding of the law is “just wrong… Power in general isn’t what matters,” she said. “There is no requirement that the harasser have power or any specific relationship with the person.”

Another law professor, Susan Carle, of American University, told Ars that Scoble’s claims are only correct in a very narrow sense—Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a federal law that specifically deals with an employee-employer relationship.

“When he says if these people aren’t employees then sexual harassment law doesn’t apply. [It’s] true only in the sense that Title VII doesn’t apply,” she told Ars. “But that doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be a legal cause of action against him for sexual harassment, but it just wouldn’t be under Title VII, it would be under a tort lawsuit.”

Another attorney, Ann Fromholz, said that Scoble’s definition as to what legally constitutes sexual harassment “is probably correct.” But she pointed out that the legal and common definition of “sexual harassment” aren’t precisely the same thing.

“What he is saying is that my conduct was not unlawful,” she told Ars. “Could it be characterized in common English as sexual harassment? Probably. He’s saying it’s not unlawful sexual harassment, which is made unlawful by laws covering the employment relationship. He’s being very specific in denying his culpability. I can only guess as to why he’s being so specific.”

Further, Jennifer Drobac, a law professor at Indiana University who wrote a book on the subject, told Ars that Scoble’s claims are “patently false,” and Scoble’s employers may also be held liable.

“If a company knows that Scoble is doing this and they do not correct his behavior to create a safe and hospitable work environment for women, they are liable even if the people they are harassing are clients or professional associates or people on the street,” she told Ars. “If he’s doing it on company time on corporate business locales, the company may be held liable under California law and possibly under federal law.”

In addition, Scoble directly denied the characterization of his longtime former co-author and business partner, Shel Israel. “I decided I didn’t want to work with anyone who wouldn’t stand by me,” Scoble wrote. “I did not express that the allegations against me were ‘Mostly True’ and I did not express that I would be taking off the rest of the year.”

In his blog post, Scoble also wrote that he was “working to launch a new business,” and provided a link to it.

He said, they said

The slew of allegations began on October 19, when Quinn Norton, a San Francisco-based journalist, described an incident with Scoble at a tech conference, known as Foo Camp, from the “early 2010s.” Her Medium post, which described an inebriated Scoble as “making out” with a woman, “who was drunkenly disoriented that she didn’t seem to understand what was happening, and the guy kept pouring drinks for her. It was quite possibly headed towards rape.”

Shortly thereafter, when Norton was introduced to Scoble, she claimed that he suddenly grabbed her breast without her consent, and Norton “used a palm strike to the base of his chin to knock him back.”

On Wednesday, Scoble initially did not respond to Ars’ question as to whether he groped her, but he denied her claim that she hit him.

“I don’t recall her hitting me,” he e-mailed Ars. “I can’t find anyone who recalls her hitting me, and I have asked. I spoke the next day at the conference and if I had been hit in the face hard enough to be staggered I would likely have been called out on it when I was attending the next day. I was attempting to point out that her account in her own words would be laughable if it were not so serious.”

After reading Scoble’s post, Norton at first told Ars she would not directly respond to Scoble’s claims.

“I feel no more need to correct that than I feel a need to correct Flat Earthers and Obama birthers,” she wrote. “It’s so self-evidently wrong it doesn’t require that I take time out of my schedule to deal with it.”

Ars followed up again with Scoble, asking whether he had groped Norton, and he responded that he “didn’t recall ever meeting Norton.”