Bully Judge Clueless for Decade?


Update: Judge Fuller declared on June 20, 2011 that he will  retire from the bench, rather than continue working under strict supervision until the mandatory retirement age of 70.  The state Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Judge Fuller had to retire unless he agreed to undergo a six-month suspension followed by strict probation for misconduct that included mistreating lawyers, court personnel and others. Fuller claimed he could not afford the cost of the suspension and probation, which he estimated to be $174,000. He says he will start working as an attorney in July. PGB

April 28, 2011 – The South Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether to return suspended 7th Circuit Judge A.P. “Pete” Fuller to the bench after complaints that amount to bullying.

In a plea to keep his job, Fuller, 68, said “I am ashamed … My conduct and actions have affected people I love and respect.”

According to the Rapid City Journal, Fuller’s tearful demeanor was a sharp contrast to the irreverent, caustic description painted by the findings of Judicial Qualifications Commission that has asked the state’s top court to remove or retire an elected judge for the first time in its 121-year history.

The Journal says that an investigation and transcripts of two closed-door hearings of the commission record the testimony of several people who described Fuller’s behavior as verbally abusive, sometimes profane and often biased, both in formal court setting and at other times.

Court documents state Fuller gave one attorney the ” bird” and publicly referred to juvenile court as “little prick day.”

During the hearings, Fuller acknowledged that some of his conduct was inappropriate but denied other allegations, including his alleged use of profanity in front of clerks of court.

Fuller said he had enrolled in anger-management classes and now understood that others perceived his irritation and annoyance with situations as “anger and rudeness and abrasiveness, and I believe somebody even said bullying.”

“It never dawned on him that he was mistreating people,” said one of two lawyers representing Fuller.

Much of the inappropriate conduct that Fuller is accused of was never dealt with during his 10 years on the bench, and he received no feedback suggesting that his conduct was inappropriate, Fuller’s other lawyer said.

In response, Attorney Michael Schaffer, who represented the commission said:

He got feedback when deputy clerks ran out of the courtroom in tears.”

“This inquiry … comes down to Judge Fuller’s conduct. The conduct of Judge Fuller basically concerns his treatment of people in his court and his treatment of people as a judge,” Schaffer said.

Fuller’s lawyers are attempting to portray the matter as having political undertones, while stressing the importance of an independent judiciary.  Fuller allegedly referred to law enforcement officers as a “bunch of racists” during a juvenile hearing, prompting complaints from law enforcement and prosecutors.

– PGB (barnespatg@gmail.com)

See The Rapid City Journal story: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_d6f3ac0e-71c7-11e0-883c-001cc4c002e0.html.

‘Queen Bee’ Boss is Obstacle to Other Women

What follows are excerpts from a study by psychologists at the University of Cincinnati concluding that female ‘Queen Bee’ bosses tend to be “cogs in the machine” to other women in the workplace.According to the researchers, a female boss is more likely to wreck a woman’s promotion prospects in male-dominated environments and men who report to a female manager get much more mentoring and support than their female colleagues. The researchers say that women who manage to break the glass ceiling may not want competition from other women and/or may want to blend in as much as possible with their male counterparts.  The excerpt is from:  Maume, David J. ,  Meet the new boss…same as the old boss? Female supervisors and subordinate career prospects,  Social Science Research Volume 40, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 287-298.

… Drawing a 2002 national sample of non-managerial workers, men exceeded women in receiving job-related support from female supervisors and were more optimistic about their promotion chances as a result. Although cross-sectional data precludes drawing firm conclusions regarding processes that occur over-time, the results are consistent with the notion that female managers are cogs in the machine, in that female supervisors have little or no effect on the career prospects of female subordinates, and instead foster men’s career prospects.

… when women attain jobs paying wages similar to men’s, informal workplace dynamics are unleashed that seek to restore men’s more privileged position in the workplace. These processes include isolation and exclusion from informal networks and professional growth opportunities ([Purcell, 2007] and [Reskin et al., 1999]), ratcheting up job demands to determine if women will put work ahead of family life as men do ([Fried, 1998] and [Hochschild, 1997]), and harassment of a general and/or sexual nature ([Acker, 1990] and [Roscigno, 2007]). The cumulative effect of these informal processes is that women’s work effectiveness is compromised, increasing the likelihood that they will either quit their jobs or be fired.

Given gendered informal dynamics that are pervasive in the workplace, some contend that female bosses either lack the power to impede organizational preferences to foster men’s careers, or that female bosses agree with negative stereotypes of female workers ([Cooper, 1997] and [Deaux, 1985]; Wajcman, 1998). And of course, female supervisors may themselves be the victims of informal processes to marginalize them and compromise their effectiveness ([Kanter, 1977] and [Fried, 1998]). In either case, when subordinates report to female supervisors, they may not perceive them to be any different from male bosses who give male subordinates more attention and more chances for promotion as way to advance their own careers. If so, female subordinates will be more likely to quit out of frustration or be fired, even though they may hold jobs paying wages similar to men’s. Jacobs (1989) characterized this process as one of “revolving doors,” in which women enter high-paying male-typed jobs only to exit these jobs later. This dynamic could reconcile the apparent inconsistency between studies reporting an association between more female managers and a lower gender wage gap, and this study’s finding that men’s, but not women’s, career prospects are enhanced when reporting a female superior.

… Despite these caveats, this study is the first representative analysis of how subordinate career prospects are affected by directly reporting to a female supervisor. The results are consistent with much research showing that workplaces are pervasively male-oriented in their customs, policies, and structures, and that female bosses are no different from male bosses in reacting to organizational preferences to invest in men’s careers more so than women’s. Additional research is needed on the organizational mechanisms fostering or impeding women’s ascendance to supervisory positions in order to assess progress toward the goal of affording men and women equal opportunity to exercise managerial authority. Yet, irrespective of what future studies of managerial attainment show, those who expect that female bosses will dramatically change the nature of superior-subordinate relations are likely to be disappointed.

NBC Should Fire Donald Trump!

Shows Lousy Leadership Skills

Donald Trump,  real estate mogul and boss of  The Celebrity Apprentice,  hit a new low this week when he fired a target of workplace bullying and retained the bully.

Trump retained Richard Hatch after Hatch, in his capacity of Project Leader, actually physically pushed away  his “employee,” David Cassidy, when Cassidy tried to make suggestions.

Hatch, who won the first Survivor reality TV show, is physically considerably larger than Cassidy, who is a performer and former teen idol. Hatch treated Cassidy like a pesky fly, physically pushing him away a couple of times.  At one point, Cassidy confronted Hatch, complaining that Hatch had physically touched Cassidy twice and telling him to stop.

Notably, Hatch did not physically touch any other team member.

In addition to physical bullying, Hatch repeatedly referred to Cassidy in demeaning terms, at one point calling  Cassidy delicate and one of the “little people.”

Meanwhile, in a behavior that is typical for a workplace bully, Hatch at first denied the abuse, which was caught on film, and then minimized the abuse.

Unfortunately, the scenario is all too typical.

In a 2008  poll by the Workplace Bullying Institute, 53 percent of targets of workplace bullying said they reported the abuse to their employer, and their employer substantially did nothing; 71 percent said the employer retaliated against them!

Cassidy and other team members reported the bullying to Donald Trump  but, sadly, Trump’s response was essentially to criticize Cassidy for failing to be more assertive.  Trump said  his gut  (which he said is always right)  told him to fire Cassidy and not Hatch. However, cynics might infer that Trump’s gut told him the villainous Hatch is better for ratings.

This is an appalling example of poor leadership for any boss but especially one who is making noises about running for the Republican nomination for U.S. President.  (I’m referring to Trump)

In addition to Cassidy, Trump  failed Cassidy’s team-mates. Witnesses of bullying often fear that they may be next, and experience guilt that they didn’t intervene on behalf of the bullied.  Several of Cassidy’s teammates watched in silence while Hatch physically dominated Cassidy.

Hatch, by the way, spent three years in prison for failing to pay taxes on his winnings from Survivor and subsequent earnings. (A federal judge ordered Hatch back to prison on 3/11/11 for nine months because he still hasn’t settled up with the IRS.) Fellow Survivor cast member Sue Hawk threatened to file a lawsuit after Hatch, while nude, brushed up against her during a Survivor challenge.

Hatch calls himself a corporate trainer.

God help us!

By the way, for all you employers out there who think the workplace should be a battleground, here’s an overview and definition of the tort of battery.

Battery occurs when the defendant’s acts intentionally cause harmful or offensive contact with the victim’s person. [See Restatement §§ 13, 16, 18.] While battery requires intent, the prevailing tort definition does not require an intent to harm. It is only necessary that the defendant intend to cause either harmful or offensive contact.  [From: J. Diamond, et. al, Understanding Torts (Lexis-Nexis, 2010)].


Employer Picks Up the Tab?

Here’s a 2/15/11 article in The New York Post about an alleged bully boss.  Whether or not Mr. Dingle prevails,  this story should give employers pause to think about the high cost to THEM of alleged bullying – higher health costs, sick leave, complaints to human resources that tie up personnel, lost work hours, poor morale, bad publicity that may discourage quality job applicants and taint the organization, turnover, and, of course, costly litigation.  As a lawyer and consultant with experience in employment law and domestic violence, I have done substantial research in this area and believe that training, monitoring and early intervention could resolve many of these problems before they reach the critical stage.  PGB

‘My boss’ voice made me vomit’


The mere sound of his boss’ voice made his stomach turn.

Housing Authority Superintendent Anthony Dingle was so sickened by higher-up Demetrice Gadson’s constant berating that he would literally vomit, according to a lawsuit.

“I was constantly being attacked by her. I felt like attacks could come at any time. Every time I heard her voice, it triggered a sickening feeling in me,” Dingle said through his lawyers, Michael Borrelli and Alexander Coleman.

Dingle, 48, claims that his boss became verbally abusive after he blew the whistle on her for alleged shenanigans.

He says he was forced to go to a doctor because of the abuse to get “prescribed medication to calm his stomach and to get his intestinal system properly functioning,” the Manhattan Supreme Court suit charges.

A colleague even told him that Gadson relished in his suffering, the suit alleges, saying, “I did not know that I made men throw up” — and then laughed hysterically.

Gadson, 43, who is deputy director of the Housing Authority’s Manhattan Management unit, was so heartless that she even chastised Dingle as he grieved for his dead uncle, the suit says.

While Dingle was attending his uncle’s funeral in South Carolina, Gadson allegedly fired off e-mails to him that ripped him for not requesting overtime to address certain issues and accusing him of “not knowing his role.”

“She showed me a complete lack of respect,” Dingle said through his lawyers.

Dingle’s health continued to deteriorate, the suit says, and he suffered from a bleeding prostate that was treated by a urologist.

He was so beaten down emotionally that he sought out a shrink.

“Mr. Dingle began seeing a psychological therapist, and he continues, to date, to see this therapist on a weekly basis,” the suit charges.

The suit, filed late last year against the Housing Authority and Gadson, alleges the boss began verbally bashing Dingle after he complained about her to higher ups while he was superintendent at the Polo Grounds Towers in Harlem.

It follows a federal suit filed by Dingle against both last year. In that suit, the judge dismissed the case against the Housing Authority while the claims against Gadson remain pending. The Housing Authority declined to comment.

Reached by telephone, Gadson declined to comment.

Workplace Anti-Bullying Laws Inevitable …

Here are excerpts from a Jan. 21, 2011 article in The New York Law Journal by two attorneys at a major law firm that represents management and employers, warning that it is just a question of time before a state passes a law providing a right of civil redress to workers who are victims of workplace bullying. Note: this article presents a somewhat alarmist view of what the authors concede is the inevitable passage of legislation to combat workplace abuse. The authors trivialize the current problem, focusing on co-worker spats and hypersensitive employees while ignoring the devastating impact of workplace bullying on targets, their families and the employers.  The authors’ interpretation of case law is unduly negative and slanted.  And the authors fail to present an accurate picture of the current costs of  workplace abuse  on employers and society– PGB

Office Bully Takes One on the Nose: Developing Law on Workplace Abuse

by Jason Habinsky and Christine M. Fitzgerald

For years the law has been stacked against an employee claiming that he or she was abused or bullied by a co-worker. Generally, the law offers no protection to such a victim as long as the alleged bully can show that his or her actions were not motivated by the victim’s status as a member of a protected class. Currently, there are no federal, state or local laws providing a cause of action for an individual subject to a non-discriminatory abusive work environment. However, with bullying becoming front-page news across the nation, it is just a matter of time before the law adapts. Since 2003, 17 states have considered legislation designed to protect employees from workplace bullying. Indeed, this year New York came very close to a floor vote on a bill that would provide a cause of action to an employee subjected to an abusive work environment.

Proponents of anti-bullying legislation contend that it is necessary given the prevalence of abusive conduct in the workplace. The proposed New York legislation noted that “between sixteen and twenty-one percent of employees directly experience health endangering workplace bullying, abuse and harassment” and that “[s]uch behavior is four times more prevalent than sexual harassment.”

Currently, employers have little to worry about with respect to facing substantial liability as a result of workplace bullying. The existing legal framework provides very limited recourse to an employee who is bullied at work. While some types of harassment are outlawed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII’s reach is narrow. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on an individual’s race, sex, color, religion, or national origin.

Likewise, the extreme behavior that gives rise to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress does not encompass most workplace bullying.

Employees also have been unsuccessful in trying to fit their workplace bullying claims into a cause of action for constructive discharge.

Therefore, it appears that we may be on the cusp of a new era of legislation and legal precedent targeted at preventing and punishing workplace bullying. Indeed, it seems inevitable that some form of the HWB (Healthy Workplace Bill) will become law, whether in New York or elsewhere, and that once the first state adopts an anti-bullying statute others will shortly follow.

Dealing with High Conflict People

Bill Eddy, on his informative blog, Mediate.com, which is geared toward professional mediators, says High Conflict People (HCP) often act as a result of a life-long mistaken assessment of danger.  He gives the following sage advice for dealing with HCP:

1) Reduce their Mistaken Assessment of Danger:  Try not to be emotionally threatening.  Make an effort to reduce those fears by the way you interact with the person.

  • With a Borderline HCP, try to maintain a moderate, even-tempered manner that’s not too close and not too rejecting (avoid abandonment).
  • With a Narcissistic HCP, try to avoid insults and instead find things you can respect about the person (avoid treating them as inferior).
  • With an Antisocial HCP, be cautious about believing their many stories of being victimized by others, but avoid trying to dominate them in verbal interactions.
  • With Histrionic HCPs, try to pay brief attention to their dramatic stories, and then gently focus on a task or a topic you can be interested in, and then end the conversation by explaining you have to leave (rather than seeming to belittle them).
  • With Paranoid HCPs, don’t try to convince them of your trustworthiness – just be matter-of-fact and focus on what the rules are and why you have to follow them (avoid seeming suspicious of the person and avoid focusing on their fears).

2) Set Limits on Behavior that’s Aggressively Defensive:

Of course, bad behavior needs to be stopped. But the most effective way to do this is to show empathy and concern for the person … AND explain the rules or reasons the specific behavior needs to be stopped (try not to make it personal) AND what the consequences are if it continues. You can express regret that you have to address this behavior, but at the same time explain how you want to help the person and how other behaviors will be more effective at getting them what they want.

The key here is that you want to help the person accomplish the goal (being respected, not being ignored, etc.) that was underlying the bad behavior. You want to help them address the underlying concern. For example, if an employee sent out a nasty email to others in the department, you discuss the consequence for doing that. But also discuss what the employee was trying to accomplish and a better way to do that. It may be that the employee felt disrespected and therefore reacted with disrespect for others. You can explain that a better way would be to simply point out available ways to be treated with respect that don’t involved treating others with disrespect.

3) Avoid Giving Negative Feedback:

It is automatic for us to respond with negative feedback to bad behavior. With the ordinary co-worker, neighbor, or family member, negative feedback may be helpful or at least neutral. However, with HCPs, negative feedback is taken extremely personally and feeds their Mistaken Assessment of Danger – which triggers their bad behavior in an effort to defend themselves against the “danger” – which is more about personality-based fears than it is about anything in the present. Of course, you can’t point this out to the person or you will get even more bad behavior in their defensive response. Instead, focus on reducing emotional threats and on matter-of-factly setting limits on the behavior. Regardless of how severe the consequences may be for the “bad” behavior, communicate that you want to help the person. If you can demonstrate a desire to help through your own attitude and behavior, it often makes a huge, positive difference to an HCP.

(November 2010)

Manitoba, Canada, Protects Against Workplace Harassment

Taken from 10/21/10 article in  Winnipeg Free Press, Manitoba, Canada:

The province of Manitoba, Canada, has joined several other Canadian provinces to adopt  new measures to protect against psychological harassment in the workplace, labour and immigration minister Jennifer Howard announced.

Changes to the Workplace, Safety and Health Regulation will add new requirements to protect workers from all forms of harassment, including intimidation, bullying and humiliation.

“Manitoba now joins other provinces such as Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec in requiring employers to provide protection from such harassment,” Howard said in a provincial government release. “This builds on other measures that protect workers from harassment based on age, race or gender and ensure that workplaces are respectful and safe for everyone.”

Employers will be required to put in place measures to prevent such harassment and address it if it occurs. The province will help develop and implement policies and educate workers and employers about their responsibilities to ensure a respectful and healthy workplace.

A press release detailing Howard’s announcement notes that normal and reasonable management actions, including discipline, are not defined as psychological harassment.

Howard also announced technical changes to workplace safety regulations in response to a recommendation made following the inquest into the 2000 death of a worker in a furnace explosion at Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting in Flin Flon.

Amendments will provide clear direction to employers and workers regarding the steps necessary to eliminate workplace hazards, strengthen requirements for use of personal safety equipment and reflect updated safety standards.

Impact of Job Stress on Health

 There is  OVERWHELMING research that workplace bullying can be devastating to one’s health, both emotional and physical. PGB

Job Stress and Health

Excerpt from a publication of the Center for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace:

Stress sets off an alarm in the brain, which responds by preparing the body for defensive action. The nervous system is aroused and hormones are released to sharpen the senses, quicken the pulse, deepen respiration, and tense the muscles. This response (sometimes called the fight or flight response) is important because it helps us defend against threatening situations. The response is preprogrammed biologically. Everyone responds in much the same way, regardless of whether the stressful situation is at work or home.

Short-lived or infrequent episodes of stress pose little risk. But when stressful situations go unresolved, the body is kept in a constant state of activation, which increases the rate of wear and tear to biological systems. Ultimately, fatigue or damage results, and the ability of the body to repair and defend itself can become seriously compromised. As a result, the risk of injury or disease escalates.

In the past 20 years, many studies have looked at the relationship between job stress and a variety of ailments. Mood and sleep disturbances, upset stomach and headache, and disturbed relationships with family and friends are examples of stress-related problems that are quick to develop and are commonly seen in these studies. These early signs of job stress are usually easy to recognize. But the effects of job stress on chronic diseases are more difficult to see because chronic diseases take a long time to develop and can be influenced by many factors other than stress. Nonetheless, evidence is rapidly accumulating to suggest that stress plays an important role in several types of chronic health problems-especially cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal disorders, and psychological disorders.

Health care expenditures are nearly 50% greater for workers who report high levels of stress.

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine


How does job stress contribute to cardiovascular disease, and what can be done to intervene?


Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of death in the United States.

Considerable evidence has demonstrated that occupational stress contributes to CVD morbidity and mortality. It is estimated that up to 23 percent of heart disease related deaths per year could be prevented if the levels of job strain in the most stressful occupations were reduced to average levels seen in other occupations …

Job stress results from the interaction of the worker and the working conditions. Specific workplace features of concern include highly repetitive, monotonous tasks, excessive job demands and time pressure, racial or sexual discrimination; management style, interpersonal relationships, work roles, job insecurity, and environmental exposures such as constant background noise, or heat. One very widely used definition of stressful work is the combination of high demands with little or no leeway for decision-making about the job (also referred to as “high demand/low control” or “job strain”). A high demand with insufficient rewards (known as
“effort/reward imbalance”) has also been highlighted as problematic.

Evidence supporting the multiple mechanisms by which job stress contributes to cardiovascular diseases (and other chronic health conditions) comes from a vast body of international scientific literature that includes epidemiologic studies, patho-physiological studies of animals and humans, and behavioral studies. Stressful conditions on the job can result in at least three main mechanisms or pathways:

1. Changes in physiological processes that increase the risk for CVD—high cholesterol, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, weakened immune response, high cortisol, and changes in appetite and digestive patterns.

2. Changes in behavior that increase the risk for CVD—low physical activity levels, excessive coffee consumption, smoking, poor dietary habits.

3. Development of mental health conditions (anxiety and depression) that independently increases the risk for a range of chronic health conditions, including CVD (obesity, stroke, atherosclerosis, arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, etc.).

… evidence from intervention research shows clear benefits for a “systems” approach that emphasizes primary prevention, and that combines approaches for improving working conditions with approaches for managing occupational stress-related illnesses.  Examples of primary prevention approaches include clarifying worker roles, increasing worker decision making opportunities, improving worker management communication, ensuring a respectful work environment, and increasing social interaction between workers. Examples of managing occupational stress-related illness include training on stress management techniques, providing space for exercise and medication, and providing access to employee assistance programs …

Authors: Suzanne Nobrega, M.S., and Manuel Cifuentes, M.D, Sc.D., University of MA Lowell



In a groundbreaking 2008 study, Swedish researchers, led by Anna Nyberg at the Stress Institute in Stockholm, studied more than 3,100 men over a 10 year period in typical work settings. The researchers reported in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine that employees who had managers who were incompetent, inconsiderate, secretive and uncommunicative were 60 percent more likely to suffered a heart attack or other life-threatening cardiac condition. Employees who worked with “good” leaders were 40 percent less likely to suffer heart problems.

Women Too Nice to Get Corner Office?

Or maybe we should examine the workplace and ask ourselves why it’s detrimental to one’s career to show respect, fair play and teamsmanship? PGB

Exhibit A: Women told not to be too nice

The Wall Street Journal writes about advice that Citigroup provided to women who wanted to succeed in their careers.  Laminated cards, distributed to some female Citigroup employees,  list some things women do to sabotage their careers.  According to the cards, women tend to:

1. Speak too softly and aren’t heard

2. Groom in public, which “deemphasizes…capability.”

3. Sit too demurely, rather than leaning forward at the table in meetings.

4. Speak last in meetings. Early speakers are seen as more assertive and authoritative.

5. Ask permission, while men inform.

6.  Apologize too much for every little thing.

7.  Smile too often, which can dilute a message.

8. Play too fair.

9. Operate behind the scenes, which enables competitors to take credit for one’s work.

10. Offer a limp handshake.

The WSJ took the position that took “the view that these suggestions were helpful ways for women to do well in finance. ”

The list emanated from a book, “Nice Girls Don’t Get the Corner Office: 101 Mistakes Women Make That Sabotage Their Careers,”  by Dr. Lois P. Frankel.

The WSJ quotes her stating the list was taken out of context BUT:

“The women who say they don’t have to do these things are naïve,” Frankel said. “There are different rules for men and women in the workplace. To be successful, you have to figure out the boundaries on the playing field and figure out where to play your game on the edge. All games are won at the edge.”

Exec’s Advice for Dealing with Bully Boss

This is part of a larger interview dated  July 17, 2010 on the New York Times web site with Dawn Lepore, chairwoman and chief executive of Drugstore.com and director of eBay and The New York Times Company. In this excerpt she discusses her experience working for a bully boss.

Q. Any bosses you had who were big influences?

A. I had a very bad boss early in my career. She was older than I was. She’d started in the financial services industry and she’d had a very hard time, so I think that probably shaped her as a leader. She was very smart but had terrible communication skills. She did not make people feel valued or comfortable or like they were supported at all. And I remember what that felt like. And I thought, I’m never going to do that to people.

Q. How long did you work for her?

A. Many years. I almost left twice.

Q. What’s your advice to people stuck working for a bad boss?

A. Life is about trade-offs. And you have to be conscious of the trade-off you’re making. I felt there were enough other positives in the environment and enough opportunity that I stuck it out. But, you know, I was unhappy. I had to kind of just take a deep breath and say, O.K., I know this is going to end and I’m willing to put up with this.

But you can’t be a victim. If you let yourself become a victim, that’s the kiss of death. So you’ve got to feel, O.K., I am choosing to do this, and when I decide I can no longer do it, then I will take action. So I will not let myself be so belittled that I think I can’t do anything. If it starts undermining your confidence, then you have to leave, because then that seeps into everything you do.