Other than a prolonged fascination with horses and pappy-signs-my-paycheck neuroses, we've always thought that Georgina and Emma Bloomberg were fairly well-adjusted. But we're starting to wonder how many sessions they've burned up with their therapists on Daddy Bloombucks' lady-hating ways. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced yesterday it will sue Bloomberg, L.P., the mayor's giant media and finance company, for demoting and cutting the pay of women at the company who took federally-protected maternity leave. Bloomberg distinguished himself yesterday (with some serious irritation!) from his eponymous company, telling reporters, "You'll have to talk to Bloomberg L.P. I haven't worked there, as you know, in an awful long time." But an overlooked 2001 story in the Village Voice contains pretty amazing excerpts from Bloomberg's 1998 deposition in a sexual harassment lawsuit; it was alleged that one of his executives had raped an employee.
Lawyer: What would constitute satisfactory proof to you that the allegation was genuine? Bloomie: I guess an unimpeachable third-party witness.Sheesh.
Lawyer: Do you think that's possible in most instances of date rape?
Bloomie: I don't know whether this was date rape.
Lawyer: Describe for me your conception of how there could be a third-party witness to confirm or deny the truthfulness of her allegations.
Bloomie: There are times when three people are together.
Lawyer: Other than those circumstances when a woman claiming rape was in the presence of more than one man, what other?
Bloomie: Why does it have to be a man?