One of the best things about Free Republic is that, no matter the subject, there's always somebody on here who knows a lot about a subject. I learn things. On the other hand, sometimes when I know just a little about a subject, I am surprised when something is stated as fact and is continually repeated as a mantra, chanted over and over again from post to post until it achieves a life of its own.
We don't know if the payments to these women were severance or settlements. However, what they were called is often irrelevant. A settlement agreement will often state that the payment is severance so that the party that pays can state, honestly, that it never paid a settlement. The party who receives the money doesn't care what it's called. If these women received a payment based on a sexual harassment claim made to the company and never filed with the EEOC, it very likely could have been called "severance" and not a settlement payment.
Second, Free Republic has been buzzing with people saying that $35K, $45K, and eve $85K 'proves' that any claims were baseless and settled as nuisance claims. I support Herman Cain. I hope that any claims made, if claims were made, were baseless.
Cain was President of the National Restaurant Association from 1996 to 1999, so I've been looking for any reference to the average settlement of a sexual harassment claim during that period.
The best I can come up with is this reference tothe 1998 book, Sexual Harassment Claims Step-by-Step, by Dale Callendar. According to this reference, in a section called "Settlements: Why Should I Settle?", this book, written during the time period of the claims against Cain, states:
"[T]he EEOC recently settled the class action sexual harassment claim of seventeen women, who together were awarded $1.3 million. A brokerage firm settled the sexual harassment claims of six women for $750,000. The Army settled a civilian's harassment claim for $60,000. But the average settlement is actually much smaller. One study found that the average settlement in a discrimination case is $38,500."
If (a) some claims were receiving over $100,000, and (b) the average claim was $38,500, then a lot of claims were being settled for under $38,500. Suddenly, if the three claims against Cain were settled for $35K, $45K, and $85K, they don't seem so small (and yes, I realize that the average included nuisance claims - but that's what we/I want to believe the charges against Cain were). The settlements - if the figures quoted have been correct - are around or above the average. If Cain's transgression was supposed to have been merely to indicate the height of his wife, and other sexual harassment claims include quid-pro-quo sexual favors, or groping cases . . . I start to get uncomfortable when Cain's cases are being settled at and above the average settlement amount.
The book also states: "It can be difficult to prove a sexual harassment case. The EEOC made "no reasonable cause" findings in almost 40 percent of the cases that it decided." The NRA may not have wanted the embarassment, but if 40% of EEOC claims result in "no reasonable cause" even in the heyday of sexual harassment claims . . . I start to feel uncomfortable about whether all Cain did three times was to indicate the height of his wife. A "this high" hand signal should have had a much better than 40% chance of being ruled "no reasonable cause," and any settlement for something that inoffensive should have fallen far below the average settlement of $38,500.
I'm still a Cain supporter. But I'm not announcing to the world that he's innocent of all possible charges. Because I don't know enough yet, and the tiny bits of information that are being presented as facts don't smell good.
Only one woman received any kind of settlement. The other got nothing, and the third anonymous accuser never formally lodged any complaint.