Posted on 10/31/2011 9:00:24 AM PDT by martosko
During Monday’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “Happening Now,” the suddenly embattled former Godfather’s Pizza CEO and Republican presidential front-runner Herman Cain offered a stern denial of allegations, raised in a Sunday Politico story, that he had sexually harassed two women in the late 1990s when he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association.
“I’ve never sexually harassed anyone, and yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association,” Cain said. “And I say falsely because it turned out after the investigation to be baseless. The people mentioned in that article were the ones who would be aware of any misdoings, and they have attested to my integrity and my character. It is totally baseless, and totally false, never have I committed any sort of sexual harassment.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thedc.com ...
It’s one thing to say that Cain didn’t write the check himself, but to claim that he was completely unaware that a check was being written, even by an insurance company? When the allegations involved him?
Makes perfect sense if you consider it from the angle that they are projecting their very thoughts and actions, figuring that no doubt Cain thinks the same way they do, and would do what they do given similar opportunities or exposures.
Nope. Sometimes there is a case, but if the settlement demanded is less than the cost of dealing with the case, there are typically non-disclosure terms set, and the settlement is made with the stipulation that it is NOT and admission of wrongdoing.
It is cheaper, faster, and ties up far fewer resources than a court case where neither outcome nor settlement amount are a given, and often appeals will drag things out and make them more expensive unless the case is dismissed "with prejudice".
When the vacuous standards are taken into account, it is very easy to step on someone's toes or get entangled in the briar patch of regulation fraught with pitfalls which are legally present but make no sense.
For instance, an acquaintance was sued under the ADA for allegedly firing an employee because they had a 'disability'. The disability? Methamphetamine addiction (declared a 'disability' after the employee was fired for related job performance problems).
He ended up settling, after spending enough money in legal fees that the combination cost him his business.
And they wonder why there aren't more job openings out there...
>>So why was the accuser paid off?
Because is was probably cheaper for the company than going to court.<<
And, don’t forget, one person’s innocent behavior is often construed by another as something less than innocent. The most innocuous compliments can be taken wrong by some people.
My point is that these women might have been able to make enough of a case that they “felt” sexually harassed to convince a jury. I could see where settlement is far preferable to the risk in such a situation. And according to some of the comments by both the falsely accused, and by lawyers involved in such cases, that have been posted here and elsewhere, this sort of accusation is trumped up a lot nowadays, and companies willingly pay to get the issues resolved.
The Politico article made generous use of some pretty sketchy accusations, for sure. The term “sexual harassment” just covers too broad a range of accusations today to be taken seriously without actual facts in evidence.
>>In the courts, such an act, [a settlement] is considered admission to guilt.<<
That’s bull. Companies settle all the time on issues like this, and every settlement contains a statement that making the payment is not an admission of wrongdoing.
>>It is most likely it was not the company that handled the payout. In cases like this it is the company’s insurance that handles these matters. It could be viewed as improper by share holders or the board of directors for a CEO to be involved in a settlement where he is the accused.<<
Good point. An accusation like that would have been turned over to the lawyers, and they probably had insurance to cover false claims (though insurance wouldn’t cover payments to cover up for criminal behavior), so it’s possible that the matter was handled primarily outside the company. Much as I hate to admit it, that ruse works, when it is a ruse, and it’s sometimes more accurate when it’s not a ruse.
It’s still hard to believe that Cain knew nothing of the settlements, however, unless (and this is possible) they were such minor attempts at gold-digging that they were just treated routinely by Human Resources, referred to attorneys, insurance company, paid and forgotten about.
All that is just speculation, however. And 20 years is a long time. Most of us have forgotten even fairly significant events in our lives that happened over 20 years ago, and this might not even have been a significant event from Cain’s perspective, so I guess I’d cut him some slack on saying he didn’t know about them.
Tip to Cain: It might be better if you took a page from the Clinton’s playbook (even if you actually don’t remember) and start saying “I have no recollection....” instead of saying you never knew.
Place your need to protect Cain aside for the moment. It's all about the unofficial Public opinion court where the real issue and battle was intended to take place in the first place.
You can spin all day about this being an inert case. But wait and see what happens in the polls in the coming weeks. There is where the case will be heard to the fullest extent. Much like what happened in 2006, and the Democrats launched several “Conservative candidate corruption” cases, very much similar to this one. Neither case had much to lead on, other than the fact that the Public tried the cases in to court of public opinion.
Guess what, the outcome was far from insignificant. In fact, we still have not yet recovered from the resulting Democrat landslide at the polls. This is the same intention, looking for a similar outcome.
LOL!!!
That,s very, very naïve. Sorry but I’ve seen this movie a dozen times and I can tell you, it won,t end well. Dollars to donuts this story is being fed to Politico by Mitt... A drop at a time.
I will restate for the THIRD time today.
At that time it was very common practice for companies to simply do an internal investigation. If the accused was guilty they were dismissed aka...FIRED.
If the allegations were false it was common for women to try and push the issue. Companies commonly paid these women and they would leave the company with some nominal amount of pocket change.
Companies do this to do very day to deal with nuisance employees in cases ranging from discrimination to harassment. It is cheaper than full blown litigation over a he said,she said issue. Note it is the COMPANY that paid, not Cain. Settlements of this nature are often closed and neither party is free to discuss it. Odds are very high Cain has no idea if the women were paid or how much they received. That agreement would be between the women and the COMPANY.
Riiiiiiiiight
Riiiiiiiiight.
I am an executive in a cery large multi national corporation and we do NOT no have we ever handled harassment. Cases in the manner you suggest. That is a myth.
And I’m Santa Claus...
The LA times is a good source as any I suppose.
seriously, your well thought out hit, er, reasoning comes to just about here on me (holding my hand up, flat, palm down at my chin.)
Typed that response on my phone in the airport in Miami. I am an executive officer in my company but I doubt that you’re Santa Claus. I’ve actually been tapped once or twice to investigate allegations of sexual harassment. I know very well what I’m speaking about. Cain’s story does not wash. Plain and simple.
The last investigation I was involved with was back in 2002. It involved male to male hostile work environment and the company ended up going through the EEOC and finally settled for pay-off. Even the EEOC officer admitted the guy wasn't going to drop the case, even after testimony showed the allegations to be false. His next step was to take the company to court.
Many companies handle matters like this in this manner. You can doubt what I say all you want, but at the time of these allegations against Cain this was a very common practice. No company at that time was going to let such allegations escalate. You have to ask yourself with the prevalence of sexual harassment at the time, why didn't we see tons of cases in the courts?
No company is going to spend thousands of dollars and months or years in courts defending a sexual harassment claim. It is not economically responsible.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Claims of sexual harassment like those swirling around Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain are often settled quietly by U.S. companies and organizations, regardless of whether the accusations are true, employment lawyers said. http://news.yahoo.com/settlements-common-harassment-cases-cains-221654717.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.