Because is was probably cheaper for the company than going to court.
Fair enough, but then there's Cain's assertion that, if there was a payoff, he was unaware of it. For the CEO of the organization to claim that he was unaware of the resolution of a complaint involving himself, involving money paid out, is far harder to believe than the original allegations.
In this case, there actually was a complaint that had merit for consideration by the courts, which is why they settled out of court, to keep it from escalating into a much higher settlement.
Herman can't deny it didn't happen.
The problem is we can't get much more information because of some kind of gag order after the pay-off.
>>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.