[PSYCHO-FREEP]

In the courts, such an act, is considered admission to guilt. Mainly because, if the accusation were false, the accuser would have had no case to present and the case would have been dropped right then and there at no cost to the defendant.

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.

[Prokopton]

In the courts, such an act, is considered admission to guilt.

No it's not. In fact, there usually is a statement, included in the "agreement", that it is not an admission of guilt.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

In the courts, such an act, is considered admission to guilt.

So, settling out of court is considered admitting guilt 'in the courts', eh?

It is highly amusing to watch what you Perry freaks have become. In your case, it is particularly enjoyable.

[going hot]

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.

Sounds convincing. No doubt you were there, second row, center, witnessing the whole drama as it unfolded.

So, what was the nature of the actual alleged harassment?

Do all complaints that the courts consider have actual merit, prior to consideration?

They settled out of court precisely because the case had merit, and the plaintiff accepted the chump change settlement, because the case had merit? Why would the plaintiff advance an allegation which had such merit as to be considered by the court, and then actually shown to have merit, settle out of court?

Maybe the court is lying, and the plaintiff actually received much more?

Questions, questions...

[numberonepal]

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.

I'm guessing it was all handled by insurance company..

[Smokin' Joe]

In the courts, such an act, is considered admission to guilt. Mainly because, if the accusation were false, the accuser would have had no case to present and the case would have been dropped right then and there at no cost to the defendant.

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...

[Norseman]

>>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.