Posted on 10/03/2009 7:53:29 AM PDT by MindBender26
There is panic at Black Rock
Last evening, at an executive-level party attended by some of the Senior Suits from CBS, (and others,) Letterman was the ONLY topic of conversation. There was clearly panic in the air. And old friend/fiend who was there said it was more delicious than the cold Hors’ Dourves and watered down Scotch.
There was no concern for the moral implications of Letterman’s actions, of course. The big worry was about the huge cost of litigation from all the victims of Letterman’s slippery zipper.
When the news of the trouble was first announced, there was about an hour of relief that “Dave” had dodged the bullet and the show/network was safe.
Then the calls from the lawyers started. It didn’t matter whether they were from CBS outside counsel or the victims lawyers; the message was all the same. “It’s goona cost big time.” In Letterman’s pathetic attempt at humor, he had proven all the potential plaintiff’s cases, and turned millions of potential jurors against him.
At first CBS itself thought they were protected by two elements. His staff may actually work for World Wide Pants, Inc, Letterman’s separate, private production company. Sorry, but that will only slow the lawyers down for about 30 minutes. CBS provided the working environment, venue, etc.
CBS IS on the hook for any damages.
Secondly, many liability policies specifically exclude or limit coverage for sexual harassment. No one was willing to talk about that end of it…. but those that knew were not happy.
Bottom line, when all said and done, depending on how many women (and possible men) were involved/victims, CBS will probably write checks in the $100,000,000 range. They cannot afford to let this go to public trial... and therefore any settlement will be for "telephone numbers... with area codes!"
Serves them right!
And Sarah Palin’s book is doing so very well everywhere…..
Don't forget Katie Colic's high ratings will offset this
Oh wait, they are in the basement.
Never mind....
In his testimony to the grand jury, Letterman said, “I had to tell them all of the creepy things that I had done ... The creepy stuff was that I have had sex with women who work for me on this show.”
“Sure enough, contained in the package was stuff to prove that I do terrible things.”
He hoped to protect his job.
If the sex was consensual and did not constitute sexual harassment, why would he consider his behavior “creepy” and “terrible” and why would he worry about losing his job?
In addition to the primary corporate veil-piercing motions, they would get a judgement against WWP and then file garnishments/ attachments against what CBS owes WWP/Letterman.
Plus, betacams shooting crying women on the street in front of Black Rock or the EST (theater,) “David ruined my life, he said me loved me... then he used me. Why won't CBS help me????.. Why isn't 60 minutes investigating David Letterman, etc????”
GREAT sound bites!
Plus, this could also open a can of worms re: Rather and his reporting days, particularly in the South in the Civil Rights days..
Remember when the cutest girls in every small Southern city worked in a yellow and black uniform/headband at the Hertz counter at the airport?
Dan rented a lot of cars, and did a lot of up close and personal interviews.......
>> ... it is about sexual harassment in the work place.
>> ... but one does care about his forcing women (even if it is just a perception) to sleep with him
Maybe not. What if it is a subconscious drive on the part of at least some of these women to collect the sperm of an alpha male? Although birth control has made this a non-(re)productive act - no pun intended - the behavior still warrants some discussion.
that sparkle in his eyes and that razor wit but at the same time very self deprecating and a gentleman...usually..those were the good old days..lol...I sound like my long gone parents
In hostile work environment cases, the victims are the other women who did not sleep with Letterman.
I read stories yesterday about one woman who slept with Letterman, and she got on-air appearances is sketches, and Letterman paid for some of her college fees.
The other women who did not get to appear in sketches would have to wonder what one has to do to advance their career when Letterman is the boss.
-PJ
I take it you are not a lawyer. I also take it you have not researched much about sexual harassment. I am a lawyer by the way.
See the very first pic on my profile page. My parents would allow me to watch Johnny on Friday nights when I was little kid. Used to love when he had Deluise or Burt Reynolds on. Great with comedic timing and execution, LOUSY with women. He is very much missed.
Where was Joycelyn Elders when they needed her?
Hope it costs Letterman and CBS...big time.
Please share with the cases where only actual damages were awarded and compensatory and punitive damages were prohibited as result of law....?
Secondly, please share with is how sex with a subordinate does not consist sexual harassment under the law.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 allows employees to recover compensatory damages beyond back pay. The damages can encompass “future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.”
Plaintiffs can also collect punitive damages, if they can demonstrate that an employer acted with malice or with reckless or callous indifference.
The number of women involved and the callous manner in which Letterman handled the matter publicly illustrates callousness.
In addition, what Letterman/WWP?CBS lawyer is ever going to let these cases go to trial?
Maybe you set a Special Master or rent-a-retired judge, but public trial complete weeping plaintiffs, their weeping mothers and clenched jaw fathers is a disaster for CBS!
Oh, yeah. I watched it happen one time. Any one of them who did got a promotion over anyone who didn't and Davey will be reaching for his wallet.
Hey kids! Anyone remember "It's only about sex. Why can't we just censure and Move On?" Ah, the good old days...
The question will be whether the plaintiffs can prove that CBS either callously made no effort to prevent a hostile work environment, or that CBS actually ignored manifest actual wrongdoing (and just knowing that Mr. Letterman was banging the help probably won’t be enough evidence of “actual wrongdoing.”).
Failing that, CBS is pretty well insulated, legally.
If CBS can point to policies that they’d implemented to try to bring subcontractor companies into line with a set of workplace standards, and can show that they made a real effort specifically with Mr. Letterman’s company, then that will substantially mitigate any claims against them.
How the PR aspect of it all plays out is different from the legal question. I think it’s not terribly likely that it will do a lot of harm directly to CBS. The real harm to them will be if Mr. Letterman’s ability to get ratings is damaged.
Mr. Letterman, however, could lose a great deal, possibly even everything. Absolutely everything, depending on how many dalliances he had, to what degree, if any, individual victims can demonstrate that they felt pressured, and to what degree others in the workplace found the whole situation creating a hostile work environment.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving fellow.
sitetest
I did not say that having sex with a subordinate is not sexual harassment. I said that it is not necessarily sexual harassment. It depends on the facts.
The other point that I made was that CBS is not going to be looking at anywhere close to $100m in potential liability. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 imposes fairly low caps on what can be recovered as compensatory and punitive damages, $300k for employers having in excess of 500 workers.
Finally, the standard required for an award of punitive damages is very high. They are only awarded when malice is shown. They are not automatically awarded in sexual harassment cases by a long shot. There is nothing in the facts of which we are aware so far that would suggest that CBS's or Letterman's bad behavior rose to that level. And again, even if it did the award would be capped.
So the bottom line is that both Letterman and CBS are looking at some potential legal liability and certainly are going to suffer some bad publicity, but there is little likelihood that it's going to break their backs financially. I despise them as much as anybody else on this board and wish it would happen, but I don't see it.
“Couldn’t happen to a bigger jerk”
When he “joked” endlessly about Bush and the Palins, I thought...
karma...
happened sooner than I had expected.
Ya know, years ago I probably would have said that this sounds like it was all grown up adults who were doing what they wanted, so there was no basis for a suit.
Not now.
They should take every effin nickel they can get their hands on.
And not because it’s Letterman or CBS.
Because everybody else is doing exactly the same dam thing.
The bankers lose BILLIONS, go to the government for a handout, THEN STILL HAND OUT BILLIONS IN BONUSES!!
The politicians do EVERYTHING THEY CAN to protect all their little benefits and appointments and pensions and private jets and junkets.
Seems like everybody out there will RIP YOU OFF BLIND if they get a chance, and they just keep getting away with it!
So they should go for it! It’s not like this is the sleaziest part of our modern society. Probably just as much sleaze at your local post office, if not way, way more!
Pretty sad commentary I guess...
Dave was penny wise and pound foolish.
“Richard Simmons another of David’s friends has just struck the Lottery!”
What does Richard Simmons have to do with this?
If you were the outside CBS lawyer, would not your question to inside CBS counsel be, “What's it worth to make this go away?”
(PS, for Mary Joe Kopeckne, it was $250K then and $100K for the rest of the parents lives. That's at least $1m and $300K in today's dollars)
Star Jones?
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.