[Let's Roll]

Don’t know if this gets them off the hook or not but yesterday I read that Letterman owns his show (Wide Pants corporation)and so is not a CBS employee but a contractor or vendor.

This is the reason they were saying Letterman was not in violation of their employment code.

[Let's Roll]

Sorry, should have realized that lawyers would not find Letterman’s non employee status more than a minor speed bump.

[MindBender26]

Don’t know if this gets them off the hook or not but yesterday I read that Letterman owns his show (Wide Pants corporation)and so is not a CBS employee but a contractor or vendor.

True and that will of course be CBSs argument in a motion for dismissal.

However, that will not stand for long. At least one of the women will have been found to have applied to CBS and referred to WWP, people worked for both entities, etc.

And remember, CBS can't "afford" to have any judgments or settlements unpaid by Letterman. Can you imagine that publicity?

Any contract CBS has with WWP is meaningless in this situation. Party A and Party B cannot make a contract to limit the rights of Party C. WWP and CBS can have all the contracts that say WWP is responsible for any damages, but if a court finds CBS liable in any way, all that does is "make" WWP pay CBS for any damages after CBS pays them.