The payment of corporate settlements is not a great indicator of “guilt”. There may have been “guilt” involved, and there may instead have been a host of reasons why those who made the decisions decided it would be less costly and get the whole matter settled sooner, to make a settlement payment.
And in “sexual harassment” cases that is not so unusual, because most of them are he-said she-said situations and “guilty” or not, the accusation alone will always be enough to taint the defendant, in many peoples eyes, no matter what is done.
Sometimes, at the time, it seems better to get the matter settled and in the past, so that everyone can just move on.
I wish this is what Cain had said on day one. I believe it is likely how he feels.
” .....and there may instead have been a host of reasons why those who made the decisions decided it would be less costly and get the whole matter settled sooner, to make a settlement payment.” <<<<<
Oh, I agree. Like maybe witnesses? And two settlements in three years with a third complaint who did not inhouse sue for settlement? There’s pretty much your “host of reasons”. LOL.