<<Well I can certainly see why you were so eager to impeach Clinton.>>
Actually, I was not at all eager to impeach Clinton. I can certainly see the difference between preying on an employee with unwanted advances and succumbing to temptation, which can happen to any of us lucky enough to be tempted, and Clinton was certainly a lot luckier than most. Actually it is my belief that as President of the United States of America, a man is naturally entitled to the freely volunteered favours of any of the ladies of the land. It's just one of the many perks of the office. Just ask anyone who knew the late JFK. Sadly, these perks are not available to the CEO of the NRA.
<<But this case never went to a jury, never was seen by a judge so your reasoninb has a weakness there.>>
ROTFLMFAO. Ahh, plane, unfortunately it is YOUR reasoning that has a weakness there. Specifically that if something doesn't pass scrutiny by a jury or a judge, it did not happen. You yourself seem to have strong beliefs in MANY things that never passed before a judge or jury, so many in fact that I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just leave off showing specific examples unless you want to challenge the assertion.
<<Herman Cain never decided to give any money at all to these women, and I don't share your faith in CEOs and Board members to always make perfectly moral, correct and wise decisions.
<<Because this settlement did not involve Herman Cain , it says nothing about Herman Cain.>>
OK, plane and thanks for the additional laughs. Now let me introduce you to the real world. TWO women were disturbed enough by Cain's antics that they laid formal complaints against his employer alleging sexual harassment. At least one of them was represented by experienced, capable, senior employment counsel (Joel P. Bennett,) who would be very unlikely to take on a "he said-she said" case unless he himself was convinced that he had a strong and credible witness who could back up the allegations. A THIRD woman was waiting in the wings with her own accusations against Cain but we don't know what happened to her. The other woman who pursued a claim must have had counsel roughly equivalent to Joel P. Bennett because she got roughly the same settlement as Bennett's client did, although it's also possible she could have had less capable counsel who merely rode on Bennett's coat-tails.
The company must have done a thorough investigation at the time. Cain himself says they did, and he should know. Common sense alone tells us that they would have. At the very minimum, the investigation would have included getting signed statements from Cain, the two victims, the third vic (if known to have relevant information at the time and willing to talk,) and any eye-witnesses known to Cain or his victims at the time. (And we now know that there was at least one eye-witness who claims to be able to back up at least one of the two vics.) The investigation might well include polygraph tests and background investigations as well, and many other things.
So the completed investigation comes before either the company or its insurers. In the case of the company, it's inconceivable that this wouldn't be passed on to experienced counsel. The company may or may not have its own claims department and adjusters, who would then work with counsel. Or it went straight to insurance, in which case, in addition to in-house adjusters and in-house counsel, it probably would go also to outside counsel. Further and better investigations could and probably were ordered.
In any event, the investigation results were all gathered and reviewed by very experienced professionals who considered this from the point of view of the victims' credibility AND the amount of damages and costs that the association could expect to incur under various possible scenarios (fighting one or both claims in court or in arbitration, stonewalling, denial of any liability, escalating offers, etc.) and solutions were proposed.
If it had become apparent that Cain was a serial sexual predator, it would almost inevitably follow that Cain would have to go, quickly, and in fact
that's exactly what happened. Cain left even before the settlement papers were signed.
Now, keeping in mind the rapid exit of Cain from the association, arguments about the settlement being in large part to protect the company's good name are, frankly, hogwash. The company's good name was protected the moment that Cain hauled his ass out the front door for the last time, because as I indicated earlier, the association could point to its swift action in removing the alleged perp and say that with Cain, its sexual harassment problem had vanished.
In the judgement of experienced professionals, these two claims were found to be worth 80K to settle. Even in Cain's own estimation, a few thousand bucks (say 3K x2 = 6K) would have been the severance pay component of the settlement. Leaving 74K damages for sexual harassment, harassment which
admittedly never went beyond mere words, caused no lasting trauma, no absences from work, no impairment of relationships, nothing beyond "feelings of discomfort."
Let us be realistic here. If every "nothingburger" complaint of sexual harassment would put about 35K into a woman's pocket, companies and associations would be deluged with these kinds of complaints. Employers simply can't afford to throw that kind of money at every frivolous complaint that pops up, especially in a shaky economy where nobody's job is guaranteed to last anyway. This employer had minimal concerns about reputation, since the perv had already left, and absolutely zero incentive to throw away 80K on trumped-up complaints. With a thorough investigation in front of them, they decided it was better to pay out 80K to the two vics than to take their chances in a court or arbitration, where the exposure could obviously have been a lot higher than what they settled for.
Finally, it is very hard to believe that the insurer or the association did not get Herm the Perv's approval of the settlement, whether or not he signed on the settlement itself. The non-disclosure clause and the "
non-disparagement" clause - - see
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318924-503544/herman-cain-accuser-stands-by-complaint-wont-go-public/?tag=re1.channel - - indicate that the Association
was in fact protecting Cain's interests, when, through its counsel, it signed the settlement agreement. It is inconceivable that the Association would attempt to protect Cain's interests and yet not obtain Cain's written consent to the settlement - - otherwise, any subsequent legal action by the vic against Cain could result in action by Cain against the Association for failure to adequately protect his interests in the settlement agreement. The inclusion of a "non-disparagement" clause would prevent the Association from defending against Cain's action by claiming that they had never undertaken to protect his interests.
At the end of the day, an investigation or investigations, reviewed by experienced professionals with no axe to grind in the matter, including the two counsel who signed for the Association, concluded that there was enough merit to the accusations that it made sense to settle them out of court for a payment of at least 35K, which is certainly not chickenfeed in anyone's estimation. AND, within two or three months of the claim being presented, Herm the Perv was gone from the CEO's office.
Draw your own conclusions.
