BREAKING NYTimes: WOW - that's a lot of money to forget - Cain accuser got lots of it

[Mira]

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tuesday, November 1, 2011 -- 10:04 PM EDT
-----

Cain Accuser Got a Year’s Salary in Severance Pay

The National Restaurant Association gave $35,000 — a year’s salary — in severance pay to a female staff member in the late 1990s after an encounter with Herman Cain, its chief executive at the time, made her uncomfortable working there, three people with direct knowledge of the payment said on Tuesday.

The woman was one of two whose accusations of sexual harassment by Mr. Cain, now a Republican candidate for president, led to paid severance agreements during his 1996-99 tenure as the association’s chief. Disclosure of the cases has rocked Mr. Cain’s campaign just as he was surging in polls.
Further challenging Mr. Cain, a lawyer for the second woman called on the restaurant association to release her from a confidentiality agreement signed as part of her settlement, raising the prospect that she could publicly dispute Mr. Cain’s account of what happened.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. For the association that's chump change

[Mira]

3. Of course. Maybe that's why Cain thought it was about 2-3 month's worth and forgot about it

:rofl:

[seabeyond]

4. for a low wage employee facing court and the powerful, that is a lot of money. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I wrote, from the association's POV.

And from their POV this was a bargain, until now.

[seabeyond]

13. sure it is. a hell of a lot less if they made trouble. an easy buy out. and the women go

away.

i dont think it is indicative of the level of harassment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. That is a different conversation

Pure speculation, probably was bad, why the non disclosures and the settlements.

[seabeyond]

17. payment not indicative of level of harassment.... pure speculation?

ok

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Let's clarify

I did not say there was none,

I did not say there was little.

I said ...35K DOLLARS IS CHUMP CHANGE FOR THE ORGANIZATION IN QUESTION. I know American is like my fifth language, but I thought I was clear. So to repeat this, the conversation is 35K IS CHUMP CHANGE FOR THIS ORGANIZATION.

[seabeyond]

23. jeezus fuckin christ.... i was expanding on your damn post. YES, CHUMP change

i wanted to add the other part, all on my own, without anything to do with your damn post.

[kestrel91316]

27. BE. NICE.

[seabeyond]

32. always... i am always nice.

see the three posts following? nice.

[snooper2]

52. Funny, I was place my first and only mutual ignore with the poster you are responding to

:rofl:

What triggered it I don't know lol- must have been one of my fly by posts :P

[JDPriestly]

25. It is a small settlement for the company. I suspect there may have been more.

That is not enough to cover the legal costs and her damages. She would have been due some emotional distress damages i should think.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Oh I suspect, due to NDA, costs were taken care off

Chump change to make this go away. Rusty dog downthread got it on the money. This is the attitude of the powerful.

[Exultant Democracy]

8. As far as a sexual harassment suit it does seem very small.

From my reading of the story it is very reasonable to assume that these women got a terrible deal because of the internal nature of this settlement. If their complaints had gone to court and they won they would have made over 6 figures easy.

None the less 35k looks like nothing and if anything this may ameliorate some of the damage this will do to Cain. Not as if the average Republican primary voter is going to do the inflation math.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Of course

But most of these cases are settled internally. It avoids the embarrassment if they get out.

[TheWraith]

45. It's probably not as bad a deal as it might look like.

You're talking about $35k instantly, cash on the table, and the option of going off and forgetting about the whole deal, including getting a new job and having some financial security.

In contrast, assume that she could have gotten, say, $150,000 by going to court. First off, that could have taken months or even years. Out of that, she'd have had to pay for a lawyer, which would probably shave half off of that figure, even assuming they waited for the settlement to be paid. She'd have been subjected to all the stresses of the court case. There would also be the fact that it would be on record that she'd sued her former employer, which could cause future employers to pass over her for fear of litigation.

You can see why taking the deal as offered would be attractive to someone in that position, particularly if the harassment didn't rise to a level where she felt a desire to punish her employer.

[Major Nikon]

69. Especially if you consider the alternative

This person probably was still working for the NRA when the complaint was filed and they no doubt wanted out of that situation as quickly as possible. The prospect of a glowing recommendation from the NRA wasn't too realistic, either. So she was probably faced with the prospect of either continuing to work directly under her harasser, or quit and look for another job without being able to use her previous one as a reference. A year's salary can look extremely attractive under those circumstances.

[TheWraith]

71. Exactly. Not to mention, filing suit is always an uncertain process.

The person could lose. Maybe because their lawyers screwed up, or they couldn't prove the case quite to the necessary level, or they had an asshole judge, or whatever. So you've got someone balancing the possibility of maybe winning a six figure settlement in a year or so, much of which would go to pay the lawyer, after a year of working in the same place with the same person, versus immediate freedom and a year's salary guaranteed.

It's no surprise why people would choose the quick option, and why it's not as bad a deal as it sounds. It might not be particularly right given that the accused is basically buying their way out of accountability, but it's reality.

[Major Nikon]

67. This really doesn't have that much to do with the merits of the case

If the NRA knew there was a solid basis for the complaint they would have no doubt offered a quick settlement possibly within days of the complaint being filed with EEOC. Given the choice between a quick payout of a substantial sum and possibly many years of waiting for a larger settlement that may never come, many (if not most) are going to go with door #1.

[rustydog]

2. This is a huge clue in how the 1% live and think

the women were there to be sexually harassed. The payoff was their reward for shutting up and letting this bastard continue to be an "American Success Story".
Kinda sorta reminds me of a IMF head who liked sex with maids...

[seabeyond]

5. yup. nt

[itsallhappening]

7. Nafissatou Diallo lied.

[ecstatic]

44. Something happened in that room. But the powerful

get away with things like that.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Thread winner....ding, ding, ding.

[sabrina 1]

18. Except there was no case with the IMF guy which we know

because that case was investigated and the Prosecuters report shows that so many lies were told, that there never was a case to begin with.

In fact it is that case, and the Duke case, that makes me hesitant to jump on any bandwagon condemning someone when we know absolutely nothing about the case. The witch hunt that took place regarding the IMF case was despicable, frankly and in the end, it seems the woman was a con artist working with other con artists and maybe used to bring down the man who might have saved Europe from what is happening there right now.

There were powerful forces working to stop him from maybe, derailing the Bailouts planned in March as he had been openly critical of putting most of the burden on the PEOPLE rather than the BANKS.

As for Cain, I cannot stand the guy, but all I know right now is that there were accusations, and that the women took money instead of going to court. Maybe they could not afford to go court, or maybe they just wanted money and were satisfied with that amount. Or maybe he did something very wrong.

But one thing is certain, anyone who asks to wait for evidence when people are accused of sexual crimes, can be certain they will be called 'supporters of rapists'. So, I will assume my comment will generate those kind of responses as happened to me and others in the Duke case and in the DSK case. I still prefer to see actual evidence of a crime before jumping to conclusions.

Cain doesn't belong anywhere near our government, that is obvious from his campaign and he never had a chance of POTUS, even Republicans are embarrassed by the candidates they have been asked to elect to that office. Regardless of these accusations.

[redqueen]

35. +1

[SoCalDem]

6. I'm wondering just when Cain "stepped down" from his position at the organization

and if these two "hush money" settlements played a part in his departure:)

[Kingofalldems]

12. If someone had to leave their job over something

I did, I would remember it.

[Lint Head]

14. $35,000 is chump change that a rich prick like Cain could possibly forget.

That's the only thing he's probably truthful about.

[Mira]

15. Except none of them would ever consider paying if he had not been guilty.

That's a given with such bastards.

[WillowTree]

28. Nonsense. Corporations pay that much & more every day 'cause it's cheaper than going to court.

[dkf]

19. Google "average sexual harassment award". $35,000 is way below most awards.

[Courtesy Flush]

20. If she only made $35k per year, she's not a reliable source

I don't believe anybody who makes less than $250k

:sarcasm:

[tridim]

21. Why is this legal?

Is it?

[jberryhill]

29. Why is what legal?

The only thing a lawsuit gets anyone is money. If there is a way from A to B that saves everyone time and expense, they settle.

It would easily cost more than $35k to defend a questionable claim, so these kinds of these often settle for nuisance value.

[tridim]

31. Cain should pay, not the association.

[jberryhill]

33. What difference does it make?

It would have been pretty dumb of her not to threaten Cain AND the organization.

But what difference does it make where the money comes from? It spends the same.

[tridim]

34. Because one is a punishment to the perp and the other is a get out of jail free card.

You really don't see the difference?

The latter says to the perp, I can do whatever I want and get away with it with zero punishment. The former says, hey maybe I should stop sexually harassing women because it costs me money.

[jberryhill]

36. So if you are ever seeking monetary damages...

...and have two defendants, you will insist to get paid by the one who doesn't have the most money.

Brilliant.

And, no, not only do I not see a difference, but in a private settlement, who cares? If I run over your child with my car, my insurance company is going to write the only check you'll ever see - not me.

[tridim]

39. Another lawyer who doesn't get it.

Typical.

It's a matter of right and wrong, not some bullshit twisted legalese.

And no, associations are not the same as insurance companies. I wonder what the restaurateurs who pay yearly dues have to say about the matter? Did they have any say at all? Did they even know it happened?

[Whiskeytide]

41. Uh oh - Now I gotta defend us lawyers...

...Its not legalese. If Cain worked for the Association, they are - and should be - responsible for his conduct. If he causes them to lose money paying off harassed women, eventually he gets ushered out. That's the way it works. If we forced individual perpetrators to pay their own freight on cases like this, (1) they would seldom have the resources to pay (Cain's wealth is an exception) and the victim goes through years of litigation for nothing, (2) and therefore few cases would be brought (lawyers can only take so many cases on 'principle', and the lawyer/staff-hours and litigation expenses in a sex harassment case are usually quite massive), and (3) if a perv was good at his job otherwise, and just had a little "problem with the ladies", many companies would keep him at his post if it didn't pose some risk to them. Thus, he continues his molesting unmolested.

[jberryhill]

47. Oh, I see

So if it is about "right and wrong", then why should anyone settle a case at all?

If, in your capacity as an employee of company X, you harm someone, then company X is on the hook.

If you walk into a Starbucks, and the person behind the counter spits in your coffee, you are going to be suing Starbucks AND that person. If you are demanding $20,000 in compensation as a result of the incident, you aren't going to get that money out of the person behind the counter, you are going to get it out of Starbucks.

In these situations, Company X has a decision to make. Do I value this person's service enough to pony up the cash and keep them around, or do I attempt to litigate my way out of liability?

That $35K may just as well have been a part of Cain's annual bonus which he didn't get later that year, since it was used to pay the claim.

Money is money. It doesn't care whose pocket it came out of.

But if you want to make civil suits about "right and wrong", then you might as well blame the victim for accepting the deal, since the victim is clearly a participant in the settlement transaction.

You probably shop in a grocery store. There are people who walk into grocery stores, open mayonnaise jars, spill mayonnaise on the floor, walk around for a while, and then "accidentally slip" on the mayonnaise. Whether they get paid or not depends on whether a security camera caught them putting the mayonnaise on the floor. Sometimes they get paid, sometimes they don't. Does the store tell you how much of the prices you pay goes to settling nuisance claims?

But getting back to your question - "Why is this legal?" - I was trying to figure out what you mean by "this". Is your problem with employers paying claims based on intentional torts committed by their employees during the course of employment? Or is it with something else?

Because I can surely list any number of companies who would be happy to be let off the hook for things like discriminatory hiring practices committed by their employees, along with a host of other things, if you want to relieve companies of agency liability.

[Whiskeytide]

54. Just so we keep the record straight...

This...

"There are people who walk into grocery stores, open mayonnaise jars, spill mayonnaise on the floor, walk around for a while, and then "accidentally slip" on the mayonnaise. "

...really almost never happens. Its kind of an urban legend like the Winnebago case, the burglar trapped in the garage case and the woman in a nasty divorce selling her husband's Corvette for $50 case. Are there some people who fake injuries? Sure. But it is a minor problem in the big picture, and usually the courts do a pretty good job to weed them out.

[jberryhill]

56. You are confusing two things

First off, yes people do TRY these things.

Second, no, they do not often recover any money for the effort.

But that is largely due to the practice of putting in cameras. For example, a lot of transit systems have installed cameras on buses, to deal with the folks who jump aboard buses which are involved in minor accidents.

But once in a while, someone can score a relatively low payout just to go away.

I understand the insurance industry promotes the idea that huge payouts for frivolous claims are common, and that is a widespread perception. I'm merely addressing the very low end of minor nuisance claims.

In any event, for a claim with any real likelihood of damaging a national lobbying organization, 35K doesn't seem all that high. Or, maybe since that was her annual salary, she was willing to take it without knowing what the value of her claim might really be worth.

[Whiskeytide]

73. The influence of the tort reform movement...

... is strong in this one, Obiwan. I'll concede that, once in a blue moon, a plaintiff in a lawsuit gets more than is deserved, and that sometimes plaintiffs are in it for the money. In 25 years of doing this, I've run up against this perhaps 4 or 5 times. I have been involved in probably more than 4,000 cases - from both the plaintiff and defendant sides - so I'll take a .4% failure rate on any system and call it pretty damn successful. Tinkering with that system to try and eradicate those minor aberrations is folly. That's how you know that tort reform efforts are not really intended to address fraudulent claims (because you can't hope to do that) - instead, its intended to close the courthouse doors to ALL claims, especially the legitimate ones they fear so much.

And it has worked. I can assure you that the instances of plaintiffs getting much less than they deserve is much, much more common. In fact, it is probably the norm at this point.

As for the $35,000 amount... I don't know if its low or not. So much goes into valuing a claim that its hopeless to debate it without more details. If Cain pulled out his black walnuts, physically assaulted the woman, and threatened her job security if she refused his advances, then it's probably low. If he made one lewd comment, something like "I'm developing a "69-69-69" tax plan just for you, baby - I call it the Anaconda Initiative", then maybe its about right. We'll probably never know.

[Scruffy1]

64. The lawyer is correct.

Most execs carry insurance for personal liability or the company provides it as part of the perks. So the check will rarely come from the accused. Either from insurance or the corporation.
Having been involved in some cases of wrongful termination I think the system favors the ones with money. A poor person under financial pressure is often forced to accept a small settlement even if they have a good case because the process can take a long time. Lawyers have to eat and pay bills today, too.

[jberryhill]

68. Yes, financial status of the claimant will affect settlement value for those reasons

But, when dealing with claims involving employment, it also affects the size of available judgment.

In other words, if your behavior made my job miserable, and I was getting paid $35K a year, I might get a judgment of X. If I was getting paid $75K, then that same judgment is going to be closer to 2X.

You are correct it's not linear for settlements, because someone with more resources can essentially hold out longer for more. That can work, but it can also happen that the strength of the case deteriorates (for one party or the other) as discovery proceeds. "Holding out for more" can work, but it is also a gamble of its own.

In any event, Herman Cain is caught in quicksand here. The more he struggles, the deeper he'll sink.

[yawnmaster]

48. this was a settlement not a judgement after civil trial. It likely wasn't Cain's...

decision to pay. The insurance company or association may have made the decision to settle based on the risk/reward of going to court.
Even being successful in court would have cost over $35k.
Cutting their losses.

[tridim]

49. This is why I don't think paying hush money should be legal.

It isn't fair to the party that doesn't have money, and it isn't fair to the people who fill the association's bank account with the expectation that that money will not be used to cover up crimes committed by the chairmen.

Apparently the DU lawyers disagree with this.

[yawnmaster]

51. I too think there are problems with it, as it does hide the truth...in some cases...

it hides the innocence of the accused.
I say bring it out - but it does get expensive.

[Whiskeytide]

55. If you have a better system, I'm...

... all ears. The reality is that a wealthy CEO is seldom the guy accused of this because (1) there aren't a lot of wealthy CEOs relatively speaking, and (2) he's usually surrounded by well vetted loyalists. 92.4% of the time the sex harassment offender is the manager of the pizza chain who makes $37,000 a year, has $17,000 in credit card debt, is behind in his $550 a month child support obligation and is upside down in his mortgage. Tagging him with the settlement or judgment and immunizing the employer might sooth your sense of justice, but it makes the system unworkable, fails the victims, and encourages the bad behavior.

[tridim]

57. Make the perp pay.

If the perp can't pay the settlement, the case goes to court due to non-payment of the settlement.

Rocket science this is not.

[jberryhill]

60. In other words - "Give the victim nothing"

Nice.

You are saying that in a civil lawsuit, if the defendant can't pay whatever is demanded by the plaintiff, then they should go to court.

Yes, well, that's why they are in court - because the plaintiff is demanding money from the defendant.

Seriously, what sort of a rule are you proposing here? That an employer should not be held liable for sexual harassment in their own workplace?

Now, it is a pretty sure bet that a defendant who can't afford to pay a $35K settlement, is not going to come up with money to pay a $100K judgment. So what does going to court do to change that?

[tridim]

61. We're talking about a real case where the perp could easily pay.

MAKE HIM FUCKING PAY.

[jberryhill]

63. The victim made a decision not to do that

Nobody puts a gun to anyone's head to obtain a settlement in a civil case.

Sure, the victim should have said, "I want Cain to pay it personally" and then Cain gets a year-end bonus in the same amount from the restaurant association.

What's the difference?

What you are saying here is that what the victim decided to do should be illegal.

I don't see where it is your place or mine to tell victims of sexual harassment on what terms they should be compensated, if they want to accept a settlement.

[Whiskeytide]

72. So you want to re-vamp...

... the entire concept of vicarious liability because of one specific case? The law has to attempt to provide an adequate remedy for victims of bad behavior. That means that it has to err on the side of providing a way for MOST victims to recover. If you upend the law because, in this case, this particular defendant can afford to pay a judgment, you are depriving the vast majority of victims any real opportunity for a remedy.

I understand your outrage, but you have to look at the big picture. Making an employer foot the tab for this kind of thing is better for society as a whole, even if it means, in a few cases, that the bad guy seems to be getting off with a hand slap.

[jberryhill]

58. First off - it is illegal to pay to cover up 'crimes'

Sexual harassment in the workplace is not a crime. Nobody paid anyone to cover up a crime here.

Any organization - ANY organization - is subject to all sorts of potential civil claims.

Did donors to DU know that some portion of the money they donated would end up going to defend a copyright infringement lawsuit?

But, let's take your statement as-is, and say, "Nobody should be able to settle a lawsuit."

Okay, it costs $350 to file a lawsuit in federal court. That's it. Now, for that $350, you get hours of attention by a federal judge or magistrate being paid six figures, and you receive services from a host of clerks and other folks in the court along the way. All for your $350. The time of everyone else in that building is being paid by my taxes.

So, you and some other guy have an argument about who is at fault for what, and you and that other guy are going to spend months filing papers and showing up for arguments on various motions, to decide whether or not that guy owes you $X.

That's the only thing a lawsuit does. A lawsuit is a spectacularly grand proceeding to determine whether the guy on the right side of the room is going to have to pay the guy on the left side of the room some money.

Hundreds - hundreds of these things are filed every day. All to figure out whether or not the defendant is going to have to pay the plaintiff $X.

So, let's take the case of me running over your dog with my car. I say the dog dashed out in the street because you didn't keep him on a leash, and you say that I swerved up onto the sidewalk and ran over your leashed dog. There are no witnesses, and the evidence is in dispute. It is entirely your word against mine.

You are seriously telling me that if you file that suit for $100,000 in damages for your wonderful show dog and your emotional distress upon losing your companion, that there is nothing else that you and I are going to be able to do than to take up the time of the court, the judge, the clerks, etc. until we come to a full parade rest on whether or not I intentionally ran over your dog? And after that we are going to go to battle over how much your dog is worth and what your losses are?

And taxpayers should just suck it up and subsidize this whole argument over whether or not I ran over your dog and how much your dog is worth?

In that context, not only do I see nothing wrong with a settlement agreement, but it is a positive social good that we do find a way to settle.

So I say, "Look, your dog was a mangy mutt, and you aren't going to prove anything here, but I'll give you $1000 to withdraw your claim, so long as you don't run around afterwards saying that I intentionally ran over your dog."

You see something immoral there? Really?

What flows from that is:

1. You get a certain payout. A payout was the only thing the suit was ever going to get you. That's what suits DO.

2. I get a certain cap on my ultimate expenses on the claim. I can now go ahead and live my life without an uncertain liability hanging over my head.

3. The taxpayers get to use their court for other things, like putting criminals behind bars.

What is immoral or wrong in any of that?

[firehorse]

37. It's hush money. The amount doesn't matter. It's too expensive for a low wage worker to pay legal

costs if they are dragged out over time.

[jberryhill]

46. Not with a strong case and a contingent fee lawyer

If liability is easy to establish, then a contingent fee plaintiff attorney is going to be able to make a reasonable call on what is an appropriate settlement value versus the cost of keeping the case alive longer to get a higher figure.

35K strikes me as being at the relatively low end of these kinds of things.

[firehorse]

59. You get what you pay for. Contingency fee lawyers sound great but do they have what it takes to go

up against a team of lawyers that a rich man or a corporation can afford. A couple strategies lawyers use is to use legal delay tactics to wear the victim down. So they drag things out, pile on the fees, till the victim just gives up. And I personally wouldn't have faith in a contingency fee lawyer - the only way they'd make money is to speed things up, even it means settling.

[jberryhill]

62. The cost of a lawyer doesn't change the merit of a case

Notice that I mentioned something about the strength of a claim.

In a strong case with a clear claim and good evidence, the price tag of the lawyers on the other side doesn't matter as much as people are led to believe.

[firehorse]

65. What kind of evidence is needed to win a sexual harrasment case?

Does the victim actually have to tolerate something physical and for it to be witnessed by a crowd for it to be categorized as evidence? Is she said / he said valid enough to warrant a strong case. Does the victim have to document the harrassment, and if so how strong/weak is just mere documentation?

I've worked places where the "boss" made inappropriate sexual comments but guess what... they always do it when nobody is around. The guys who are experienced at sexual harrassment have learned to isolate their targets, saying the job requires the employee to go on a car ride, or another (fill in the blank) isolated situation. Only the brazen in a power position take the risk to harrass openly in public over and over again.

[jberryhill]

66. It depends on the case

"Evidence" can be the oral testimony of one person against the other. If the jury believes one and disbelieves the other, then that's that.

But those kinds of questions go to the strength of the case - and will affect the amounts being proposed during settlement, that's for sure.

That's why some in the thread have pondered whether the size of the settlement here is indicative of a strong case, a weak case, or paid for nuisance value.


I don't practice in that area, so I have no idea what kind of figure would suggest "nuisance value" for an organization of the type and size of the restaurant lobbyists. My *guess* would be that public image would have a higher value to them than if it were, say, an automobile dealership.

[WillowTree]

30. Why is what legal?

[JDPriestly]

24. That is not severance pay! That is something else.

[firehorse]

38. yes the something else is hush money. *sorry to repeat*

Rich people buy people off all the time so they can be above the law. They probably even hide behind their corporations and have the business write it off as an expense.

[DainBramaged]

40. Cain shoulda put a sock on it before we put a sock on his campaign

he didn't forget shit, lying dick.

[iRidiculous]

53. Cain's done

This is his long goodbye.

[B Calm]

42. I'm surprised Bush didn't appoint Cain to the Supreme Court. . .

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." - 2 Timothy 3:12

Frankly all of this might help him more than hurt him particularly with the fundamentalist base which now makes up most of the right-wing base of the Republican Party - and a very large portion of primary voters and caucus goers. They seemed to be reflexively circling the wagons on Fox News, hate radio and the right-wing blogs. Many fundamentalist Christians have a particular deep sense of persecution and will reflexively view attacks on Herman Kain as proof of his righteousness.

[lonestarnot]

50. His "reculat'n" isn't so good.