A reader quotes me:
He really had no idea that his own organization had arranged compensation in the five figures to two women claiming harassment? So who did authorize this? And how did it get by Cain himself? Was he that off-hand a manager?
Do you realize the conflict of interest involved in directing a company to make settlement on case in which you are personally a plaintiff? Wouldn't happen in the real world. And I don't know the specifics of this case, so I can't tell if his lack of knowledge in terms of the amount is credible or not, but such a scenario is not unheard of.
I now understand that. A lawyer backs that up:
Under Title VII, the federal law that governs sexual harassment claims, any individual alleging harassment can only sue her or his employer – not the individual that allegedly committed the action. The individual harasser has no role in process except as a "witness."
A claims coordinator lends her expertise:
Most employers buy insurance for harassment claims. Once the insurance company gets the claim they will interview the parties involved and start an investigation. At that point the employee that has been charged with harassment will likely be out of loop. The insurance company and their lawyers will deal directly with the claimants and their attorney. Any settlement would be up to the insurance company. As a reader pointed out, a lot of claims are settled with little or no evidence of wrong doing. This is due to the fact that it costs a lot of money to go to trial, so insurance companies settle whether than go to court.
So, Cain should know if allegations were made against him. But he may not know what if any outcomes of those allegations as the insurance company makes all settlement decisions as per policy language.
Another lawyer:
It is certainly true, as the management-side lawyer asserts, that the simple fact of payment to settle the charges against Mr. Cain do not establish that he did whatever he was accused of doing – or, if he did do it, that his conduct amounted to sexual harassment as defined by law (and I say all that as a lawyer, a liberal, and a strong feminist). It's also normal for there to be a confidentiality provision as part of such the settlement.
But a key point was missed in the discussion: the Politico piece reported that the National Restaurant Association "gave [the women] payouts to leave the association." If the story is accurate, this strikes me as an acknowledgement that something more was going on here than "baseless" claims that the association decided, for business reasons, should be settled for a smallish sum in order to avoid the costs of litigation. That is, instead of changing the women's job duties such that they didn't have to come into contact with Cain - a prudent and common response by employers in these situations, even where the claims are baseless - or settling the claims for cash and allowing the women to continue in their positions, the parties decided that the best option was for the women *to give up their jobs*.
Absent some information that the women were troublemakers before bringing these charges such that the association would want to push them out before causing even more headaches, it seems to me that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the women's claims at this point. If the Politico story is wrong and the women left of their own volition, the implication is no better (and probably worse), as it means that two women independently determined that what they experienced was serious enough that they needed to leave their chosen jobs, because it was clear the boss wasn't going anywhere.
Of course, the drip-drip-drip nature of Cain's changing positions only adds more support to the Politico story. In less than 24 hours, Cain moved from a flat denial that any sexual harassment charges were lodged against him, to having a "vague" recollection of some charges against him, to a specific memory of a specific gesture he made towards one of the women that he claims was determined to be baseless - implying that the woman's remaining claims had some plausible basis in fact. (And it seems to me that if Cain is now talking about some of the charges against him, he has opened the door to the women coming forward to discuss the charges.)
I don't know what happened, but one thing is certain: while Cain will not get the nomination for many good reasons independent of this story, he and his followers now have the perfect excuse for his inevitable failure in the primaries. It won't be because the lack of any campaign organization shows that he had no plans of running a serious presidential campaign, or that his tax plan made no sense financially or politically, or because he used campaign funds to buy his own books and put the profits in his own pockets, or that his abortion position is both inconsistent and incoherent (not to mention cruel), or, as we are just learning, that funds may have been illegally spent for his benefit before his campaign began.
No, it will be because he is the victim of a liberal media (Politico??) on a "witch hunt" to dredge up that old liberal saw of sexual harassment charges, which, as we know, are always unfounded. Sigh.
The Dish 