…and it’s important to you that your story be heard, then you better damn well not accept a monetary settlement tied to a non-disclosure agreement. You take your chances in court and see it all the way through. If the money was enough for you to walk away…then don’t come crying back later.
There are lots of reasons that people and organizations settle lawsuits and guilt is not necessarily the primary reason. Usually it’s a financial decision. What’s the cost of defending this suit over a pro-longed period of time, vs. settling it right now.
But it’s very possibly the primary reason and, for lack of details, people can’t be faulted for drawing their own conclusions as to why a woman would be given $35,000 to drop a harassment suit.
You are exactly correct. But the accusers that signed the non-disclosure agreements, signed away their rights to discuss the matters. The current request by one of the accusers attorneys to have the NDA waived so that she can tell her side of the story and let the court of public opinion decide has no legs to stand on.
Maybe, maybe not. I’m not a judge. But I can understand her frustration that Cain can apparently talk about it until the cows come home but she can not. I’m not privy to the agreement though so I don’t know how kosher that is.
There are lots of reasons victims accept a settlement and vindication is not necessarily the primary reason. Usually, it’s a financial decision. What’s the cost of continuing to push this issue, what will be the effects on my future searches for employment, etc. vs. settling it right now.
It was probably not as big a deal to her to get the word out before he started *running for President. * One could certainly just as easily say that if you don’t want your personal and professional dirt aired to the public, you should probably not run for President.
It’s kind of unfair that Cain gets to tell his side of the story, but that the women cannot tell their side. If Cain can talk about it, then I think the women should be able to tell their stories.
The settlement was between the Restaurant association and the accuser. I would suspect that Cain was not even a party to the settlement agreement.
Cain has been responding to allegations made about him. It’s not like he initiated these current discussions in the media.
I guess one form of recompense the accuser could have is to return the $36,000 settlement amount with interest over the last 20 years and then she could talk. I’m sure there are numerous donors that would happily contribute that amount back to the Restuarant association for her side of the story to be told.
I’m not especially invested in the story but, if she wants to pick a battle for getting her side out, she should go for it. She’s bound by a civil agreement between two private parties, not some Holy Law of Righteousness. She should use the civil process to protect herself and I can’t really feel upset that she’d choose to do so.
I’m not picking a side. I’m arguing that people should honor the agreements that they make.
My perspective on Cain not being a party to the agreement is based upon my 24 years of corporate experience and normally in these situations the employee accused of the harrassment would not be a party to the agreement. It would be between the accuser and the company, as the company is who is being sued.
For one thing, you’ve admitted you don’t know if Cain has or hasn’t signed the same piece of paper. Cain’s “recollection” has swerved from “Huh? Never heard of it” to “Oh, THAT harassment settlement! Let me tell ya what happened…” I wouldn’t just assume his signature was or wasn’t anywhere.
For another thing, so what? She signed it and now she’s looking for recourse. Yay her, I guess. She’s not out doing anything wrong, she’s seeking a legal civil system solution to a legal civil system problem. People seek to revise legal agreements all the time in this modern world. Why should I care about this one or hold it against her?
It’s my understanding that the alleged harrassment occurred at an after hours party where people had been drinking and involved something that Cain said. There’s a wide spectrum of what people may or may not consider sexual harrasment in that type of situation.
Maybe the Restaurant association board should be questioned as to whether Cain was subject to any disciplinarian action?
What incentive does the Restuarant Association have to release her from her agreement? Maybe a monetary one, as I mentioned above. But it could also result in a suit from Cain himself. I highly doubt that we will see any form of release.
What is more likely is that she will violate the agreement and in turn face any potential civil consequences for said violation.
Maybe. Maybe she’ll think it’s worth it. Maybe she’ll manage to successfully have a surrogate divulge the details. Who knows.
I just don’t get the thrust of it. If the point was “Think before you sign something” then sure. But we can’t know the future and it was “If you signed something 15 years ago and the circumstances have dramatically changed, you should never avail yourself to the legal system to change things despite that being the entire point of the system or else you’re ‘wrong’” then I have to scratch my head and wonder why you’re so concerned about it.
If Cain hit on her at some drunken party, would that one incident be enough to constitute sexual harassment? Would it have to be particularly obnoxious come-on?
I also suspect the NDA and the payoff came together and you can’t have one without the other. I would be very surprised to find that both parties do not sign a NDA.