I guess he decided to join the crowd.
Guy sounds like a complete arsehole.
I do wonder if the advice and indeed policy is going to change now. “Settle” used to be the mantra. Nowadays a settlement is seen as an admission of guilt. There seems to be prima facie incentive to fight and counter-attack. And considering the fact that these are rich men with resources and connection to the best lawyers; yeah it might get very unpleasent.
Settlement was always seen as admission of guilt, wasn’t it?
Not at all. A settlement was often a better outcome than going through years of protracted and expensive litigation. Lets say there is a very high likelihood you’ll win.It might still be better to avoid spending $100,000 in costs over five years and spend $1000 as settlement plus costs to have it go away right now.
Not to say that any or most people who decided to settle were blameless. Simply that the calculus seems to have changed, the incentive is to fight all claims to the bitter end as opposed to settlements.
So all these women are just claiming sexual harassment to get a big payday, because all those rich and powerful men will just settle it to keep it quiet?
I haven’t found any evidence of a single sexual harassment claim resulting in a settlement. Cite that before we go to “they always just settle” and insinuate these are nuisance lawsuits and claims? Shit, that’s one of the more subtle victim-blaming statements I’ve heard in this giant societal outing of abusive assholes.
ETA:
This asshole was an asshole. At least 4 settlements, one involving a racial slur. Fuck Jerry Richardson.
and he’s a goner, team for sale. Probably was worse than what we know so far.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
another story about him:
Richardson was also known for what multiple women call the “seatbelt maneuver.” He would invite female employees out to lunch, and in keeping with his reputation as a self-styled gentleman, he would open the car door for his guests. Once they were seated, however, he would insist on fastening their seatbelt for them, reaching across their lap and brushing his hand across their breasts before putting the belt in the clasp."
Thus, saving the NFL the job of having to kick him out of the league.
No one said anything remotely like what you just summarized. The assertion is that a settlement is not an admission of guilt, nor can one assume from a settlement that the party was guilty. Of course, the AMOUNT of the settlement becomes very relevant; paying someone six figures is NOT a nuisance settlement; that’s a tacit admission that the claim had some potential for being found true in court. But five figure settlements can easily be nothing more than “make this go away to avoid the hassle and bad publicity”. And, yes, there are claims of sexual harassment that are not legitimate, and are designed to obtain money.
I’ve not seen the settlement figures for the cases in which Richardson was involved. But there is ample added evidence being cited that would support the claims. Sports Illustrated has an excellent article about that.
I think wanting to save himself and the NFL the embarrassment was a large part of this decision. He’s always felt indebted to the NFL for letting him get the team in the first place, they have a freaking giant NFL logo at midfield instead of their team logo.
Besides DSYoungEsq able defence of what I have said, below, truthfulness or otherwise of the claims is beside the point for this issue.
Fact is that typically Civil cases are almost always litigated with a settlement in mind. However, in the current climate, for an accused person a settlement is not a good option, whatever the merits of the claim. This incentivises said accused/defendant to vigorously defend the claim. A battle to the hilt on every issue. Counter-sue. Accept no quarter.
The biggest limitor in civil actions is money. Typically the accused persons have a lot more resources than their accusers/victims. In a civil action, the longer it drags out, the more this discrepancy of arms will tell. Which greatly increases the chances that accusers will lose or give up claims, even good ones. Ones which previously would have been settled.
Which is why I am not certain that the current climate which seems to discourages settlements is necessarily improving the position of accusers. If anything, it might weaken their hand in obtaining restitution,