Cain Blames Perry Camp for Sexual Harassment Leak

[Bonestorm]

That last sentence is not based in the reality of a litigious society. Often companies do a cost analysis, and if the figures show taht payoff is less than it would cost to bring it to court and pay lawyers, etc. will simply pay the claimant to get it over with and save cash.

$45,000 and $35,000 aren't really nuisance suit settlement amounts, though.

 

[poet]

That last sentence is not based in the reality of a litigious society. Often companies do a cost analysis, and if the figures show taht payoff is less than it would cost to bring it to court and pay lawyers, etc. will simply pay the claimant to get it over with and save cash.

Really? Looks like a tainted image to me.

 

[DamnYankee]

Really? Where is the proof of that being what was said? I'd rather hear the woman in question, as to her side of the story.

When you're innocent of accusations , you don't settle. You don't pay.

That's a good point, we would all like to hear the accuser in her own words. Why doesn't the media provide this?

You don't know the details of the settlement. It could be a contractually obligated severance. Again, without details provided by the accuser, you have nothing but conjecture and baseless allegation, which seems to be your method.

 

[Southern Chicken]

$45,000 and $35,000 aren't really nuisance suit settlement amounts, though.

Bits of information is still be gathered.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/

The settlement agreement between the National Restaurant Association and a woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment was reached in September 1999--and was not signed by Cain himself, according to Joel Bennett, a lawyer for the woman.

Bennett, who has a copy of the settlement agreement, said four people signed it: the woman, two lawyers representing the association and Bennett himself.

Bennett said the agreement was resolved relatively quickly, about two or three months after she complained.

That means it may have been reached after Cain left the association, and Bennett said it's conceivable that Cain didn't even know about it.

 

[Bonestorm]

That's a good point, we would all like to hear the accuser in her own words. Why doesn't the media provide this?

You don't know the details of the settlement. It could be a contractually obligated severance. Again, without details provided by the accuser, you have nothing but conjecture and baseless allegation, which seems to be your method.

That's a pretty convenient argument to make given that the victims are subject to a confidentiality order. Of course, of the few details that have come out, to my knowledge Cain hasn't specifically denied any of them but instead says he didn't "sexually harass" anyone, which is a basic non-denial denial that is dependent on what "sexual harassment" means to Cain.

 

[Bonestorm]

Bits of information is still be gathered.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/

The settlement agreement between the National Restaurant Association and a woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment was reached in September 1999--and was not signed by Cain himself, according to Joel Bennett, a lawyer for the woman.

Bennett, who has a copy of the settlement agreement, said four people signed it: the woman, two lawyers representing the association and Bennett himself.

Bennett said the agreement was resolved relatively quickly, about two or three months after she complained.

That means it may have been reached after Cain left the association, and Bennett said it's conceivable that Cain didn't even know about it.

So this settlement occurred in 9/99? That's awesome.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

$45,000 and $35,000 aren't really nuisance suit settlement amounts, though.

Especially not 20 years ago.

 

[Southern Chicken]

That's a good point, we would all like to hear the accuser in her own words. Why doesn't the media provide this?

You don't know the details of the settlement. It could be a contractually obligated severance. Again, without details provided by the accuser, you have nothing but conjecture and baseless allegation, which seems to be your method.

National Restaurant Association is considering releasing a statement regarding allowing the accuser to respond on this
http://www.restaurant.org/pressroom/pressrelease/?id=2181

 

[DamnYankee]

That's a pretty convenient argument to make given that the victim is subject to a confidentiality order. Of course, of the few details that have come out, to my knowledge Cain hasn't specifically denied any of them but instead says he didn't "sexually harass" anyone, which is a basic non-denial denial that is dependent on what "sexual harassment" means to Cain.

What's convenient is that the accuser can repeat an allegation without specifics based on that same confidentiality agreement. The way this works though, is that it is up to her to prove the allegation, not up to him to disprove it.

Since Cain was at an executive level within the organization, he likely knows what the organization's policy and definition of sexual harassment was, and in fact likely had a hand in approving it.

 

[Damocles]

$45,000 and $35,000 aren't really nuisance suit settlement amounts, though.

Actually they are. A CEO and head of the National Restauranteurs Association would merit a far higher payment amount if it wasn't a nuisance. Consider Bill Clinton with Paula Jones settling for $850,000...

 

[Southern Chicken]

Especially not 20 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/u...alary-in-severance-pay.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2

Unless you include that "Four people with contemporaneous knowledge of the encounter said it had taken place in the context of a work outing during which there had been heavy drinking — a hallmark, they said, of outings with an organization that represents the hospitality industry. They spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid being publicly drawn into the dispute, and declined to provide details of the encounter, saying they did not want to violate the privacy of the woman.

Two of them said that other factors had been involved in her severance, and that other workplace issues had been making her unhappy at the association as well. But they said the encounter with Mr. Cain had added an emotional charge and contributed to the size of her payment. One former colleague familiar with the details said such a severance was not common, especially for an employee with the woman’s relatively short tenure and her pay grade

 

[Bonestorm]

What's convenient is that the accuser can repeat an allegation without specifics based on that same confidentiality agreement. The way this works though, is that it is up to her to prove the allegation, not up to him to disprove it.

Actually, the victims that entered into settlement agreement cannot do that and have not done that (if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm sure the NRA would love to hear from you). Cain is not a party to the settlement agreement and is not bound by its terms. Thus, Cain can say whatever the hell he wants with no fear of penalty while the victims cannot.

Since Cain was at an executive level within the organization, he likely knows what the organization's policy and definition of sexual harassment was, and in fact likely had a hand in approving it.

The organization's policy has nothing to do with it. Cain didn't say "I didn't sexually harass anyone as that term is defined in the Sexual Harassment Policy of the National Restaurant Association." To my knowledge, Cain has not denied a single allegation. So I think it's quite a bit odd for you to suggest that the victims allegations are baseless when Cain hasn't denied them.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Actually they are. A CEO and head of the National Restauranteurs Association would merit a far higher payment amount if it wasn't a nuisance. Consider Bill Clinton with Paula Jones settling for $850,000...

Nope. In the 90's sexual harassment settlements were typically fairly low. Juries awarded far larger amounts. However, if you are just starting your career, it is extremely risky to file a lawsuit of that type. It can get you blackballed. That still holds true today, never mind when this occurred.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/u...alary-in-severance-pay.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2

Unless you include that "Four people with contemporaneous knowledge of the encounter said it had taken place in the context of a work outing during which there had been heavy drinking — a hallmark, they said, of outings with an organization that represents the hospitality industry. They spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid being publicly drawn into the dispute, and declined to provide details of the encounter, saying they did not want to violate the privacy of the woman.

Two of them said that other factors had been involved in her severance, and that other workplace issues had been making her unhappy at the association as well. But they said the encounter with Mr. Cain had added an emotional charge and contributed to the size of her payment. One former colleague familiar with the details said such a severance was not common, especially for an employee with the woman’s relatively short tenure and her pay grade

What's your point? If there's drinking involved the whore should get what's coming to her? Speak. I find people who quote articles instead of speaking very annoying. I have no idea what your point is here.

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually they are. A CEO and head of the National Restauranteurs Association would merit a far higher payment amount if it wasn't a nuisance. Consider Bill Clinton with Paula Jones settling for $850,000...

No, they aren't.

 

[Southern Chicken]

The severance dollar amount could have been escalated by an unwanted comment or gesture by Cain instead of sexual harassment being the reason for the dollar amount. In the end the public will not know until/if the details are released

In short we just dont know without Details

 

[DamnYankee]

Actually, the victims that entered into settlement agreement cannot do that and have not done that (if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm sure the NRA would love to hear from you). Cain is not a party to the settlement agreement and is not bound by its terms. Thus, Cain can say whatever the hell he wants with no fear of penalty while the victims cannot.

The organization's policy has nothing to do with it. Cain didn't say "I didn't sexually harass anyone as that term is defined in the Sexual Harassment Policy of the National Restaurant Association." To my knowledge, Cain has not denied a single allegation. So I think it's quite a bit odd for you to suggest that the victims allegations are baseless when Cain hasn't denied them.

Of course he's denied it; if you're not up on the facts then why are you commenting? Again, Cain is under no obligation to defend himself from an allegation without any basis or reported facts behind it. The definition of sexual harassment has everything to do with it, since some would define it as, say, commenting on a woman's height.

 

[Bonestorm]

Of course he's denied it; if you're not up on the facts then why are you commenting? Again, Cain is under no obligation to defend himself from an allegation without any basis or reported facts behind it. The definition of sexual harassment has everything to do with it, since some would define it as, say, commenting on a woman's height.

What did he deny, specifically. He issued a general denial that he never "sexually harassed" anyone. And admitted that he made a comment about the woman's height with the hand gesture that I imagine was what was perceived as offensive. (I also note that you ignore the fact that the height comment was the only thing Herman remembered about that particular woman's accusations. What do you think the odds are that the other "ridiculous" things that Herman can't remember but that he can remember were ridiculous were slightly more offensive than the hand on head blow job gesture?)

 

[DamnYankee]

What did he deny, specifically. He issued a general denial that he never "sexually harassed" anyone. And admitted that he made a comment about the woman's height with the hand gesture that I imagine was what was perceived as offensive. (I also note that you ignore the fact that the height comment was the only thing Herman remembered about that particular woman's accusations. What do you think the odds are that the other "ridiculous" things that Herman can't remember but that he can remember were ridiculous were slightly more offensive than the hand on head blow job gesture?)

You seem to allude that commenting on a woman's height with a hand gesture is sexual harassment. Why not take a stand and say that it is or is not?

It is important that I know your because if it is then I committed sexual harassment just two days ago. I was at a team meeting and met a dozen or so folks for the first time. One was a gal about 4-10 and one of the guys told her that she looked like she lost weight. She replied that she lost 25 pounds, and I commented that I hoped that she hadn't lost it in "this direction" while gesturing with my hands of a vertical dimension. Let me know ASAP so I can write a check for $35 grand and send it to her.

 

[poet]

That's a good point, we would all like to hear the accuser in her own words. Why doesn't the media provide this?

You don't know the details of the settlement. It could be a contractually obligated severance. Again, without details provided by the accuser, you have nothing but conjecture and baseless allegation, which seems to be your method.

Stupid. Part of the terms of the agreement was a gag order about the settlement. I heard she is trying to have the clause revoked. Then everything will become clear.