Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Cain's accuser's lawyer says it is "innacurate" to call the settlement agreement his client received a "severance agreement"

He also suggests that multiple complaints suggest a pattern of sexual harassment. “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” he noted.

Best I can tell, the question over the nature of the type of settlement — the former NRA Board head said he thought these severance agreements, a fact also reported by the NYT — and the suggestion that Cain knew specifics of the allegation, are the only two big takeaways from this news conference.

Well, that, and this lawyer just essentially suggested that to be accused of something twice means you are more than likely guilty of what you’ve been accused of.

— Which, I suppose, means Mr Bennett is now officially a douche.

I expect the Cain people will reply in short order.

*****
update: “Statement from the National Restaurant Association”:

“We have seen the statement Joel Bennett released earlier today on behalf of his client, a former employee of the Association. The Association consented to the release of that statement, at the request of Mr. Bennett’s client.

“Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement. The agreement contains mutual confidentiality obligations. Notwithstanding the Association’s ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised Mr. Bennett that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit Mr. Bennett’s client to comment. As indicated in Mr. Bennett’s statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision.

“The Association has robust policies designed to ensure that employees with concerns may bring them forward for prompt investigation and resolution, without risk of retaliation. The Association is fully committed to equal employment opportunity and to an environment that is free from any discrimination or harassment.”

The fact that an agreement was reached with no assignation of liability tends to undercut Mr Bennett’s suggestion that the settlement was for “sexual harassment.”

We also now know that the accuser was released to come forward but chose not to.

So. Six days into this “scandal,” we now know the following: An woman, who wishes to remain anonymous, filed an internal harassment complaint against Herman Cain; Cain disputed the Claim and recused himself from any investigation; an agreement was reached in which no liability was assigned to Cain, as mutually agreed; the agreement contained confidentiality obligations, and Cain wasn’t party to the agreement.

Thanks, Politico! What we have is a garden variety sexual harassment he said/she said that resulted in a settlement decided upon by the NRA.

BOMBSHELL!

182 Replies to “Cain's accuser's lawyer says it is "innacurate" to call the settlement agreement his client received a "severance agreement"”

  1. happyfeet says:

    Mr. Bennett’s client has sick perverted fantasies about older black men is the takeaway I thought

  2. leigh says:

    Can we get a transcript?

  3. McGehee says:

    Jeff has just accused Mr. Bennett of being a douche. I also accuse Mr. Bennett of being a douche.

    By unanimous vote by two accusers, we therefore find that Mr. Bennett has been proven to be a douche.

    I think I could get used to this new system. I think my wife and I are going to have to accuse her boss of being sexist because he hasn’t doubled her salary lately.

  4. Stephanie says:

    Just to bring it to the newest Cain thread:

    I kinda live commented…

    Lawyer lied. He said that ‘Cain was fully aware of the allegations involved in the complaint” then he stated that ‘he believed he was no longer there when we filed the complaint.’ Then “I would be astounded if the complaint was not brought to his attention.”

    The lawyer’s statements are no more precise than Cain’s… I don’t remember I don’t recall.

    Still he said she said as there is no ‘recollection of witnesses’ on the part of the lawyer, but he maintains they are true because there was more than one allegation and besides we didn’t investigate it and just settled. So she waited til he was no longer there and accused someone in absentia of claims and got a settlement… seems to me like the NRA were pushovers.

    It was a non disclosure and non disparage agreement.

  5. bh says:

    I’m starting to believe that we’re seeing something entirely new, the Wookie offense.

    *

  6. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Cain is wrong about one thing. This isn’t a high-tech lynching.

    More like a virtual cross-burning on the metaphorical lawn of his reputation.

  7. bh says:

    Damn it. The Chewbacca offense, that should be.

    Try and say something clever and this is what happens.

    I can haz Friday night scotches now?

  8. Stephanie says:

    And to enhance with what Sdferr posted on the other thread:

    More like a virtual cross-burning on the metaphorical lawn of his reputation stoked with straw men.

  9. happyfeet says:

    related

    Giffords found the map disturbing. After the shootings, Kelly vented his feelings about the map to President Barack Obama. He thought Palin might call to offer condolences because of the mounting criticism, but she never did.*

  10. sdferr says:

    It’s hard to know what to say about Rep. Gifford’s desires. I wonder how the district will understand their own?

  11. Stephanie says:

    bh, it’s five o’clock somewhere… which, I need to go get dressed for the club’s cocktail hour and dinner. Nothing fancy – jeans and a polo, we’re not one of those clubs. Though I might show a little cleavage for as to cement that blonde bimbo cumslut hoochie clueless housewife what golfs trope. Cause that’s the way I roll.

  12. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I wonder how the district will understand their own?

    Right of Return perhaps? Or does plebiscite and annexation better capture the spirit of the thing?

  13. sdferr says:

    It’s been kind of funny watching Jeff trying to help the post turtle Walt Gilbert get down off his pole, with Gilbert insisting he’s not ready to get down yet.

  14. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I might show a little cleavage for as to cement that blonde bimbo cumslut hoochie clueless housewife what golfs trope. Cause that’s the way I roll.

    somehow I feel vaguely discomfitted. Management owes me money!

  15. Stephanie says:

    Swiped from Ace’s:

    NRA statement:

    “We have seen the statement Joel Bennett released earlier today on behalf of his client, a former employee of the Association. The Association consented to the release of that statement, at the request of Mr. Bennett’s client.

    “Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement. The agreement contains mutual confidentiality obligations. Notwithstanding the Association’s ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, [mine] we have advised Mr. Bennett that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit Mr. Bennett’s client to comment. As indicated in Mr. Bennett’s statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision.

  16. mojo says:

    And now…. the woman declines to “relive the incident” or ask to be released from the confidentiality agreement, quoth her mouthpiece.

    Anybody still think this is serious? Because I have this bridge in Brooklyn…

  17. Jeff G. says:

    Not funny for me. That dude is about as set in his convictions that Cain is a serial rapist and liar as anyone I’ve ever seen. Impervious to facts.

  18. sdferr says:

    To confess, I’m laughing very hard. At Walt, mind you. But still. His little legs just wave and wave, stroking the air like palm trees in a hurricane.

  19. geoffb says:

    I’m going to repeat myself.

    Haven’t others noticed over the years that they left makes deft use of the various agreements, conventions, rules, regulations, laws, of confidentiality and privilege to make attacks where defense cannot be done because of those secrecy agreements? They have done this for decades.

    I hope and pray that Cain manages to lead them all into a place where they fall down a long shaft to nowhere. Ratherize them all.

  20. bh says:

    I’d be careful with that talk, Ernst. Seeing as how you’re giving us all second hand cancer with that cigar of yours.

    That just feels actionable.

    Random pre-Scotch thought, someone ought to consider putting together a bit of a cheat sheet for this. Like, agreement vs settlement. That sort of thing. I need an executive summary for I am slow-witted and constantly distracted.

  21. Abe Froman says:

    It’s sort of an odd feeling to invest effort into being incredulous about the accusations while also not caring one bit if he blew his load on his secretary’s keyboard. Dead girl, live boy or me no give a shit.

  22. bh says:

    Another random pre-Scotch thought, why is it that I don’t see these tweets from Jeff even though I’m following him?

    When I look at his feed I see it all but it’s not showing up in my default timeline view.

  23. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Impervious to facts.

    The Force Frankfurter Schule is strong in this one!

    Unless it’s Jamesean pragmatism as channeled via Georges Sorel.

  24. Squid says:

    …consider putting together a bit of a cheat sheet for this. Like, agreement vs settlement. That sort of thing.

    Here’s a start:

    “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”

  25. newrouter says:

    politico was pounding the chicken

  26. beedubya says:

    Well, there goes Ace’s deal to be the new Car Fox

  27. BBHunter says:

    – Well it’s Friday, and after a decade of “dancing with the rats” non-dancing, cleavage is a fine alternate.

    – So I’m not about to sue anyone.

  28. Ernst Schreiber says:

    bh, I make it a point to never smoke online. I’m considerate like that.

    But I was under the impression that management was running a high class joint here. I expect my cleavage to come with stockings and 3″ heels, not jeans and a polo.

  29. DarthLevin says:

    This “Walt Gilbert” seems to have tunnel vision goggles crafted from carbon nanotubes. And a Herman Cain Mind-Reading Helmet® by RonCo™

  30. bh says:

    Hehs all around.

  31. McGehee says:

    I can haz Friday night scotches now?

    You buying?

    ‘Cause if you’re not, that means I have to drive all the way to the nearest package store, which is in the next county, to get my own.

    And that’s just unfair. #OccupyBH’sLiquorCabinet

  32. Ernst Schreiber says:

    That hack Hannity just had the bigger hack Beckel on. Beckel said something about it being hard to believe the Cain campaign wasn’t better prepared or had a better response to so serious a charge.

    Had to turn the radio off before I scared the kids.

  33. Stephanie says:

    I do stockings and 3″ heels but only one day a year, and today ain’t that day. Besides it’s supposed to be in the 40s tonight – that polo has… possibilities. Until I don a jacket.

    Love watching the machinations of Ace’s mind-gerbils at work, though. Any slower and he’s gonna have to be fitted for Depends.

    Here’s what I am/was thinking:

    If this were a trumped up bullshit charge designed to cadge money out of the NRA, we might expect an accuser to file falsely, but then would not re-open the case for the media.

    So based on her apparently talking to Politico, I thought at least she really believed there was a strong sexual harassment case here.

    But now she says “Nevermind,” essentially.

    So now I’m thinking her claim was trumped up.

    What a way to get ahead of that curveball, champ! Shall we judge your response to the story with the same standards that you applied to Cain?

  34. Ernst Schreiber says:

    #OccupyBH’sLiquorCabinet

    The thirsty united

    shall be quenched!

  35. Stephanie says:

    And now I’m off for reals…that scotch and a nice prime rib is calling.

  36. Ernst Schreiber says:

    it’s supposed to be in the 40s tonight – that polo has… possibilities.

    There’s that uncomfortable feeling again.

    Why oh why do you HarrASS me so?

  37. bh says:

    #OccupyBH’sLiquorCabinet

    Heh, no need. I can hardly give it all away.

    Somewhere along the line I started giving booze rather than Omaha steaks or nice pens as business gifts and everyone has reciprocated. Gave two cases of booze to the church festival this summer and I already have another two cases sitting in my pantry.

    Makes Christmas and birthday shopping for my brother super easy. So I got that going for me.

  38. Ernst Schreiber says:

    So based on her apparently talking to Politico,

    I don’t believe she ever talked to Politico, did she?

  39. LBascom says:

    The greedy and mostly drunk Irish control the big liquor cabinet! Occupy Big Liquor!!

    I’ll see ya’ll at the bar…

  40. babylon_cat says:

    “Love watching the machinations of Ace’s mind-gerbils at work, though. Any slower and he’s gonna have to be fitted for Depends.”

    Ace went off the rails when Palin came on the scene. He’s 100% rino-bot now. Pretty sad. That used to be a really fun place to hang out.

    BC

  41. Jeff G. says:

    I don’t believe she ever talked to Politico, did she?

    I don’t believe they ever spoke to her, ever saw any documents, or knew anything specifically.

  42. dicentra says:

    FLAMING SKULL AT ACE’S

    ONE CAIN ACCUSER SAYS SHE HAS CHOSEN “NOT TO RELIVE” THE DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT’ SEES “NO VALUE” IN TALKING ABOUT IT PRIVATELY OR PUBLICLY

    Ace concludes: “So now I’m thinking her claim was trumped up.”

    You don’t say.

  43. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I don’t believe they ever spoke to her, ever saw any documents, or knew anything specifically.

    90 stories this week (according to Limbaugh).
    7 named reporters (to the best of my incomplete knowledge).

    And to think I once thought you had to be in academe to be exposed to an orgy of mental masturbation like this.

  44. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Ace concludes: “So now I’m thinking her claim was trumped up.”

    You don’t say.

    I don’t refer to him as Rabbit solely because Eeyore was already taken.

  45. bh says:

    That politicalmath guy had a good line on that, Ernst. Wait one second…

    Politico publishes 90 stories on Cain scandal? That’s ? stories per named source!*

  46. Squid says:

    And to think I once thought you had to be in academe to be exposed to an orgy of mental masturbation like this.

    Now I see it all so clearly. In the weeks and months to come, any of us who proclaim Cain innocent ’til proven guilty are going to be called “know-nothing flat-earth denialists” because we don’t agree with a “consensus of experts.”

    The Merlin has over 100 different scotches. Maybe one of them will make the world make sense…

  47. bh says:

    I think I’d like to meet this Merlin you speak of, Squid.

  48. happyfeet says:

    I think this will pass fairly quickly it’s not like it captured the imagination of the country or anything

  49. happyfeet says:

    we’re still talking about that sexual harassment thing yes?

  50. Cain should tell us her name.

  51. TaiChiWawa says:

    It could be something worse, but it could be: asking about one’s social life, winking, giving gifts, standing close, making flattering remarks, using pet names, staring, smiling, holding a handshake too long, etc., etc.

    Women just hate that stuff unless they don’t.

  52. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Cain should tell us her name.

    No he shouldn’t. He should say that they’re going to respect her wishes and will not discuss the matter further.

  53. happyfeet says:

    but we should know who she is cause she’s clearly racist

  54. DarthLevin says:

    Wow, hf. You missed your calling as a judge in Salem MA by only 320 years or so.

  55. serr8d says:

    Hmmmph. Politico is getting too many hits and notoriety for their crass actions; much like Joe McGinniss, they are reaping financial rewards for this pack of lies.

    Just Don’t Click: #StiflePolitico

  56. serr8d says:

    ‘feets, here’s an image that better suits you. Lose that gay-ass yellow thinger what looks gay-ass and gay.

  57. sdferr says:

    Thomas Sowell. Listen, listen, listen. Especially to Paul Ryan’s larger view of his hope for the election and Sowell’s “I don’t know.” Because it is the question to be answered.

  58. geoffb says:

    Jeff G.

    When you have one of these arguments with some other person on twitter could you retweet their comments so they show up in the PW feed. In this exchange I only got yours not what the others were saying. I suppose I could follow them to get it but don’t like following putzes and pushing their stats up.

    Or perhaps I’m doing something wrong and that’s why I don’t see them.

  59. newrouter says:

    GOLDIE TAYLOR, THEGRIO.COM: You know, there are two things here. Number one: if Herman Cain did what he purportedly did, you know, back in the ’90s with these particular young women in the ’50s and ’60s in this country, he really would have been lynched.

    Link

    “High Tech Lynching”

  60. sdferr says:

    Geoff, I’ve clicked on an otherwise invisible arrow in the top right corner of Jeff’s posts, which arrow shows up when the cursor hovers over the post in question. Then the post to which Jeff is replying appears in a box on the right side of the page.

  61. guinspen says:

    that gay-ass yellow thinger what looks gay-ass and gay

    If the slewfoots, kismet.

  62. McGehee says:

    When you have one of these arguments with some other person on twitter could you retweet their comments so they show up in the PW feed. In this exchange I only got yours not what the others were saying.

    On the web and in certain Twitter apps it’s possible to click to the rest of the conversation. On the web, for example, hover in the upper-right corner of a reply tweet that has an empty word balloon and click the “greater-than” thingie that appears.

  63. serr8d says:

    I’ve yet to see a ‘Twitter’ box on pw, because of the fine work of NoScript, AdBlock or Ghostery; one of ’em has deprived me of the pleasure.

    What’s the name of the agent, so I can try to unblock it?

  64. newrouter says:

    i use no script and see it though more tweets still points to 404 error

  65. serr8d says:

    I’ve turned everything off; still not visible. Left or right sidebar? Top or bottom?

  66. serr8d says:

    Oh. Nevermind. I was looking for a structured box with scrolling tweets, not for what’s there now that I look for it. The understated tweet-view thinger. My fault.

    Sheesh.

  67. guinspen says:

    Now hovering…

  68. guinspen says:

  69. serr8d says:

    Jeff, make that ‘view more tweets’ non-working link drop right off into your Twitter page.

    If anyone wants to catch all of Jeff’s tweets, put this in your RSS reader:

    http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/14236800.rss

  70. motionview says:

    Hmm. Well that whole Twitter thing makes a lot more sense now. Perhaps I’ll start putting the non-mouthpiece end of the telephone to my ear, just to see how that works out.

  71. LBascom says:

    I don’t tweet. Just so you know. NTTAWWT.

  72. Jeff G. says:

    Where there’s smoke, right Ace?

  73. sdferr says:

    Mr Jacobson is still very good on this subject.

  74. serr8d says:

    If you really want to learn Twitter, check out this ‘power user’ in your RSS feed. This guy, a lefty, is a wizard at it. And bonus! you’ll learn things about what makes the far-left tick, what ticks ’em off, and where they’re going next.

    http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/8431652.rss

  75. Ernst Schreiber says:

    per newrouter’s post above:

    It’s pity no one on these talking-head shows bothers to ask what exactly is it that Mr. Cain is purported to have done.

    On the other hand, if we’re all tacitly agreeing that what he did was look a white woman in the eye, so to speak, then yeah, I have to agree with Goldie Taylor. He would have been lynched. Fortunately for Mr. Cain, when Martin Bashir and Goldie Taylor go to a necktie party, they only leave an innocent man’s reputation twisting at the end of a rope. How proud of themselves they must be.

  76. Ernst Schreiber says:

    You just gotta love the whole uppity nigger got off easy subtext, don’t you?

  77. Ernst Schreiber says:

    In this case were there’s smoke, there’s an arsonist.

  78. bh says:

    Great line.

  79. newrouter says:

    Nixon Agonistes

    “Halfway through Mr. Cain’s conversation, Doctor Kissinger turns and points to me and says, ‘That smoking thing you did was brilliant.’ I sat there thinking, Dr. Henry Kissinger just said something I did was brilliant,” Block says. “We all got a good chuckle.”

    Block adds that Kissinger was impressed by Cain’s questions. “He told him that he meets with any candidate who wants to get his views. But he told Mr. Cain that most come in and ask about what they should say on the Sunday shows. Mr. Cain, he pointed out, asked what he should do when he is president — a different kind of approach for this kind of meeting.”

    Link

  80. LBascom says:

    Wait, Cain hit on three women?

    I thought he made an non-sexual gesture to one(while mentioning his wife of decades), asked for a tea with sugar from another(though admittedly insulting, since he mistook a reporter for an aide), and the third doesn’t want to say.

    Hit on them?!

  81. sdferr says:

    At least Bashir knows how to demonstrate appalling behavior in his own fleshy tv presence, so to that extent he doesn’t have to imagine himself.

  82. bh says:

    I only noticed the misspelling afterwards, too.

  83. LBascom says:

    Hit on them. Huh.

    I hope Ace is either married or has a hell of a wingman, because he has no game…

  84. geoffb says:

    Thank you guys for the info.

  85. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Since this twitter thing ain’t workin’ for me (Nice robin’s egg blue background twitter people), could somebody clue me in as to what the clueless ewok did?

  86. bh says:

    Speaking to some other dude he said: “Here’s a fact, guy’s got three different women saying he hit on them and two of them were paid to be quiet.”

  87. happyfeet says:

    summon … the war turtles

  88. bh says:

    Ace’s problem is that he argues against every maximal position he can find and then gets himself all worked up.

    He’s currently arguing against some mythical creature who believes Herman Cain is the second coming of Christ.

  89. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Ah, I see,

    Meme Meme Tehfacz Arin

  90. newrouter says:

    “Here’s a fact, guy’s got three different women saying he hit on them and two of them were paid to be quiet.”

    do the “justice brothers” charge for this training?

    RUSH: Thank you very much. Great to have you with us.

    CALLER: Listen, I’m a black conservative, and I just want to make one thing abundantly clear: The media can attempt to paint you any way they want to, but there are no bigger racists in this country than white Democratic liberals. They are and they will forever be the biggest racists in this nation because they seek to determine how black people should think and who black people should support, and the reason for their contempt against Herman Cain is that he has simply said, “I’m an independent thinker. I don’t need to stay on the Democratic plantation in order to succeed.”

    RUSH: It really is… Folks, it is no more complicated than that. She’s exactly right, and because of that he represents a great threat to them.

    CALLER: But let me give you an example of how Cain would have been treated if he had been a good and docile Negro and stayed on the Democratic plantation. Jesse Jackson, presently, has pending against him in Cook County court in Illinois a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by one Mr. Tommy Bennett, a former male PUSH employee who had sued Jesse Jackson and the push organization for sexual discrimination and Jackson specifically for sexual harassment.

    Link

  91. happyfeet says:

    me I’ve never seen Mr. Herman and our friend Jesus in the same room at the same time

    I would remember

  92. sdferr says:

    Jen Rubin ruefully pitches dirt on the grave (she hasn’t got around to rolling back the stone for this one yet. Romney’s another matter):

    His poor wife decided not to go on Fox News for an interview. One suspects Cain has not been “forgetting to mention” things only in public.

  93. happyfeet says:

    I haven’t seen Wall Street Romney’s hoochie on the tv nowheres ever either

  94. newrouter says:

    “His poor wife decided not to go on Fox News for an interview.”

    the rube is in full romney mode with the blessings of

    EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Paul Ryan has nothing but praise for Romney plan

    mr. ryan maybe too status quo at this point

  95. bh says:

    Jen Rubin is just rolling around in the mud now.

    I’m sorta embarrassed for her.

  96. MissFixit says:

    CALLER: But let me give you an example of how Cain would have been treated if he had been a good and docile Negro and stayed on the Democratic plantation. Jesse Jackson, presently, has pending against him in Cook County court in Illinois a sexual harassment lawsuit…

    Bold faced hypocrisy is the best kind. At least there’s no confusion.

  97. sdferr says:

    heh, Owwies attempt to show the wretched Tea Partyers how it’s done.

  98. Pablo says:

    How can you not love a guy like this?

    “I’m the Koch brothers’ brother from another mother…and proud of it.”

    Messaging, bitches!

  99. Jeff G. says:

    Wow. So what we have is a “conservative” — and that’s what WaPo tells us Jen Rubin is — choosing to believe an anonymous woman over the front runner for the GOP nomination.

    Actually, “one suspects” that anyone who listens to Jen Rubin — and others like her — are the kinds of “conservatives” who will throw you under the bus if it helps them in any way to do so.

  100. Jeff G. says:

    I bet his poor wife, if she saw Rubin on the street right now, might just smack her dumbass upside the head with a very stylish handbag.

  101. newrouter says:

    fyi ghwb and demonrats:

    The Civil Rights Act of 1991 added provisions to Title VII protections including expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment, and the case of Ellison v. Brady resulted in rejecting the reasonable person standard in favor of the “reasonable woman standard” which allowed for cases to be analyzed from the perspective of the complainant and not the defendant. Also in 1991, Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. became the first sexual harassment case to be given class action status, paving the way for others. Seven years later, in 1998, this case would establish new precedents for setting limits on the “discovery” process in sexual harassment cases, and allowing psychological injuries from the litigation process to be included in assessing damages awards. In the same year, the courts concluded in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, and Burlington v. Ellerth, that employers are liable for harassment by their employees. Moreover, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services set the precedent for same-sex harassment, and sexual harassment without motivation of “sexual desire”, stating that any discrimination based on sex is actionable so long as it places the victim in an objectively disadvantageous working condition, regardless of the gender of either the victim, or the harasser.

    Link

  102. bh says:

    At times like this I’m reminded of that old saying, “Primaries bring out the best in all of us.

  103. sdferr says:

    Sexual Harassment over the River Kwai.

  104. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I see from that That Twitter Thing on the sidebar that Jeff’s out winning friends and influencing people.

  105. sdferr says:

    An Abrogated Agreement Too Far

  106. sdferr says:

    The Big Anonymous Red One

  107. sdferr says:

    Spartacain

  108. sdferr says:

    Saving Private Romney

  109. sdferr says:

    Das Bloort

  110. sdferr says:

    Paths of Press Glory

  111. sdferr says:

    Full Mental Junket

  112. Jeff G. says:

    Rubin forgot to add, “But Mitt doesn’t really mean any of it.”

  113. sdferr says:

    DeCainacalypse Now

  114. McGehee says:

    The Dirty Quarter-Dozen (Assuming the Additional Accuser Really Exists)

  115. sdferr says:

    All Quiet On the Anonymous Accuser’s Front

  116. sdferr says:

    Sink the Block,Mark

  117. sdferr says:

    Where LegalEagles Dare

  118. sdferr says:

    Black Hawk Downed

  119. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Jonah Goldberg’s G-File today:

    Romney’s a technocrat. He thinks that the government is there to fix things. That’s what Romneycare was about, after all.

    What worries me about Romney is that since he starts from the assumption that government can fix things, he thinks the way to fix things is with government.

    [….]

    I see Romney … in the tradition of George H. W. Bush. He sees politics as a tacky business where you dance for the rubes so you can get the job your dad always wanted you to have.

  120. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Rubin forgot to add, “But Mitt doesn’t really mean any of it.”

    I’m sure he meant it at the time Jeff.

  121. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Cucellini: Obamacare “the issue of our day”

    Don’t nobody tell Jen Rube-in

  122. Jeff G. says:

    Jen Rubin has spent the last two presidential election cycles attacking the conservatives in the field so that we end up with the least conservative candidate.

    She’s a plant.

  123. Ernst Schreiber says:

    The alternative explaination is that she’s prone to school-girlish infatuations of an obssessive character (think Leave Brittany Alooooone!), but that’s just not credible, is it?

    Definitely a plant.

  124. geoffb says:

    It would appear that this is Joel Bennett’s client. I thought it was $45,000 not $35,000.

    One of the women who accused the Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment while working for him at the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s complained that the workplace turned hostile after she alleged that he made advances toward her during a work-related outing, several people familiar with her account at the time said in interviews.
    […]
    Three people familiar with the details of the woman’s account said that she complained to higher-ups at the restaurant association. She then came to feel that there was a “change of attitude,” from her bosses toward her, they said, adding to her discomfort and leading her to finally decide it would be best to leave.

  125. geoffb says:

    Ok, the 45K is a different one. Must be the hand gesture woman.

  126. geoffb says:

    I notice that this “incident” happened with several people present but all the “witnesses” cited by the NYT are giving what we would call hearsay evidence as they say they heard the woman’s account of the incident but it is not stated that they were present. They do try to weasel us to think that with this nice wording, “One person with direct knowledge of her account at the time “. Slick as snot.

  127. bh says:

    One of the women who accused the Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment while working for him at the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s complained that the workplace turned hostile after she alleged that he made advances toward her during a work-related outing, several people familiar with her account at the time said in interviews.
    […]
    Three people familiar with the details of the woman’s account said that she complained to higher-ups at the restaurant association. She then came to feel that there was a “change of attitude,” from her bosses toward her, they said, adding to her discomfort and leading her to finally decide it would be best to leave.

    My emphasis as I noticed an obvious thing. People familiar with another’s account are also known as non-witnesses.

  128. bh says:

    #129 = #130.

  129. geoffb says:

    heh

  130. geoffb says:

    OT:

    Mad[ness]-is-on

  131. Ernst Schreiber says:

    It seems to me that the three “familiar with her account” consist of two people associated with the NRA and one Joel Bennett.

  132. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Somebody ought to go back and look at the Thomas hearings. How long did it take for Anita Hill to go from anonymous to named? Just so we know when this woman’s name is likely to become part of the record.

  133. geoffb says:

    Is there a definition of several that would be less than three? If so all there would be is her lawyer and herself and her present husband. She and her lawyer are the “several” since she is familiar with he own account. Add hubby and you get the three. Lawyer would be the “direct knowledge” guy cited later. No NRA people needed.

  134. geoffb says:

    her not he

  135. Ernst Schreiber says:

    “She wants to get back to her normal life and not be in this spotlight,” said one person who has spoken with her.

    Spotlight must not mean what I think it means

  136. geoffb says:

    Toward the end of the early hearings, NPR’s Supreme Court correspondent Nina Totenberg received a leaked Judiciary Committee/FBI report that a former colleague of Thomas, University of Oklahoma law school professor Anita Hill, accused him of making unwelcome sexual comments to her when the two worked together at the Department of Education (DOE) and EEOC.[3][15][16] In the same FBI report, Thomas testified that he had once promoted Allyson Duncan over Hill as his chief of staff at the EEOC.
    […]
    On October 11, 1991, Hill was called to testify during the hearing. She said she was testifying as to the character and fitness of Thomas to serve on the high court and was ambivalent about whether his alleged conduct had in fact risen to the level of being illegal sexual harassment.
    […]
    Two women, Angela Wright and Rose Jourdain, made statements to Senate staffers in support of Hill. Ultimately, however, Wright and Jourdain were dismissed by the Judiciary Committee without testifying.[24] The reasons why Wright was not called (or chose not to be called) to testify are complex and a matter of some dispute;[25][26] Republican Senators wanted to avoid the prospect of a second woman describing inappropriate behavior by Thomas, while Democratic Senators were concerned about Wright’s credibility
    […]
    Rose Jourdain also did not testify but corroborated Wright’s statements, saying Wright had spoken to her about Thomas’s statements at the time they were allegedly made.

  137. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I’ve got the Brock book floating around somewhere.

  138. Darleen says:

    She’s a plant.

    Boston fern or philodendron?

  139. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Good point about the several people, geoff.

  140. Darleen says:

    complained that the workplace turned hostile after she alleged that he made advances toward her during a work-related outing

    So if people think you’re a crazy bitch who might turn on them, and they start to avoid being anywhere near you, it’s them creating the “hostile workplace.”

    Oh fuck, I had more than 8 months of trying to get rid of a lawsuit-lottery mercenary like that and survived by the skin of my teeth. And I’m just a low-level supervisor.

  141. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Boston fern or philodendron?

    poison ivy

  142. Ernst Schreiber says:

    There are two direct quotes from the piece. I’m guessing both are from her attorney.

  143. motionview says:

    As I recall at one point a Hill sympathetic witness was testifying and stated that Hill told her of harassment, at a date that would have indicated Hill was harassed by her boss after Thomas. The hearings were paused, some well known lefty lawyer “counselled” the witness during the break, and she came back “unable to recall exactly” the dates Hill complained to her. Ring a bell Ernst?

  144. McGehee says:

    I’ve known several potted plants more intelligent than Jen the Rube.

    Though I haven’t yet met Ollie North’s lawyer

    Pretty sure he’s the smartest in the greenhouse.

  145. Ernst Schreiber says:

    So if people think you’re a crazy bitch who might turn on them, and they start to avoid being anywhere near you, it’s them creating the “hostile workplace.”

    Oh fuck, I had more than 8 months of trying to get rid of a lawsuit-lottery mercenary like that and survived by the skin of my teeth. And I’m just a low-level supervisor.

    Taranto had a typically insightful column on just that phenomenon today.

  146. bh says:

    My firm pays for sexual harassment contingencies on our D&O policies even though we don’t have women working at three out of four locations. Why would we do that? Well, first, it’s bundled. But, second? Because we haven’t been able to hire women at three out of four locations. Which means we’re probably discriminating before we even let them in the door for the inevitable gropings and hazing.

    Turns out women aren’t super into quant analysis even though we’ve been trying. Really, really trying. So that’s on our policy. It’s not cheap.

    Not kidding.

    Cain should take this opportunity to pivot towards tort reform.

  147. Pablo says:

    She’s a plant.

    That explains why she looks like Pelosi minus a few decades.

  148. McGehee says:

    bh, math class is hard.

    Your company should create positions for coffee-getters and shirt-ironers. Pay them the same as the quant analysts and you’ll be bulletproof on the hiring and equal pay fronts.

  149. Darleen says:

    McGehee

    I believe math is “not hard” so-to-speak, but speaking just for myself — and I was good at it enough that my high school algebra teacher begged me to major in math in college — it was fun for the short term but I really didn’t want it as a career. I had no burning passion for it.

  150. geoffb says:

    Actual harassment is a little different and doesn’t pay as well.

  151. motionview says:

    Except McGehee after a few months they will feel that getting coffee and ironing shirts is really rather demeaning and they will unionize to set up some work rules, maybe a paid year off for child-birth un-abortions family medical leave familial-structure-agnostic addition event (an FSAAE, use HR Form series Sh4200). Then the automatic pay increases, the occasional wildcat strike, retire at 50 on 90% of their last year’s salary.
    Plus the bitching.

  152. Slartibartfast says:

    So now I’m thinking her claim was trumped up.

    I don’t blame Ace for being wrong, but I do blame him for being slower than nearly everyone else that’s paid any attention at all to this dustup.

    OTOH I think the only reason that the dustup exists in the first place is that no one remembers reporters for being wrong; they remember them for being the first to be right. Which I think explains the rapid scurrying to both poles of any given issue by so-called reporters.

  153. Slartibartfast says:

    Turns out women aren’t super into quant analysis

    You could say that a great deal of my job is quantitative analysis. Which just means that “quants analysis” is an extraordinarily nonspecific identifier for what I think is probably an extraordinarily narrow range of occupations.

    My brother has a QBA degree, and he’s probably not what you have in mind, either.

    But more in the direction of your argument, there still aren’t all that many women in analysis-intensive engineering fields. But that’s nowhere near “none”, and also is not to say that there aren’t some very sharp female engineers out here.

  154. motionview says:

    I’m starting to think that Mr. Cain should respond to every magical-harassment question with well, after there were pictures of me with a child I sired out of wedlock with a homely, spacey campaign worker while my wife lay dying of cancer. Oh wait, sorry, that’s the story you chose not to pursue.

  155. Slartibartfast says:

    I award you one Internet, motionview.

  156. bh says:

    Which just means that “quants analysis” is an extraordinarily nonspecific identifier for what I think is probably an extraordinarily narrow range of occupations.

    In finance, quant analyst or quant is an ordinarily specific identifier. What it might mean out of finance, I wouldn’t have much of a clue.

  157. Slartibartfast says:

    My wife is a finance weenie, and she works with numbers. Quantities! Quantitative analysis, even!

    Wait ’til she finds out she’s a quant; she’ll be so excited!

    Provided she knows what a quant is.

    She doesn’t like math, though, beyond simple number-crunching. Hates stats. She’s something of a contradiction, really. I’ve always thought that stats should be a finance weenies’ best friend.

  158. geoffb says:

    It exists because we have one political faction which has, over time, taken control many institutions including much of the the mass media. They scream “This is what democracy looks like”, as they proceed to act “by any means necessary”.

    Narrowing election choices to be no choice at all has been the way Obama has won elections but he is not unique in this on his side, only the most prominent and successful practitioner on this method of progressive democracy.

    The Tea Party and the Internet seem to be the counters to this way of “fixing” elections. So of course there is a proposal which has one “nobel” stated purpose but major side effects which could derail this pesky interference online.

    One prosecutor, one judge, your site is gone.

    Here’s the Internet we get after this becomes law. The prosecutor walks into a courtroom with evidence that a website — or, more likely, 1000 websites — are “dedicated to infringing activities.” If he/she can persuade the judge of that, those websites vanish from the Net (through a complex wave of judicially-mandated action that has to be obeyed by ISPs, domain name registrars, etc.). No need for messy “adversary proceedings,” “due process,” or similar niceties. No need to bother with details like “is there a defense to the charge?” No need even for the prosecutor, under the statutory terms, to prove what a copyright plaintiff would have to prove if this were an ordinary infringement suit: i.e., that the website operator in question had “actual knowledge of specific infringing files” on the site in question. None of that.
    […]
    And it’s a lot worse than even that. Get this: The House version makes it unlawful (and subjects you to this elimination order) if you:

    “tak[e] deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the [website] to carry out acts that constitute a violation of [the copyright or trademark statutes].“

    Take a careful look at what’s going on here. If the prosecutors have been snooping around on my website to find infringing material and I take “deliberate steps” that prevent them from “confirming” that I have such material on the site — perhaps I have this pet peeve about government agents crawling around what I might regard as private space and I have tried to keep them out — then I have violated the statute even if I don’t actually have infringing material on the site. That is, it’s an independent violation of law to keep the prosecutors from “confirming” that you’re violating the law — all the prosecutor has to show, to make you vanish from the Net, is that you’ve somehow tried to keep the prosecutor off of your website!

    Of course we all know all prosecutors and judges are saints so no problem.

  159. bh says:

    Hey, don’t blame me. I didn’t create the job title.

  160. bh says:

    This fast expanding, global Investment Bank seeks to recruit a talented Quant Analyst to join its highly respected Rates Trading business. You will work with some of the industry’s leading quants, developing the next generation of pricing models for Interest Rate products for their unbeatable trading business.*

    It’s merely a term of art.

  161. Slartibartfast says:

    I’m not shooting the messenger, here. Just pointing that anyone who works with numbers is a quantitative analyst, so they might want to reconsider the brand. As distinct from, what? Qualitative analysts?

  162. bh says:

    Think it’s a clumsy recognition of the huge growth in computerized trading and modeling in the business and the influx of mathematicians and physicists into the field over the last few decades.

    And, yeah, there are qualitative analysts so to speak. People who track management teams, political developments and new legislative regulations have a real hard time quantifying their research but they do still provide a real service.

  163. Slartibartfast says:

    Yes, I know. The quantitative/qualitative splits the entire universe in two. Plenty of room for everyone.

  164. McGehee says:

    Did I do that?

  165. bh says:

    Heh, no, it’s all good, McG.

    Slart’s saying it’s a silly term and he’s right (without my disagreement). I was saying that it still refers to specific job at the firm and I was right (without his disagreement).

  166. Slartibartfast says:

    Just takeing my pet peeve out for a walk, McG. Sorry if you stepped in anything.

  167. Slartibartfast says:

    “taking”

  168. McGehee says:

    So, I haven’t completed my daily quota of stirring up shit after all. I’ll keep trying.

  169. bh says:

    You can do it, McG. I recommend disparaging college football teams at random. That might work.

  170. mary quant says:

    it’s a silly term

    Quite.

  171. Ernst Schreiber says:

    The quantitative/qualitative splits the entire universe in two.

    I prefer Pascal’s espirit de finesse/espirit de géométrie formulation myself [sniff]

    Helps us Humanities B.A. types feel superior to you over-remunerated B.S. types.

  172. Slartibartfast says:

    Sorry, us uneddicated BS types don’t unnerstand words like remunerated.

    I mean, who speaks Latin anymore?

  173. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I mean, who speaks Latin anymore?

    Starbucks and Barnes & Noble employees mostly.

  174. sdferr says:

    With maybe a few of the plumbers thrown in . . .

  175. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Also, I’m sure you’re educated. You might not be learned, as we morally superior quasi-paupers like to say.

    The difference being that whereas the latter makes you a better person, the former makes you a more employable one.

  176. Caecus Caesar says:

    Semper ubi sub ubi.

  177. Slartibartfast says:

    The difference being that whereas the latter makes you a better person, the former makes you a more employable one.

    But deep down inside, we envy you.

    Semper ubi sub ubi

    What’s that doing under there?

  178. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Semper ubi sub ubi.

    ubique!

    But deep down inside, we envy you.

    When you’re not souless automatons slaving away for the machine you do.

Comments are closed.