Sexual Harassment Settlements

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bon_Croix

Guest
Today’s WSJ has interesting article on sexual harassment.

It appears that victims who settle with former employers have really tough time finding a new job afterwards due to the employer blacklisting the employee for references. Further, the settlements often have a non disclosure term which if violated would mean the victim has to repay the settlement to the employer. So, victim can’t disclose the facts on why she left to potential new employers.

It’s a sad story.
 
That doesn’t seem completely accurate.
Most employers when asked will only state
  1. the dates the person worked for them
  2. if they would be eligible for rehire.
They don’t want to get sued for telling more than that.
 
That could be a general policy; however, it does not have to be done in every circumstance.

The article mentioned that a victim hired a firm to prove that she was being given a bad reference. But no details were given. Also, it mentioned better settlements obligate the employer from not giving a bad reference.

It is an article from a respectable source.
 
I’m sure it is. But I’ve just never seen anything like that happen in this very large metropolitan city. Most corporate attorneys don’t advise disclosure. Which is why we have the problems we often do.
Peace.
 
Of course they don’t advise disclosure. Disclosure could lead to a criminal investigation. Criminal conviction is not good b/c it allows for “piercing the corporate veil”.
 
Last edited:
Why would a victim have to worry about a criminal investigation?
 
This is a very broad statement based on very few cases.

Harassment settlements ordinarily contain a provision requiring the former employer to provide a reference. The contents of that reference is often provided at the time of settlement. That’s been a best practice for at least a decade.

There is no question that people who have experienced harassment occasionally struggle to find new jobs. But the reasons are much more complex than bad references. These are people who have suffered psychological harm and carry the effects of that harm with them. We know it has an impact on how people approach the next job interview, etc.

The WSJ might be a “reputable” source, but they are still a media source, which means their priority is a good story, and the nuances and complexities that go along with harassment suits, settlements, and recovery aren’t necessarily a good story.
 
A victim does not have to worry about criminal investigation.

However, given that a settlement is evidence that some evidence exists in favor of the victim, an intelligent Police Chief would use that as a basis to begin an investigation.

There are other legal tricks to hide the facts, such as using an intermediary to get the funds to the victim. Example: have a consultant of the company pay twice as much for the victim’s house (compared to what it is worth). While at the same time, increasing the amount the consultant charges the company for his work.
 
Lawyers have ethical guidelines to follow. What you are describing would violate codes of ethics pretty much everywhere.

A victim presented with a sexual harassment settlement, even if they don’t have their own lawyer, will be encouraged to seek independent legal advice unless the opposing side is both disreputable and stupid.
 
And I’ll add:

The aforementioned legal tricks are now even more illegal. B/C in the past the victims were guilty of tax evasion. Now, the companies are responsible for tax evasion (if they deduct the consultant’s fees). And, if they don’t deduct the consultant’s fees, it is a red flag that it is a quid quo pro. The newer illegality is due to the new tax bill that just passed congress.
 
Ethical guidelines are great. But, to say that quid pro quo’s don’t take place is unfactual.

Look at Hallibuerton. They were using a consultant to pay off political bribes in foreign countries. A former exec plead guilty in a Federal criminal case. The company was then fined or they settled (1/2 billion if I recall correctly) .
 
Last edited:
I’m not saying they don’t take place. I’m saying they are not the norm and would occur in very few cases.
 
Very few attorneys doing sexual harassment settlements are tax attorneys. So , it’s a grey area in their mind when they arrange such settlements. But, to a tax attorney, a quid quo pro, is black and white.
 
Sadly, that does not make you a lawyer, nor does it qualify you to make representations about how one type of lawyer or another views issues.

I am a lawyer and I can say, with confidence, that there is no merit to what you are saying.
 
Then, why did you ask me if I was a lawyer?

B/C you wouldn’t have made the statement if I said that I was a lawyer.

So, what does that make your statement to me? It makes it of less value.

And, your experience as an attorney is minute to the legal profession as a whole as is everyone else’s experience relative to their occupation.
 
And, if you want merit. Look up the FACTS of the Halliburton case and apply it to the LAW.

It’s done. it’s history. It was on the front page. Ce’st Tu Fin…
 
I was quite confident you were not a lawyer. If you had been a lawyer, I would have told you that you need to speak to your local regulatory body, because your perspective on the ethical requirements imposed on lawyers is incredibly misguided.
Bon_Croix said:
And, your experience as an attorney is minute to the legal profession as a whole as is everyone else’s experience relative to their occupation.
Click to expand...
And yet it is vast compared to your experience with the profession.
 
And is every lawyer ethical in every instance?

No.

This isn’t about whether lawyers have ethics guidelines.

CPA’s have ethics guidelines too, and they get into trouble. Do you remember Arthur Anderson? I’m pretty sure they had more than one lawyer employed there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top