Skip to comments.Lawyer: Cain May Have Violated Confidentiality of Harassment Settlement
Posted on 11/01/2011 11:53:01 AM PDT by maggief
The lawyer for a woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain in the late 1990s says that Cain may have violated the confidentiality terms of the agreement by commenting on its specifics over the past 24 hours.
"Herman Cain and others have already disclosed that there was a confidential settlement," says Joel P. Bennett, a Washington-based attorney specializing in employment law, who also represented the woman when she negotiated her settlement.
"I don't know if she'll ever go public," he said Tuesday.
Without having the agreement in hand, Bennett says he doesn't know what it specifically says about Cain's obligations under the non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses.
"I haven't seen the agreement" in a dozen years, he said. "I haven't seen whether it goes both ways."
But even if it doesn't, Bennett says, "If an employer makes a confidential agreement, and then discloses it, there's a reasonable assumption that the employer has waived the confidentiality part of the agreement."
Bennett said his client, a graduate of an Ivy League university, worked in professional positions in government for many years before her tenure at the restaurant lobbying group, and does so currently.
It is "inconceivable," Bennett told NPR, that his client was motivated by money, or by a romantic interest in Cain.
"I've known her for a long time, and she's happily married," Bennett said, adding: "I can tell you also that I don't represent people who are trying to shake down employers."
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
LOL. No word from the attorney about how the information got into the hands of politico.com in the first place.
Way to double down on stupid Smearbots.
Cain had his best fund raising day ever yesterday. Thanks for the help NPR.
Seems that the other side may have violated the confidentiality agreement by putting it out there in the first place.
Tweeee! Piling on! Fifteen yards!
All you need to know in that line right there.
Fine, make the anonymou$ accu$er go public.
If $he i$n’t motivated by money then why did $he $ettle?
Now it’s starting to sound like a Dem leak, although it still seems too soon in the election cycle.
Didn’t Politico disclose it?
Cain did NOT pay this woman off! He fired her and gave her the usual 3 months severence pay!
So the lib media makes the news public. And now says Cain is guilty for defending himself publicly.
Wonder if Bennett was one of the sources for politico’s article?
He never mentioned names. If Polutico knew this, it appears the violation was well before Mr Cain’s answers.
Could be he was waiting on this before answering.
See how it works? It is no longer about the silly story. It is about the aftermath.
Exactly. Who told in the first place and does the dumb broad really want to take this public right now.
I might support this guy just because the idiots that are against him. I need more, but this is gettin dopey.
You are right—more pointing to how liberals and dems operate. Of course, a Paul supporter took out a full-page ad in the Austin Chronicle to ask about Perry’s sex life.