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.
So HE'S the ONE attorney that won't, eh?
“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.” .............................................................=Typical Plaintiff Lawyer speak.
I think what he means to say is that Lawyer: Cain May, or may not Have Violated Confidentiality of Harassment Settlement
Nope, not too soon.
The left is absolutely terrified of the prospect of Cain being 0bama’s opponent.
90% of their campaign goes down the tubes right there.
Another example of the unsubstantiated speculation that passes for journalism these days.
A few weeks ago my wife said, “Man, MSNBC really hates Cain, he must be pretty good.”
IOW, judge a man by the enemies he makes. :-D
Betchas some of the checks had “Politico” on the memo line.
by washington, does the writer mean DC or the state?
HE didn’t fire her. The restaurant association let her go with severance pay.
If Cain didn’t sign anything, then he’s under no obligation to maintain confidentiality, but the other person still is.
I don't know if he has any legal basis considering the female's name is still confidential. BUT, watch her name to be mysteriously leaked in the near future.......
I saw this coming, Cain was caught in a two way trap, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't......
98% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Romney was, is, and always will be a dem.
Any competent lowyer should know and understand that!!!
[translation]: 'I'm not saying it isn't true - but its "inconceivable" (so don't you dare conceive of it...)'...
...or by a romantic interest in Cain.
[translation]: 'But I'll keep tossing those sexual innuendos out there, even though this doesn't have anything to do with sex...'
"I've known her for a long time, and she's happily married," Bennett said,
Fine, and I like pie...
... adding: "I can tell you also that I don't represent people who are trying to shake down employers."
[translation]: 'I could tell you that ... but it would be lying... And we lawyers never lie...'
Don’t make me write Cain another campaign check.
The RinoCrats are gettin’ desperate...reachin’ for technicalities...
"Well, there's a *****in' surprise...."
You are kidding, right?
Yes you do, the question is when and who will offer the most $$$$$.........
Sounds like this lawyer revealed a lot of information which could help anyone find this woman. Someone who had this lawyer, an ivy league education, worked in that particular position at that time and who is happily married. Does he have no obligation as to keeping her identity confidential? This is so insane.
(1) There’s no evidence that Cain ever signed the confiality agreement. Apparently it was between the NRA and the employee.
(2) We should thank the lawyer for confirming that Cain is telling the truth.
(3) This, THIS, is what they are going to hit Cain with next? That he defended himself with the TRUTH?
What’s he supposed to do, just sit there and take it? Say “I’ve got a great defense, but I’m not allowed to tell you about it”?
Cain very clearly stated that he was unaware of any settlement. He said, roughly, that he hoped they didn’t pay too much, because he didn’t do anything.
How could he be obligated to abide by a settlement that he is unaware of?
Where did you get that information? The article says she's still working for the same group.......
“I can tell you also that I don’t represent people who are trying to shake down employers.”
Winning Attorneys’ Fees from the U.S. Government [Hardcover]
Joel P. Bennett (Author)
Publication Date: December 11, 1984
This practical guide explains fee-shifting statutes and how to take full advantage of them. It offers specific guidance on recovering fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Civil Service Reform Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Criminal Justice Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, among other statutes. “Winning Attorneys’ Fees from the U.S. Government” covers eligibility requirements under the various acts, standards for recovery, roles of the administrative agencies, and computation of fees. The extensive appendices contain sample motions, affidavits, attorneys’ logs, and more. This book is updated as needed, generally two times each year.
yesh~! he should have kept his mouth shut and let us continue to INSINUATE that he sexually harassed this poor woman, who was only trying to bilk the system for a 6 figure payout.
He talked about skeletons last week concerning Cain, and if any were found it might just be the end of that campaign.
He and Cain have exchanged words over the last few weeks about how each perceives the other.
One of them is vindictive and always has been.
The other is upsetting the GOP applecart of also-rans that gave us forgettable candidates like Dole, McCain, and H.W. Bush.
Romney probably made a deal last go-around to let Mac win, and he would be 'lady-in-waiting'.
The one person I am talking about wants Romney to win because of that deal.
That man is Karl Rove.
Now where did you get that information? Do you have access to the actual settlement agreement or are you just making your own interpretations on what is said here and there and everywhere?