Posted on 11/10/2011 5:18:01 PM PST by Kurt Evans
Snicker!!
Well, a good laugh and a snicker...
I’ll take it! ;-)
We need it, I think, SS. I’ve been ‘only’ reading articles and threads for over a week. Afraid to even comment even when I saw crazy things posted, lol.
Actually, I saw Alred on Hannity tonight and there was an insinuation that ‘she knows more’! But he couldn’t get her to say what. What a messed up week this has been, in many respects, lol.
I’m heading to bed, take care friend!
G’Night, Sweet Dreams! :)
And yet they didn’t do that. Interesting.
Cindie
In 1997, the average payout for harrassment complaints that were reported to the EEOC was around $3000.
The average payout for complaints in which there was actually some sort of payout was around $20,000.
The statistics to not support the claim that $46,000 was the “price of avoiding litigation” during the time period in question.
I’m sure they did just pay her off to make her go away, but contrary to the claims made here, a majority of harrassment charges in that time period were actually dismissed without paying a penny.
Anyway, the point is that in order to file lawsuits, in most states you need to first file an EEOC complaint. FIling such a complaint doesn't MEAN your complaint is more serious, but it does suggest a complaintant is more serious about causing trouble.
I provide that preamble to suggest that the figures for the results of harrassment complaints filed through the EEOC would be expected to be LARGER than those that don't get that far, or at least equivalent.
The following link is to a chart showing ALL the EEOC filed complaints for the past 14 years, starting the year before the 1st woman's complaint. EEOC Sexual Harrassment Statistics: EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997 - FY 2010.
THe first thing we find is that harrassment filings have dropped slightly, rather than rising as some suggest. THe second thing we find is that, contrary to some assertions in the arguments here, most harrassment complaints are resolved with NO MONEY.
The chart tells us the amount of money paid out in non-litigation cases, so it matches what we are looking at here.
In 1997, there were 17,333 resolutions. 2445 involved money. $49.4 million was paid out. That's $2880 per resolved complaint, or $20000 per resolution for which money was paid out. So $45,000 non-litigation payout is over twice the average payout from 1997.
1998 was worse. 17,115 resolutions, 2529 with payouts, 34.6 million total payouts -- $2004 per resolution, or $13,500 per resolution with payouts. That's the year NRA paid out $35,000 for the one harrassment allegation -- about 3 times the average payout.
1998 had 16,524 resolutions, 2660 with payment, $50.3 million paid out. That's $3000 per resolution, or $18,909 per payout. The $45,000 paid out to woman 2 in that year was almost 2.5 times the average payout.
This is NOT an argument that the payouts indicate truthfulness. I don't think that. I'm SIMPLY ARGUING that the claim that a $45,000 payout was the NORM in 1998 is not supported by facts. Nobody has ever presented ANY evidence for it, other than anecdotes from people about how that would be "small potatoes".
The EEOC data also show that claims of harrassment aren't really all that common, at least not serious ones -- 17,000 was about the highest, and the last few years it's been around 12,000 a year at most.
And according to the chart, in most years almost half the complaints are dismissed as no reasonable cause; it apparently wasn't as hard to "beat" a harrassment complaint as some suggest.
Last note about the table. My numbers of "payouts" is probably low. The table has resolutions broken into 5 categories:Settlements, Withdraw with benefits, administrative closure, no reasonable cause, and reasonable cause. I only counted "settlements" and "withdraw with benefits" as payouts. If "reasonable cause" was paid out as well, the cost per payout would drop. If administrative closure was also payout, that would drop the number even more. I used the smallest number so the result would be as high as possible, because it still proves my point. Lower numbers would prove my point better.
—Personally, being a Cain supporter, I’d love to see these women get as much exposure as possible. The more they talk, the more easily discounted their lies.—
This.
Nice try Idiot
I used to be corporate counsel to a massive bank and they routinely settled these claims (which seemed to come in every week) for about that amount of money, as ther cost of engaging counsel, filing a response to the initial legal complaint and schedulign and preparing for depositions would easily run the tab up to $50,000. EASY, and I’m in Cincinnati. The costs in Chicago, DC, NYC, etc. are double that.
Yeah the Cainiac mods didn’t like the posting of the Sexual Harassment figures from the EEOC. Apparently Cain was part of the problem not the solution.
You all are in for a rude awakening if you think decent women find the 4 claims without substance.
“Princess Nancy” Love it. Jewish Slur
“ Is she (Anita Hill) going to endorse me” What a scummy mind. I wonder if Gen Thomas found that funny?
So are John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Mitt Romney--what's your point?
The political gift Mr. Cain received was having this whole non-scandal blown up by the media.
A Bridge Too Far
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.