Anytime a business has to address accusations of sexual harassment the response to the accusation is critical. Prompt remedial action can often avoid liability. Thats sex harassment 101. When a politician is accused of harassment, the response can be more complex. Herman Cain is learning that lesson in real time. More after the jump
Mr. Cain has, to date, responded with a less than consistent approach which has kept the issue churning, usually not a positive thing for the politician. He certainly has defenders claiming him to be a victim of a "high tech lynching." But the killer fact for most is the reported settlement reached by his employer with one of the accusers. From the New York Times article linked above:One former colleague familiar with the details said such a severance was not common, especially for an employee with the woman’s relatively short tenure and her pay grade.
The situation highlights some policy concerns about confidentiality agreements and who is bound not to disclose what. In the normal case the only party restricted by confidentiality is the employee claiming harassment occurred, who receives valuable consideration ($$$$$) to resolve the claim and remain silent. But when the settlement is a nuisance value settlement on weak or disputed facts, there is a real argument the confidentiality agreement can have the unintended effect of making the controversy loom larger in the public's mind. A $5,000, settlement of a disputed claim may well be a business decision to avoid defending an unmeritorious law suit. The claimant, however, prevented from disclosing the settlement details may just smile and say the matter was resolved, leaving the amount of resolution to the mind of the third party hearing the remarks. Sometimes it is better for an employer not to insist on confidentiality.
