A woman who accused Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment issued a statement saying she stood by her story that the Republican Presidential hopeful made several unwanted advances towards her. The accuser received a sum of money in return for settling the case with the National Restaurant Association in September 1999. Did she violate the specifics and stipulations of the settlement agreement?
Herman Cain has been accused by three other women of sexual harassment when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s. The issue is dominating the race to decide a Republican challenger to face President Barack Obama in the November 2012 presidential election.
According to Politico the two alleges women who received financial settlements after complaining of sexual harassment by Herman Cain while he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association made a complaint in good faith about a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances from the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. The complaint in good faith included secrecy no disclosure, privacy, concealment. The complaints were resolved in an agreement with her acceptance of a monetary settlement comes with an agreement of hush funds.
Reports are that the first reported accuser received a $35,000 settlement and the second sexual harassment accuser was paid $45,000.
Cain denies sexually harassing anyone and insisting he wasn’t aware of any settlement later recanting his statements, saying“he knew of an agreement.” A third woman claims she was harassed by Cain at the NRA but received no settlement.
A lawyer for the accuser attorney Joel Bennett client received a sum of money in return for settling the case with the National Restaurant Association in September 1999 and knew the specifics of the allegations when Cain was head of the NRA. Now his client did not want to “revisit the details” and wished to remain anonymous because she has been married for 26 years.
She and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now or in discussing the matter any further. Not because it would be extremely painful, because the original settlement agreement stipulated full confidentiality and consequences if this agreement was broken. Now both the accuser and her legal advisers have broken the confidentially of this settlement agreement and could become candidates for a civil suit.
The complaints were resolved in an agreement with her acceptance of a monetary settlement comes with an agreement of hush funds. Now the attorney Mr. Bennett and his client gave the statement to the restaurant group who agreed to its publication. Their lawyers decided to lift the confidentiality agreement the woman signed when she left the association now jeopardizing the legality of the alleged sexual harassment with a potential lawsuit waiting in the wings from Cain for breach of agreement.
The attorney stated “my client stands by the complaint she made.” But she forgot the release of no admission knowing the specifics of the allegedincidents which occurred in the 1990s. The NRA released a statement confirming the sexual harassment claims had been made and resolved in a financial agreement in 1999. The association stated that Cain disputed the allegations at the time and had not signed the documents.
Politico has not released the names of the allegedas all unnamed victims received pay outs after they accused Cain of sexual harassment as the women stand to benefit financially from the new revelations now that the breach has been broken. The burden of proof falls on the accusers and their legal team. Not the media and the voters, but public opinion can sway a decision in an election year
Cain, who is leading the polls in the race to become the Republican presidential nominee, has strongly denied any wrongdoing and vowed to “defeat those that would destroy me.”
The accuser’s attorney told reporters that his client stands by the complaint she made a decade ago even though Cain has said the allegations were baseless. The woman doesn’t want to divulge specifics or her identity says his client “sees no value in revisiting the complaint from 1999.” When did she first consider not wanting to “divulge specifics?” The National Restaurant Association confirmed there was an agreement with the woman.
The National Restaurant Association existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment from employees. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and the accuser subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. According to news reports Cain was not a party to that agreement. The agreement contains confidentiality obligations and the Association’s policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters.
So what’s the motivating factor behind this smear campaign? This has the same stinky smell as the Clarence Thomas Anita Hill sexual harassment case. ABlack conservative at the forefront of a political election being accused of sexual harassment. Does the accuser have accountability or creditability? Was this report from Politico concluded that Cain leading the Republican field came out winning by default after weeks’ worth of debates, speeches and voting by GOP delegates namely, because the leading candidate in the field of rivals has stolen the thunder from both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.
If this is true and the alleged incident took place. For all practical purposes, any sane person would have gone to the proper authorities within fifth teen minutes after the apparent harassment not waiting 15 plus years. I’ll bet if someone did some real digging, these accusers are being compensated from somewhere, that all have nothing to lose by trying. This definitely has Liberalism written all over it.