🚀 go-pugleaf

Adam Weiss wrote:

> MadMax wrote:
>
> > Adam, it just doesn't work that way.  When an employee files a sexual
> > harassment complaint or other other EEO type complaint, it will wind up in the
> > EEOC's hands, and it will cost the accused offender a lot in legal fees, and
> > the plaintiff nothing.  The plaintiff plays on the EEOC's money.
>
> However, they don't have a virtually unlimited source of EEOC money for
> the investigation (the way Starr did in the Lewinsky, etc... matter), do
> they?  And isn't it also true that the company would usually have a
> larger disposable amount of money to blow on their defense than the
> plaintiffs?

No, neither the EEOC nor the Civil Rights Office in DOJ have unlimited funds.
However, once they accept a complaint, they will see it through to the end.  A big
difference is that they have a narrow charge; only to investigate the allegations of
the plaintiff.  Sure, a large corporation may have a large amount of money to use in
defense.  But, if the company believes that its employee is in the wrong, they are
not going to defend him/her.  Most likely they would settle before it gets to
court.>

> > How much did Texaco pay out a couple of years ago in the complaint brought by
> > black employees?
>
> That I'm not sure about.  But it is important to point out that the
> complaint was brought only after many black employees were discriminated
> against.  A CEO who acts against a single employee (whether it's having
> an affair with a married female employee, or discriminating against a
> single employee) would probably get away with it.

I don't recall the details of the Texaco settlement either, but IIRC they settled.
I'm not sure the allegations against the executives were ever in fact proven.  Bad
press is also a good incentive for a settlement.I don't think it matters if it is
one or a dozen complainants.  The fact is, companies do not want sexual harassment
or discrimination going on in their organizations.
I know first hand that the policy in the agency for which I worked was basically one
of zero tolerance.  And, it was not solely a concern for the victims; the fact is it
costs money to get these kinds of complaints settled.  And that is money that an
operational government organization simply does not have.

> It's interesting that the CEOs of Texaco never had their names mentioned
> in the press in this case.  It was just "employees versus Texaco", and
> not "employees versus Mr.______, president of Texaco".

I don't believe that is correct.  In fact, if I am not mistaken,  one or two were
charged with criminally obstructing justice for destroying evidence.  I think the
names of at least three were in the media.

> This is the sort of thing I was talking about.  A CEO doesn't have an
> internal investigative group looking at him the way the President of the
> US does.  A CEO is in more complete control of his company than the
> President is of the US.  As a result, they have an easier time covering
> their tracks than the President would.  I'm not saying that CEOs are
> always successful in covering their tracks, I'm just saying that they
> have an easier time doing so than the President of the United States.

You are correct in pointing out the differences, particularly the use of an
independent prosecutor.  However, if the fed decides to investigate a private sector
company, it would be extremely difficult to hide any evidence of wrongdoing.  Again,
I just don't believe that the typical corporation would abet covering up such a
crime.  It just simply is not in their best interests to do so.

Max