🚀 go-pugleaf

MadMax wrote:
> 
> Adam Weiss wrote:
> 
> > True, Ken Starr did a great job at what he was appointed to do -- catch
> > criminals in the White House and on Capitol Hill.  But I frankly don't
> > think he'd have managed to catch Bill Clinton's lies if he hadn't been
> > given a unlimited budget of tax money to do it.
> 
> He couldn't have snared the President if it hadn't been for the Tripp tapes.
> They provided the evidence for Reno to expand Starr's investigation.
> 
> > It would have worked
> > in the private sector, where the party opposing him was a private
> > citizen with a limited budget.
> 
> 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.

I apologize.  I didn't know this.  Thank you for clarifying.


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?

> 
> 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.

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".

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.
--

Adam Weiss
aw722@pdq.net
http://members.tripod.com/~AWeiss/index.html

--

"Give me immortality, or give me death."

--