I guess attacking a black candidate for the highest office in the land based on his race is all fun and games until some Republican gets hurt.
Now I don't for a moment believe the suggestion that the reason Mr.Cain is having problems related to his previous EEOC problem is that he is black. Running for national office, particularly in these partisan times, is a nasty business in a nasty arena filled with some very influential and very nasty people.
Mr. Cain and his advisers were naive to think that the subject would not be pounced on by the press and public. They are even more naive if they think he will ever reach the position of the Republican candidate for the office of President without every detail of the complaint somehow, legally or illegally, becoming public.
Personally, I think Mr. Cain lied when he said he didn't know of any settlement and if there was one he hoped it wasn't for much money because he did not do anything wrong. The reason I say that is because if there was an EEOC complaint filed and then investigated by the EEOC there is no possible way Mr. Cain escaped noticing it. I say this from some personal experience with the filing, investigating and resolving of EEOC complaints.
Let me relate that experience here and you can decide if Mr. Cain lied here and now, without ever knowing what was in the EEOC complaint or the non-disclosure agreement that settled the complaint.
I filed a complaint with the EEOC here in Dallas, Texas sometime in 2008. If the filing and investigation process differs from place to place or has changed over time I am unaware of it. What I relate now generally reflects what happened there and then.
First, just getting in to file a complaint works against anyone motivated enough to go through the effort. The Dallas office did not take appointments and it did not receive potential complaint filers with open arms. It was strictly first come first serve and limited to hours of the day during which persons wishing to make a complaint are even allowed to try to file. If you don't get there on time, or you get there on time but the office runs out of time to review your initial statement during the hours allowed, you are tough out of luck and welcome to return the next day and every other day thereafter, during their appointed hours, until such time as you are worn out from trying or the staff tells you up front and to your face that they are not going to accept your complaint for investigation.
I spent a lot of money on private investigation and legal advice prior to taking my turn among the throng of people attempting to file complaints within the limited time available. I still had to return three days before I got my information into the hands of the staff that performs the initial review of complaints. On that day there were maybe a dozen or so others, out of maybe a hundred potential complainants, who were asked to remain for further questioning by staff. Everyone else was told to go home and if they felt sufficiently motivated to return another day.
As mentioned, I came with a good deal of preparation and documentation, so I waited a very long time in the outer office as an investigator went through the documents I submitted in support of my complaint before I was called back into the inner offices to be interviewed by a member of their staff.
That was only the beginning. Contrary to popular belief one is not greeted with open arms by the EEOC investigators or staff and there is not a huge cavalry of white knights on horses just begging to be let go to come to your rescue. The burden of proof is on the complainant and it is truly a burden. The initial interview is detailed, long and something like being cross examined on the witness stand. The interviewer looks for inconsistencies in your statements, documentary support that your complaint involves something more than just getting your feelings hurt by hard or cruel commentary from your employer and any shred of evidence that you are attempting to use the EEOC to vindictively strike out at your employer.
Presuming the initial interview does show a significant level of reason to believe that the law may have been broken and you might have been discriminated against or sexually harassed, your information will be passed even further into the recesses of the EEOC offices to an investigator who will then determine if you have something that you can legally refer to as a "complaint" filed with the EEOC. Then you wait, wait and wait some more as the investigator gathers information by shuttling information and further requests for information between you and the person or company against whom you have complained. At the start of this process the EEOC will inform you in no uncertain terms that they do not have the power to fine, reprimand, or impose the law or a settlement on any entity involved in the complaint, those actions are for the courts should the EEOC choose to send your complaint to the court. They will further inform you that they are not your personal legal advocate. If you want one of those, you are entitle to one at your own expense.
While it appears that nothing is happening during this time in fact a great deal is being done by the EEOC staff to gather evidence of facts which indicate that some portion of the law has been violated. When that is done you finally get the important results - something loosely referred to as a Letter of Finding and the right to sue.
The EEOC will issue a letter saying that in their view the law was or was not broken and you were or were not injured as a result of it. If the finding is the law was broken they may offer to mediate a settlement. In a very very small percentage of cases they may determine that the complaint raises such important legal questions or is so egregious that the matter will be referred to the court for prosecution without an offer of settlement. Getting a letter of determination that a violation occurred is rare indeed but I got one. Everyone receives notification that the EEOC's determination is not your final option. They will tell you that the laws of due process give you the right to take the matter to court on your own if even if the EEOC does not find in your favor. In my case they very kindly arranged a settlement between myself and those against whom I complained. That settlement includes a negotiated non-disclosure agreement in most cases.
That non-disclosure agreement is very important and serves both sides equally well in that it prevents either party from later "cherry picking" from the complaint and investigation information out of context so as to make the one party or other appear right or wrong. Basically, you agree to say nothing other than that the matter has been settled and leave it at that. Therein, lies Mr. Cain's problem.
He has already released some information from the complaint, but without context. On the national news he stated something to the effect that a portion of the complaint against him related to his commenting on the height of the complainant being very similar to that of his wife. The problem is, outside of the full context of the complaint he chose to mention a portion that on the face of it seems petty and perfectly tame. However, out of context, we don't know if he made the statement over a microphone at a team building exercise or in the confines of an elevator, alone, late at night on the way this his hotel room as thinking he was complimenting the woman on her height because is made it so much easier to unclasp her bra.
By doing so Mr. Cain makes the woman seem petty and the complaint trivial. But, as I have attempted to relate through the telling of my own experiences, no complaint that reaches the point of a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement could be petty or trivial. The EEOC would never have let the matter get that far in the first place. Further, there is no way that the complaint could have reached the point of settlement and non-disclosure without Mr. Cain know the terms of the settlement and non-disclosure agreement. He would have had to have signed it or given his legal team the authority to signed it for him. So, for Mr. Cain to say he doesn't know if there was a settlement and if there was one he hopes it was a small one is a flat out lie and good enough reason for anyone not to vote for him whether they ever find out the full content of the complaint.
Since he took the first step in revealing something contained in the non-disclosure agreement I think the matter should be fair game for the complainant to speak freely thereon herself. Why she has had her attorney request permission from the National Restaurant Association to speak on the subject I don't know. Probably because she doesn't have the same level of funds available for a legal fight which the association and Mr. Cain do.
One way or another though, the information will come out - legally or illegally.
Interestingly, in my non-disclose agreement I was specifically granted the right of disclosing information in the agreement to members of my immediate family and household. Since nothing I signed or could ever give me the right to constrain these individuals from relating what they may know or suspect about the settlement, I suspect there are similar individuals in Mr. Cains settlement and non-disclosure agreement.
I suggest the public press find out if there isn't such a person.
Whether they do or not let's make some things perfectly clear. Mr. Cain was involved in some manner of sexual harassment complaint filed with the EEOC, entered into a settlement and agreed to non-disclosure of the nature of the complaint and settlement in the future. He lied about that, he broke the non-disclosure agreement just enough to make the complainant look small, petty and trivial and now seeks to retreat back into the protections granted him in the non-disclosure agreement he so flagrantly denied to the woman who complained about him.
His actions are contemptible and his statements on the matter lies and prevarications.
Good enough reasons not to vote for him whatever his race, color creed or political affiliation.
No comments:
Post a Comment