What a difference a day makes.
That old standard made famous by the legendary Sarah Vaughn is one song Herman Cain should start learning the lyrics to. Less than 8 hours after Politico Politico story ”>broke the story that Herman Cain, during his tenure as head of the National Restaurant Association allegedly harassed at least two female employees, who ultimately left their jobs at the trade group, after complaining of his behavior to several colleagues and associates, and after initial denials from his campaign, Cain held a press conference at the National Press Club Monday and admitted two things:
1. That he had in point of fact been accused of sexual harassment as CEO of the National Resturant Association; and
2. That there was an investigation conducted, he recused himself, and that he was unaware if there was a settlement paid because the allegations proved “baseless.”
WATCH HERMAN CAIN ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS HERE:
[NBCVIDEO source=”UNIWIDGET” video=”http://widgets.nbcuni.com/singleclip/singleclip_v1.swf?CXNID=1000004.08052NXC&WID=4a784acd2b1a7e80&clipID=1365424″ w=”400″ h=”400″]
Within minutes the airwaves, social media and political blogs were abuzz as to whether or not it was plausible for Cain as the CEO of the Association to be unaware of any settlement that would have been reached on his behalf. This former attorney, turned journalist found his denials to be implausible because whenever there is a settlement and release agreement negotiated on behalf of a company or association, the principals of that corporate entity have to approve the amount of the settlement being offered.
It turned out that my hunch, as well as that of others was correct. On Monday afternoon, Cain admitted in an interview with Fox News, that he was in point of fact aware of the settlement that his General Counsel offered to the alleged victims. And that they did pay the large sum of money the women were seeking as a result of their grievance.
The women in question complained of “sexually suggestive” behavior by Cain and according to Politico the women signed a settlement and release agreement with the restaurant group that exchanged a financial pay out for them forgoing any legal rights to sue either the National Restaurant Association or Cain. Before we go any further, let me put this into context:
theGrio: Herman Cain denies report of sexual harassment
It is standard practice in the private sector that if an employ is fired, or resigns under questionable circumstances (e.g., allegations of discrimination, harassment, etc.) for the company to negotiate a private settlement and release document that binds both employer and employee to keep confidential the contents of the settlement. In short, the aggrieved employee gives up his or her right to sue and signs a liquidated damages clause in case they breach the agreement. Meaning they have to pay back the money received or a punitive sum for the breach.
The only persons who could have leaked such a document would have been those privy to its contents, the lawyers involved, the employees who made the charges or Cain himself. It is worth noting that whatever campaign got a copy of this document and leaked it probably procured it in a highly unethical manner.
Now, let’s deal with the politics of the day and what this means for Herman Cain. First this is not the same as 1992 and the allegations against former President Bill Clinton. Clinton’s so-called “bimbo eruptions” were covered up by loyal aides like Betsy Wright and according to some books and sources at the time, even former first lady Hillary Clinton.
The challenge for Cain now is that he has lost his credibility. He could have gotten out in front of this story when Politico’s Jonathan Martin tried to interview him days ago. But he chose instead to ignore the warning signs and try to swat off such reports as “arrows”. The reality, however, as NBC news has confirmed is that one of the women who made the allegation has admitted to getting an out of court settlement with the Association.
The only way out that I see for Cain as this juncture is to release the agreement redacting portions that could hurt the victims. Yet, the problem with that is a legal one because the whole point of these type of agreements is to protect the parties and their confidentiality. There is usually a liquidated damages clause that goes with the confidentiality clause that makes liable the party that breaches the agreement for economic damages. In this case the women may have a new cause of action against NRA and or Cain depending on how the agreement was worded due to the very public breach.
This post has been updated since its initial publication.