Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has been electronically harassed by the media over allegations of sexual harassment during his tenure in the National Restaurant Association (N.R.A.), as well as recent visits to media outlets.
Mr. Cain admits to settlements by the N.R.A. in termination agreements with disgruntled female employees, to which he was not privy. These settlements were common prior to proactive mitigation by legal experts.
Part and Parcel to these settlements, i.e., more properly dignified as ‘agreements,’ were non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions barring the complainant from discussing or publicizing the allegations or terms of the ‘agreement.’ In exchange for tens of thousands in legal fees charged by counsel for the defendant and a contingency attorney for the plaintiff, ‘settlements’ were a matter of cost versus benefit.
However, disclosure or disparagement by the complainant after agreed terms of termination and departure can result in successful suits and damages assessed against the former complainant . . . however, this is hardly a bar to flaunting agreements to a person who is ‘collection-proof’ or bankrolled by media paying for stories.
In the alternative, exposing clients to damages in violation of clear contractual agreements should expose that attorney for the complainant flaunting the agreement to censure and disbarment, and monetary damages charged to his professional liability insurance.