The Other McCain

The New York Times:

The National Restaurant Association gave $35,000 — a year’s salary — in severance pay to a female staff member in the late 1990s after an encounter with Herman Cain, its chief executive at the time, made her uncomfortable working there, three people with direct knowledge of the payment said on Tuesday.
The woman was one of two whose accusations of sexual harassment by Mr. Cain, now a Republican candidate for president, led to paid severance agreements during his 1996-99 tenure at the association. . . .
Four people with contemporaneous knowledge of the encounter said it had taken place in the context of a work outing during which there had been heavy drinking — a hallmark, they said, of outings with an organization that represents the hospitality industry. . . .
Two of them said that other factors had been involved in her severance, and that other workplace issues had been making her unhappy at the association as well. But they said the encounter with Mr. Cain had added an emotional charge and contributed to the size of her payment. One former colleague familiar with the details said such a severance was not common, especially for an employee with the woman’s relatively short tenure and her pay grade.

The question of motive is now before us, you see: A woman is hired at a modest salary, becomes “unhappy” due to “workplace issues,” attends a work-related event where “heavy drinking” took place, had an “encounter” with the CEO that “made her uncomfortable working there” and — presto! — gets paid a full year’s salary to go away.

At this point, of course, we know nothing else about this woman and have no details of the “encounter.” We cannot judge the credibility of an anonymous accused based on the accounts of anonymous “people with contemporaneous knowledge.” However, we can consult Cornell University Law Professor William Jacobson:

Some people are acting like a $35,000 severance payment is a big deal.  Trust me, it’s not.  It’s less than the cost of defense of a case, and it avoids distractions and publicity which even a weak or false claim can bring.  Some large companies will fight these claims even if the cost of defense exceeds a possible settlement, because the company wants to send a message to the workforce that you can’t just make a claim and get a check.  But most smaller companies, and certainly a trade organization which needs good publicity, will settle quickly and quietly.  I read nothing incriminating into a $35,000 severance agreement with an employee who also had other gripes with the company in addition to the as-yet unspecified issue with Herman Cain.

A quick aside: Where did Americans get the idea that you can sue your employers because you don’t like your job or because your boss said or did something that made you “uncomfortable”? Do we have a right to happiness at work? If I hire somebody to work for me, does this decision imply a guarantee that my employee should at all times be pleased with my behavior?

I do not mean to belittle Cain’s anonymous accuser or to peremptorily dismiss the possibility that Cain engaged in genuinely offensive behavior toward this accuser, or toward the other accuser, or toward anyone else. We do not yet have enough facts to make that judgment — “Let Her Speak” — and given the “he-said, she-said” nature of such cases, it is unlikely that we will ever have any absolute certainty about it. But the fact that a short-term, low-level employee can get a full year’s salary in “go-away money” as the result of such things is profoundly troubling to me.

Throughout my career, when I became fed-up with a job, I would quit. If I didn’t quit, obviously my continued employment was more important to me than whatever unhappiness or discomfort I felt. However, I would have never dreamed of asserting a right to unearned compensation as a result of my disgruntlement at work.

Suggested reading: “Get Out or Get in Line,” by Elbert Hubbard.
 

While I was at the American Spectator gala Tuesday night at the Capital Hilton in D.C., I learned that one of the women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment has been interviewed by the Wall Street Journal:

A woman who complained about Herman Cain’s behavior when he was president of the National Restaurant Association wants to be released from a confidentiality restriction so she can respond to his statements on the matter, her lawyer said Tuesday.
Washington lawyer Joel P. Bennett said the woman disagreed with Mr. Cain’s public comments about reports that two female employees of the restaurant trade group had accused him of sexual harassment in the late 1990s. Mr. Cain said this week that he had been “falsely accused” and that the complaints were “baseless.”
“My client disputes Mr. Cain’s claims that he never sexually harassed anyone, and that the claims had no merit,” Mr. Bennett said.
A second person, who had knowledge of the woman’s complaint about Mr. Cain, said it entailed more than one incident “and continued over some period of time.”

And I say, let’s hear the whole story — the sooner, the better — directly from the accuser. No more “sources say.” No more anonymity.

No more vague second-hand descriptions that can neither be wholly believed nor entirely refuted. That the accused is a man very much in the public eye, while the accuser is concealed behind a rampart of anonymity, is grossly unfair both to Cain and to the American people. Until the identity of the accusers is made public, and the full account of their accusations can be heard and evaluated, we have no way of judging the credibility of the charges or severity of the alleged offenses.

I predicted from the outset that the press corps would swiftly identity the accusers, that their names would become public and their stories would be heard. Reporters are now staking out the home of one accuser, who is staying with relatives to avoid media scrutiny.

The path down which this story must now go is not a path any decent person would wish to see a political campaign have to travel. But news organizations which are currently protecting the anonymity of Cain’s accusers are merely delaying the inevitable. They will be named, and every fact of their lives that can be learned by reporters (or by private detectives) will be known, most of it probably within a matter of days. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a damned fool, and those editors and reporters who now refuse to name these women will find themselves scooped by someone. Bloggers, the British tabloid press, the National Enquirer, MSNBC — it makes no difference, somebody is going to put their names out there, and PDQ.

It is absolutely impermissible for a leading candidate for the presidency to be publicly accused of sexual misconduct by anonymous accusers. We have been told that the women themselves did not push this story to the press, and they would have preferred that the matter remain confidential. But now that the accusation is public, how can the accusers remain anonymous?

And to hell with a confidentiality agreement at this point. Anyone who thinks it possible to enforce a confidentiality agreement now, when descriptions of these cases have already become front-page news everywhere, needs to wake up to reality.

If you believe Herman Cain’s denial of these accusations, you should demand nothing less than complete disclosure of the entire story, in confidence that he will be vindicated. Whatever the truth is, no one can pretend that there is anything to be gained for anyone by continued secrecy and anonymity.

Meanwhile: A blogger is reporting that the man who followed Herman Cain as CEO of the National Restaurant Associations is — wait for it — a Mitt Romney donor.

Personally, I’d still bet money it was the Rick Perry campaign that pushed this story to the media. A couple of reporters I was talking to at the Spectator gala last night pointed out that Politico‘s Jonathan Martin obviously has very good sources with the Perry campaign.

But I don’t think we’ll know for sure where this story came from until after the GOP convention next summer, and then only if (a) it was Romney whose campaign pushed the story, and (b) Romney wins the nomination. If it was Perry’s campaign that pushed the story, we’ll only find out the truth if the scandal destroys Cain. Then the liberal media will blame Perry for the “racist” destruction of Cain, so that Perry is destroyed in turn, thus ensuring Romney’s nomination. On the other hand, if Cain survives the scandal and wins the nomination, we’ll never know where the story came from.