Quote:
|
It may surprise you, but people don't make crazy ass ludicrous claims, because why the fuck would they?
|
They do it when they're fired. And if HR hasn't papered the file adequately in terms of prior discipline, they'll get a lawyer, and if they're in a protected class, the sensible economic decision is almost always to write them a check.
Quote:
|
There isn't a huge pot of gold at the end of the only-the-accuser-thinks-they-were-harassed rainbow.
|
Agreed. It's usually when fired.
Quote:
|
Almost everyone has gone through training and everyone understands what crosses the line. When someone does make a claim that doesn't meet any sort of established standard, they are almost always shut down.
|
Faced with a he said/she said situation, it's almost always cheaper to write a small check.
Quote:
|
If you're going to say, "But what about Franken?" Well, we didn't have an investigation and there was no punishment through any workplace channels.
|
We agree on Franken. Franken got fucked.
Quote:
|
How do you function knowing that a lot of the law is based on what a reasonable person would do? You must be drowning in creative hypotheticals.
|
That's only half the standard. Economically, it almost always makes sense to write a check, even for the shittiest claim. The other, often more compelling standard is:
Does the potential cost and aggravation approach, meet, or eclipse the cost of $$$ this person will take to walk away? Unless it risks setting a bad precedent, buying off risk at annoyance cost is almost always the prudent course. You never know where this stuff goes. Why take even the long odds of a dollar cost where you can kill the risk for a dime?
