Discussion: O'Reilly Sexual Harassment Settlement Required Victim To Lie In Court

[ajoguy]

Something has changed in Billos appearance. He’s lost a certain glow, he’s puffier, older.

Losing power and stature can do that to the arrogant.

[susanintheoc]

The judge I worked for did read settlement agreements of some cases, and she did at times continue a matter for a settlement agreement she felt was unfair and needed to be modified. Very conscientious and hard-working judge.

[zeddycat]

In other news, sales of loofahs and falafels declined this quarter.

[sf_brian]

Yes. But the non-illegal and arguably enforceable provisions may remain, well, enforceable. Depends on the intent of the parties and whether they agreed the terms are severable without harming the remaining contract or it’s an all or nothing deal. Doesn’t mean a judge cannot interpret the doc as she or he sees fit, just less a chance of the whole agreement getting tossed.

[lizzymom]

I assume this is what @whiteboar is referring to:

I wonder if the clauses have severability so that the part that can’t be enforced just drops away and the rest of the contract remains valid.

Is this something which is dependent on state law? How does that work?

[whiteboar]

It looks like the clauses in question are 7c and 7g, neither of which require the parties to lie under oath What the clauses do require is that no evidence or material covered by this are introduced into legal proceedings by the parties and that the attorneys not assist other people in doing so and that if they are served a subpoena that they must notify the other parties to this agreement and not respond to the subpoena until the other parties have had opportunity to respond opposing the subpoena. So, essentially, you don’t file suits based on this information, you don’t help other people who file similar suits by providing them information and if subpoenaed, you give us the chance to file to squelch it. Doesn’t seem sinister to me, actually.

[tena]

Well it’s really basic contract law. If some provision of a contract isn’t i enforceable for some reason it doesn’t necessarily blowup the entire agreement it allows for the illegal provisions to be severed out of the rest of the agreement.

[dr_coyote]

I’m thinkin’ suborning perjury is probably a big No-No.

[whiteboar]

There’s actually a severability clause in the agreement, clause 13. So yes. To answer my own question, any parts that get kicked out by a court will go away, but the remainder is still in force.

[lizzymom]

I keep learning so much from you folks here. That’s one of the reasons I am such a TPM junkie.

[tena]

I learn shit everyday from people here. It’s really a great community.

[lastroth]

Well this seems to tie the victim to the abuser, like for ever. It still gives the abuser power while the victim has to always be on guard.
No wonder more women don’t report.

[sophie_brown]

If I was the judge, I would vacate the confidentiality portion of the claim and refer the lawyers who drafted or defended the agreement for disciplinary hearings.

Very well put. Technically, you would ask the judge to hold that kind of NDA violates public policy. I wonder if there are any decisions like that around the country. Let’s build up some precedent.

[lizzymom]

So, if I understand this correctly,

1. right now there are bad and embarassing optics for O’Pigly, but he and his lawyers will suffer no lasting ramifications for this particular part, and

2. the rest of the contract can stand as is

Does this affect the on-going dispute at all?

[commonscents]

The Beavis and Butthead fan in me giggles each time I see someone use the acronym for “I am not a lawyer”

[maricaibo]

Another example (as if we needed one) of Fox staff’s willful ignorance and inability to recognize truth and facts. And will do anything to hide facts in pursuit of…what, exactly? More money? Power? Not journalism, that’s fer sure.

Continually surprised the GOP continues to suck up to a grumpy Australian with a grudge against America. They DO know Australia banned assault rifles, right?

[whiteboar]

Well this seems to tie the victim to the abuser, like for ever. It still gives the abuser power while the victim has to always be on guard.

That’s what the money is for. In exchange for silence, the victim gets money immediately. The other option is to file a civil lawsuit where you can get both money and no confidentiality agreement. The downside is, of course, that it’s incredibly expensive, takes an eternity and you might make an error that cause the suit to fail. Also, you can count on getting dragged through the mud, especially when it’s a case involving sexual behavior. It’s not really an optimal solution for society that abusers get to avoid scandal if they’re wealthy, but from the victim’s point of view, I can readily understand why a settlement can look attractive.

[lizzymom]

Me, too, actually! It took me, I must confess, sometime before I didn’t have to parse it when I saw it to remind myself what it stood for.

[whiteboar]

As much as I enjoy O’Reilly being held up as a monstrous buffoon, I’m not sure what public policy it advances. This wouldn’t prevent a criminal complaint against him, if the state elected to try and make one, and the agreement wouldn’t prevent the evidence covered by the settlement from being used in such a case. This essentially makes a civil suit go away.

[jakebarnes]

Routine terms to such agreements.