I am all about people getting their money. And I will disclose all of my bias here and say that it is especially sweet when someone from historically impoverished culture is the recipient of said money…even if they didn’t come from a low-income background themselves. That’s why when Anucha Browne Sanders was “awarded” $11.6 million for her sexual harassment suit against MSG I was astounded, not by the money, but by my own natural reaction of: “What in the world?”
Granted, civil suits often end up with the prosecutor getting money as long as they seem 51% credible and don’t seriously sabotage their own case. There’s barely any burden of proof required for the prosecution, even though it’s set up that way, because human emotion is just naturally inclined to defend the victim, no matter what the circumstances may be.
But to award Anucha Browne Sanders with $11.6 million is kind of ridiculous! I’m not even sure how a jury could even get to that number. I understand that the number is the sum of three different liable components, but it still does not justify awarding someone that kind of money for sexual harassment.
Where is the justification?
Anucha Browne Sanders may have made $200K-$300K tops per year in her last full year with MSG. So you figure that the she gets paid 10 years worth of her salary; that’s twice the amount of time she had been with the team. That should take care of her hostile work environment judgment. You throw in another 500K for legal fees. And if it is completely reasonable to personally fine Dolan for allowing the hostile to go on (something I think is unreasonable and serves as double jeopardy considering that he is MSG), she should get no more than the same amount she got for the hostile environment judgment. All and all, that’s $6.5 million. That’s still way too much for me, but at least it can be justified unlike the $11.6 million finding.
People who get raped do not get awarded $11.6 million. Obviously, this is the people taking down a billion dollar organization in order to take a stand.
See that’s the problem with



0 Comments:
Post a Comment