“A Wisconsin man who argues that he could not be prosecuted for having sex with a deer because the animal was dead at the time, was dealt a legal setback when a judge rejected a motion seeking dismissal of a criminal charge against him.”
I assume the primary motive for settling here would be to avoid a bunch of awful discovery becoming public rather than it being an actual +EV move strictly within the vacuum of that case to settle for that gigantic sum.
Thing is, he didn't have some amazingly sterling image to protect by this point anyway; he had already had sexual-misconduct allegations that became pretty public in the past, and for that matter his own daughter once claimed that she saw him drag her mother (his then-wife) down the stairs by her hair. Dude was known to be scummy to anyone paying attention, and those who were willing to look the other way would have continued to do so as he continued to just deny ad nauseum. Also, he's old enough that it seems like that would reduce any leverage over him too, as it wasn't as though he was protecting several decades of further earning power anyway.
Just seems like a very odd settlement to me, so that's why I was curious as to what on earth the going rate is on sexual harassment stuff.
By posting a link to every article you read and typing out and posting every single silly thought that enters your head without giving it time to become coherent.
By posting a link to every article you read and typing out and posting every single silly thought that enters your head without giving it time to become coherent.
By posting a link to every article you read and typing out and posting every single silly thought that enters your head without giving it time to become coherent.
By posting a link to every article you read and typing out and posting every single silly thought that enters your head without giving it time to become coherent.