Speaker 1: What's up his way of at Angela Yee and my
Speaker 1: girl Selena Hill is hanging out with me.
Speaker 2: Yep, yep.
Speaker 1: I'm a journalist extraordinaire and we're really excited. We have
Speaker 1: so many questions for you.
Speaker 2: Today. We have Marjorie Mezzador here.
Speaker 1: She is the harassment slayer, but you're also the founder
Speaker 1: and chief visionary officer of Mezzador PLLC, which is a
Speaker 1: workplace discrimination law firm employment and workplace discrimination law firm
Speaker 1: dedicated to advancing justice, equity, and accountability in the workplace.
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us today.
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 1: We have so many things going on and so many
Speaker 1: people call up for ask ye with questions when it
Speaker 1: comes to you know, things that happen in the workplace
Speaker 1: and how to go about it. And we know it's
Speaker 1: something that's difficult for people to navigate.
Speaker 3: No, absolutely, I mean you would be surprised even when
Speaker 3: people know they're being discriminated against. Just how uncomfortable that
Speaker 3: people are even using the word discrimination. Right most of
Speaker 3: the time when things are going on, they're like, oh,
Speaker 3: this person has a personal problem with me. I don't
Speaker 3: know what the issue is, I don't know why being
Speaker 3: treated so differently. They'll run through the gamut of questions
Speaker 3: all through their head and the very last thing that
Speaker 3: they come up with this with is I think it's
Speaker 3: because I'm a woman. I think it's because I'm black.
Speaker 3: I think it's because I am not a Nate, I
Speaker 3: am a foreign born in national or something like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And a lot of times we can feel powerless
Speaker 1: to do anything about it. And it's interesting in this
Speaker 1: dnage that we're in right now, Selena.
Speaker 2: You were just covering a situation with COC. What was this?
Speaker 4: Yeah, So the EEOC recently filed a lawsuit against a
Speaker 4: Coca Cola distributor for hosting a women only networking event.
Speaker 5: The federal government.
Speaker 4: Is literally saying or claiming that this company discriminated against
Speaker 4: men because they were not invited on this retreat right,
Speaker 4: which was for you know, women's empowerment purposes. So you know,
Speaker 4: my question is I want, as an attorney who is
Speaker 4: working to protect underrepresented groups and historic, historically marginalized groups,
Speaker 4: what are your thoughts on this? How can both companies
Speaker 4: and these marginalized groups protect themselves when in Trump's era,
Speaker 4: the federal government can actually sue for something like this.
Speaker 3: Right, So, a couple of different things, right, First and foremost,
Speaker 3: if a private company is putting forth programs to push
Speaker 3: forth an agenda that helps their bottom line that happens
Speaker 3: to align with gender or race or anything like that,
Speaker 3: that is never going to be discriminatory in and of itself. Right.
Speaker 3: So if you if you are tampaks and you are
Speaker 3: running you know, an empowerment group for that, it's because
Speaker 3: you have you sell a product that is directly geared
Speaker 3: toward women, right, that is going to be otherwise helpful
Speaker 3: and beneficial to them. Where they can run into tricky
Speaker 3: waters is because this particular administration is putting this particular
Speaker 3: administration has taken a stance on DEI. Right, that is
Speaker 3: that makes it like a four letter word, a very
Speaker 3: very like de I is naughty. D I is bad.
Speaker 3: For this administration, they they see DEI and putting forth
Speaker 3: and pushing for the agenda of one race or one
Speaker 3: gender one of them to be the same. So, because
Speaker 3: they just take a very cookery cutter view of that,
Speaker 3: and they have the purse strings of the federal government,
Speaker 3: they can weaponize. Right, an agency like the EEOC, and
Speaker 3: the EEOC only exists to investigate and research any discrimination
Speaker 3: that takes places in places that have fifteen or more employees. Okay,
Speaker 3: so because they have that that that ability, they have
Speaker 3: that authority and that they have that a power. If
Speaker 3: you have fifteen or more employees, the EEOC can take
Speaker 3: a look at your policies, your procedures, your DEI policies
Speaker 3: and say that, you know what, this doesn't align with
Speaker 3: what we think is appropriate or legal, or any one
Speaker 3: of those things. So we're going to investigate it. But
Speaker 3: what the EEOC does not have the ability to do
Speaker 3: is declare it illegal just because they're investigating. So none
Speaker 3: of the laws have changed. None of the way that
Speaker 3: we look at the law that says that when marginalized
Speaker 3: populations come together in order to create affinity groups and
Speaker 3: to otherwise elevate agendas and the stuff that in and
Speaker 3: of itself is not discriminatory, that has not changed. But
Speaker 3: the government's ability to direct the EOC and say, you
Speaker 3: know what, we're gonna we're not going to look at
Speaker 3: these transgender issues anymore. We're going to focus on just
Speaker 3: the DEI policies that are focused just for women or
Speaker 3: just for people of color, because we're calling that illegal indiscriminatory,
Speaker 3: even though they are saying that they can and they
Speaker 3: can do that. They can go in and investigate and
Speaker 3: they can make life very uncomfortable for Coco Colas. They
Speaker 3: cannot declare it illegal though that only the law can do,
Speaker 3: only the court can do. But they'll just make it uncomfortable.
Speaker 3: And nobody wants the EOC in their backyard.
Speaker 1: And it's kind of like a warning for other companies too,
Speaker 1: exactly that happens.
Speaker 2: Do you want to have to deal with all of
Speaker 2: this exactly?
Speaker 3: And this administration has been very effective by saying by saying,
Speaker 3: we are going to throw our entire weight and authority
Speaker 3: behind what we can do to make it as uncomfortable
Speaker 3: for you as possible so that you can do what
Speaker 3: we want you to do.
Speaker 4: And to Angela's point, like it's definitely setting our precedence
Speaker 4: so that because we see a lot of companies are
Speaker 4: no longer in acting DEI policies. But with the lawsuit,
Speaker 4: they're saying the company violated Title seven of the Civil
Speaker 4: Rights Act because men supposedly were not invited to this
Speaker 4: women's retreat.
Speaker 5: During work hours, during work hours.
Speaker 4: So they're saying that's the case and I'm saying, like
Speaker 4: the pendulum has definitely shifted because instead of protecting women, minorities, immigrants,
Speaker 4: now it's like they're attacking them, and they're using the
Speaker 4: same laws that were created to protect these groups now
Speaker 4: to attack workers while they are on the job.
Speaker 5: Like, how do we navigate that?
Speaker 3: So a few different things with this particular case, I
Speaker 3: don't know, like all the ins and outs of like
Speaker 3: what kind of program it was under, what like how
Speaker 3: they were able to otherwise nagel it, you know before,
Speaker 3: or anything like that. But if the only criteria for
Speaker 3: you to go to this retreat is your gender, then
Speaker 3: that is discriminatory. If the only criteria only right, you're women,
Speaker 3: you're a woman, you're in, your guy, you're out, that
Speaker 3: on its face absolutely is discriminatory. However, right, a lot
Speaker 3: of the programs that we're talking about, like the DEI programs,
Speaker 3: the affinity programs, a lot of them have to do
Speaker 3: and invite anyone who is in support of anything that
Speaker 3: is going to otherwise elevate support the cause of and
Speaker 3: the issues of the affinity group so it doesn't become
Speaker 3: a situation where it's only men versus women. This is
Speaker 3: a woman's retreat for issues that are particularly important to women.
Speaker 3: If you are a man and issues and issues are
Speaker 3: important of women are important to you, you are welcome
Speaker 3: to come.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: This is what makes it okay because it's not about
Speaker 3: the setting up to who's invited and who's not based
Speaker 3: on gender, but what is the platform, what is the
Speaker 3: agenda here?
Speaker 1: We have International Women's Day here right now, and we
Speaker 1: are doing all these different panels, and it specifically says
Speaker 1: men are invited, right.
Speaker 5: They have to highlight that now.
Speaker 2: Specifically says that right. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And then and then you have people who have different
Speaker 3: philosophies about it. You'll have men who's like, you know what,
Speaker 3: I'm a feminist too, I want to be in the
Speaker 3: room and I want to help. And then you'll have
Speaker 3: other men who will say, you know what, this is
Speaker 3: a private space for women for them to share and
Speaker 3: maybe in an intimate setting with only things that they
Speaker 3: believe that other women would share. I'm going to respect it,
Speaker 3: and I'm just going to refrain. But you're invited, right.
Speaker 3: But you're invited right exactly as long as it's not
Speaker 3: a prohibition saying that you cannot come because you are
Speaker 3: a male.
Speaker 2: Yeah, man, this is just so much going on.
Speaker 1: I do want to know in this era right now
Speaker 1: of what's going on. It's a lot of things have
Speaker 1: been unprecedented, a lot of things have been rolled back.
Speaker 2: How has your job and what you do for people?
Speaker 2: What are the shifts that you've seen?
Speaker 3: Right? So, unfortunately, I'm busier than ever right And I
Speaker 3: say that unfortunately because I would prefer not to be
Speaker 3: doing this work. I would love if there was no discrimination,
Speaker 3: no sexual harassment, and I was completely obsolete. That's actually
Speaker 3: very much how our firm runs. We want to work
Speaker 3: ourselves out of existence. But we are busier than ever
Speaker 3: because now what people are doing is they're taking this
Speaker 3: new anti DEI stance and they're using that to bolster
Speaker 3: they're already existing prejudice and discrimination. So now they just
Speaker 3: think that it's okay. They think that they're protected or
Speaker 3: exactly they feel protected. And then on the other side,
Speaker 3: those who are doing this work don't feel protected, right,
Speaker 3: and they feel like they have to work on eggshells.
Speaker 3: So that changes the level of aggression with which they
Speaker 3: seek change. It changes with the type of programs that
Speaker 3: they're putting forth and the kind of communities are that
Speaker 3: they are supporting because everybody is running scared. So what
Speaker 3: we're seeing is things like six hundred thousand black women
Speaker 3: have been completely disenfranchised out of the workplace last year.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, we're talking about that before.
Speaker 3: You, right. So they're like, why is that? Why is that?
Speaker 3: Why is that? You know, why is that the case?
Speaker 3: They're well, let's look at it. Statistics say that black
Speaker 3: women are the most educated demographic in the United States.
Speaker 3: So if this is all truly based on a meritocracy,
Speaker 3: you would find that the qualifications are there, the education
Speaker 3: and there. Why is it a matching up? Because what
Speaker 3: people are doing is because they are rolling back the support,
Speaker 3: the resources, the financing, the head counts on these DEI programs.
Speaker 3: They're doing that to a lot of the time. You'll
Speaker 3: find that black women are the one and onlies right,
Speaker 3: they're the one and only females in this, or they're
Speaker 3: the one and only black person in this So as
Speaker 3: not to rival the iriy of the administration, people are
Speaker 3: pulling back those things too. So then what one after
Speaker 3: the other, one after the other, Each one of these
Speaker 3: individuals are ending up without a job under the excuse
Speaker 3: of the temperature has changed, the political climate has shifted.
Speaker 3: I cannot tell you how many women who who I
Speaker 3: have counseled, who have received letters that have literally said,
Speaker 3: the police, ohitical climate has shifted in regards to your
Speaker 3: blah blah blah, and therefore we are going to be
Speaker 3: expending resources and X, Y and z on other things,
Speaker 3: on other things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, the most unqualified people work in our government.
Speaker 5: Crazy at that part, right, It's.
Speaker 1: Like, because I think they make it seem like DEI
Speaker 1: means it's unqualified people in positions, when the two to
Speaker 1: the matter is that for the bottom line, diversity with
Speaker 1: qualified people in those positions is great for any company,
Speaker 1: and numbers reflect that, right, And so that's what's really
Speaker 1: wild to me because it doesn't mean that you're not
Speaker 1: qualified to be there.
Speaker 3: Absolutely all of that. The only thing that d I
Speaker 3: really means is that you're going to be taking a
Speaker 3: look at Yeah, that's all. You still have to meet
Speaker 3: all the criteria for the job. It just means that
Speaker 3: you're otherwise going to take a look at you know
Speaker 3: what It's like, It's let's consider it like this. The
Speaker 3: three of us are friends and we have a company,
Speaker 3: and I say, Angela, who does your marketing and you're like, oh,
Speaker 3: I know so and so so and so does my marketing,
Speaker 3: who does your whatever? And you're like, oh, so and so,
Speaker 3: so and so does my security. These are people who
Speaker 3: you have relationships with. It is not it wouldn't be
Speaker 3: uncommon for the person who does your marketing to be
Speaker 3: a person of color, or for the person who does
Speaker 3: your security to be a female. And now we continue
Speaker 3: to work and expand on our own, you know, based
Speaker 3: on our own networks. This is what naturally happens. What
Speaker 3: des I is forcing companies to say is like, you
Speaker 3: know what, Angela, I can't just rely on your recommendation
Speaker 3: for a marketing person or your recommendation for a security person.
Speaker 3: We are three women of color already in this in
Speaker 3: this in in in this company. We think there would
Speaker 3: be value to have other voices, maybe different religions, maybe
Speaker 3: different genders, maybe different raisespectives, with different perspectives that we
Speaker 3: think that would be a value. So instead of us
Speaker 3: just you know, kicking it to you know, the one
Speaker 3: anybody who we have on our rollodecks, We're going to
Speaker 3: make a deliberate effort and reach out to as many
Speaker 3: qualified marketing people, as many qualified security people as we can,
Speaker 3: so that we can get a robust, you know, like
Speaker 3: roster of individuals to look at so we can do
Speaker 3: it the best way for you know, at the table,
Speaker 3: that's all the DEI is saying. There is literally nothing
Speaker 3: more than that. The only thing that inclusion does that's
Speaker 3: a little bit more is it makes us always think
Speaker 3: of other case in point, is this studio open on
Speaker 3: Christmas Day on December twenty fifth? I think it is, Yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: bad example, And I'm just like, but it wouldn't surprise
Speaker 3: me if it was closed on Christmas Day, right, because
Speaker 3: we live in the US and predominantly we are very
Speaker 3: like Christian focused, like you know, around that focus. For
Speaker 3: somebody who's Jewish, for somebody who's who's Muslim, for somebody
Speaker 3: who's Buddhist, they have other holidays that they that they
Speaker 3: don't get a day off.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So then you say, you know, as inclusion, you know,
Speaker 3: as part of our commitment to inclusion, we know udis
Speaker 3: you know, Buddhist holidays exists and Jewish holidays exists. Instead
Speaker 3: of everybody just getting off on Christmas, everybody has a
Speaker 3: floating holiday and whatever religion or whatever they want to
Speaker 3: use it for they use it. If you know, if
Speaker 3: it's for Hanukah, it's for if it's for Dwali, whatever
Speaker 3: it is you use it for. That's inclusion. That's just
Speaker 3: taking into considering into consideration. You know what, there are
Speaker 3: other people besides.
Speaker 2: Everybody is exactly right and this.
Speaker 3: May be important to them. Let me take a look
Speaker 3: at that, Marjorie.
Speaker 2: What got you into this particular specialty.
Speaker 3: I mean it kind of fell into my lap a
Speaker 3: little bit. I when I was in law school, I
Speaker 3: loved con law, constitutional law. I thought like all about
Speaker 3: the civil rights movements and religious freedoms and all those
Speaker 3: types of cases. I love those because I felt like
Speaker 3: they touched everybody's like life in a way that was
Speaker 3: really impactful and fundamental. And I could always get like,
Speaker 3: really impassioned about it. But what really drives me in
Speaker 3: this particular work is that I hate bullies. Yea, I
Speaker 3: hate bullies. And because money makes the world go round,
Speaker 3: and because money is what we use to feed our families,
Speaker 3: to run our lifestyles, to pursue our dreams, our employers
Speaker 3: are in a very unique position in our lives. They
Speaker 3: hold a lot of power over us. And don't get
Speaker 3: me wrong. Not every employer is bad, right, There are
Speaker 3: great employers who they work with their employees. They're like,
Speaker 3: you know what, you bring something to us, we bring
Speaker 3: something to you, and they make it balanced and fair.
Speaker 3: But the overwhelming majority is that people are disproportionately you know,
Speaker 3: imbalanced with their employers. And a lot of people abuse that,
Speaker 3: and they abuse it by making people do things that
Speaker 3: they know that they should not be they should not
Speaker 3: be doing. They abuse it by taking credit for other
Speaker 3: people's work, by diminishing other people's work. You know. Again,
Speaker 3: if we went back to the you know, the company,
Speaker 3: the fake company that we were starting, maybe Angela's like,
Speaker 3: you know what, my marketing person is also my cousin,
Speaker 3: so we got to hire her or him or whomever,
Speaker 3: and we're going to bring them in. And I said,
Speaker 3: but maybe your cousin doesn't know what they're doing, so
Speaker 3: we're going to probably not right, So now we're going
Speaker 3: to use this other marketing company, make them do all
Speaker 3: the work, pay them half the money, and my cousin
Speaker 3: and there is the one who's going to be reaping
Speaker 3: all the benefits. Right right, This is just normal human dynamic.
Speaker 1: And sometimes people feel like it just is what it is.
Speaker 1: This is corporate America deal with it. And so the
Speaker 1: question is, how do people know when it's an issue?
Speaker 1: Because I have to imagine that it is. And I'm
Speaker 1: sure we've all been in situations that we felt like
Speaker 1: there's something wrong here. When is it when people come
Speaker 1: to you and sometimes people don't know is this even
Speaker 1: a discrimination case?
Speaker 4: And I just I had a personal just to piggyback
Speaker 4: off of that an employ there was a speaking of
Speaker 4: that power dynamic an employer of mine. This is in
Speaker 4: the past, there was a person in power who hit
Speaker 4: on me right, who made it very clear that they
Speaker 4: wanted to date me.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: I dismissed it, laughed it off, kept it moving.
Speaker 5: A colleague. He did the same thing to a colleague.
Speaker 4: She reported it because she felt unsafe and harassed. When
Speaker 4: is it actual harassment? Because for me, I kind of
Speaker 4: felt like, you know, let me just you know, brush
Speaker 4: his joker off.
Speaker 5: So he trying to shoot his shot.
Speaker 4: He isn't a position of power, and I don't want
Speaker 4: to jeopardize anything. So I was like, in my mind,
Speaker 4: I was just like, you know, it is what it is.
Speaker 5: But she reported it and then did face some retaliation.
Speaker 3: So The answer to both of your questions. Number one
Speaker 3: is you really have to trust your instincts and intuition.
Speaker 3: There is something that I feel that everybody feels when
Speaker 3: something's going on that just doesn't feel right. They may
Speaker 3: not know what it is right. They may not be
Speaker 3: able to call it. They may not be able to
Speaker 3: say it's discrimination, it's sexual harassment or whatever. But the
Speaker 3: moment that you feel that something is not right, you
Speaker 3: should trust your instinct and watch it. That doesn't mean
Speaker 3: as soon as you think something's wrong that you go
Speaker 3: running too hr And here's the difference. You have the
Speaker 3: autonomy right to decide what you are comfortable with and
Speaker 3: what you are not okay. So when it comes to
Speaker 3: discrimination and harassment, there are two parts that the law
Speaker 3: looks at. It looks at objectively if it's harassing, and
Speaker 3: then they look at subjectively if it's harassing. Right, let's
Speaker 3: look at the subjective part. As women, we get hit
Speaker 3: on a lot. And if you are comfortable standing your
Speaker 3: ground and standing your nose and saying no and leaving
Speaker 3: it at that, it may not offend you that somebody
Speaker 3: even tried. Right, there are others who think this is
Speaker 3: the workplace and it's completely inappropriate because of this power
Speaker 3: dynamic for you to ever even approach me, right, and
Speaker 3: that person and that person has the right in the
Speaker 3: autonomy to do that. TOOM, what makes it actually harassment
Speaker 3: is the lack of consent. The fact that she was
Speaker 3: hit on and complained. That wouldn't have made it harassment,
Speaker 3: because if he asked the question and she said no,
Speaker 3: and he accepted her no, then it's then it's not harassment, right.
Speaker 3: But it's the retaliation that came after she told them
Speaker 3: to know that made this a wrong issue because she
Speaker 3: should not be penalized right for saying her no.
Speaker 2: But it wasn't for saying no, it's for reporting it.
Speaker 4: Right, Yes, once it got reported and escalated, she felt
Speaker 4: like there was retaliation when it came to just opportunities
Speaker 4: and just like the tone, the way she.
Speaker 3: Was treated, absolutely absolutely and all of that is one
Speaker 3: hundred percent illegal. She can she cannot be punished for
Speaker 3: reporting it. She was, she cannot be she cannot even
Speaker 3: be punished for reporting it legitimately. But getting it wrong.
Speaker 3: Let's say he wasn't even really hitting on her and
Speaker 3: she got it wrong completely complained to HR. They did
Speaker 3: an investigation and he said, oh, I wasn't hitting on her,
Speaker 3: and they found out whatever, he really wasn't hitting on her.
Speaker 3: But then he's like, but oh, you're gonna complain to
Speaker 3: me to HR, I got your number. That's still retaliation
Speaker 3: so long as the person had a good faith belief
Speaker 3: that what they were complaining about was legitimate, that it
Speaker 3: was legitimately sexual harassment, legitimately discriminatory. Going back to your
Speaker 3: question now, when you were talking about like, how do
Speaker 3: I know? How do I know when it's the right
Speaker 3: time to complain When it starts taking away things like
Speaker 3: from your your money, your package, the kind of projects
Speaker 3: you're being assigned to. You know, you're in your case,
Speaker 3: like the slot that you get. You go from being
Speaker 3: you know, right in the middle of the day, did
Speaker 3: something at four o'clock in the morning, You're.
Speaker 2: Like, wait a second.
Speaker 3: You know, as soon as it starts to feel like
Speaker 3: the way that you're being treated is not only along
Speaker 3: the lines of race, gender or something like that, but
Speaker 3: it also begins to impact the way you do your job,
Speaker 3: how you show up for your job, how it impacts
Speaker 3: your money you're paid, time off, your overall treatment and
Speaker 3: everything like that. That's when it's time to really complain.
Speaker 3: And I always encourage people take note. Take note. You
Speaker 3: don't have to go to HR for each and every
Speaker 3: single things. And there's so many things, even from a
Speaker 3: technology perspective, that are really great. Like there's this app
Speaker 3: called work Receipts right. So it's a free download app
Speaker 3: that I recommend to all of my clients and perspective clients.
Speaker 3: You download it on your phone, it's free, you use
Speaker 3: it and you can log in everything that's going on
Speaker 3: at work. So maybe you just think that something's going on,
Speaker 3: but you're not really sure. You're like, oh, today they
Speaker 3: didn't give me a lunch break. Oh today they took
Speaker 3: a d they put me on suspension. Oh today they
Speaker 3: did X, Y and Z.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 3: But now by the time that you go to HR,
Speaker 3: you have a list of things with date and timestamp
Speaker 3: of everything that happened. Then it's up to HR to
Speaker 3: investigate to find out if it is what you think
Speaker 3: that it is.
Speaker 1: Because you know, sometimes people also feel like, well HR
Speaker 1: works for the company.
Speaker 3: Yes, but HR. You could go to HR. You can
Speaker 3: go to a supervisor. But if you don't go to
Speaker 3: somebody right and document and document it some way, then
Speaker 3: there's no possible way that it's going to stop, right,
Speaker 3: and not in New York City, but but in many
Speaker 3: other places. If the if the company is not on notice,
Speaker 3: specifically on notice that what's happening to you, then they're
Speaker 3: not liable.
Speaker 1: Right because people are very hesitant, correct, But in New.
Speaker 3: York City, like if the if the person who's doing
Speaker 3: the harassment is a supervisor, then the company's automatically liable.
Speaker 1: Now, Marjorie, I do want to switch gears a little
Speaker 1: bit here because it's been so much going on in
Speaker 1: the news, and I I just want to get from you.
Speaker 1: You've dealt with so many different people and even us
Speaker 1: thinking about everything, like with Diddy, because I know that
Speaker 1: was something that you have a lot of information about.
Speaker 1: But when we think about women who have been in
Speaker 1: situations and men too, right and.
Speaker 2: Then people wait years decades.
Speaker 1: To come forward, and I always see people say, why
Speaker 1: didn't they say something when this happened? Why didn't this
Speaker 1: person say something right away? Why are all these people
Speaker 1: coming out of the woodworks now? And they think it's
Speaker 1: just like this person was trying to buy a network
Speaker 1: or you know, they always have a reason why. I
Speaker 1: just want to get from you, from people that you've
Speaker 1: spoken to. Why is it that people wait sometimes so
Speaker 1: long before they even come forward with something that might
Speaker 1: have happened a long time ago. And then a lot
Speaker 1: of times it's a snowball effect.
Speaker 3: Fear of retaliation, fear of not being believed, which is
Speaker 3: actually a bigger fear than retaliation. You know how many
Speaker 3: women have sat cross from me and say, who's gonna
Speaker 3: believe me? I'm a single mom, And I was like,
Speaker 3: wait a second, let's roll this back. Your word is enough.
Speaker 3: But not everybody gets treated like their word is enough.
Speaker 3: There are people who believe that unless they can get
Speaker 3: two or three to back up what they're saying, that
Speaker 3: their word is not enough. This is where I feel
Speaker 3: like the Me Too movement really did help. It showed
Speaker 3: us that our word is enough. And when you speak out,
Speaker 3: then you get courage to speak out, and you get
Speaker 3: courage to speak out because if I'm the only one
Speaker 3: who's suffering and I say nothing, all three of us
Speaker 3: could be suffering from the same person. But when we
Speaker 3: start to talk about it, there's a shared strength that
Speaker 3: comes into it, and now we can advance forward because
Speaker 3: they may be able to ignore me, but if it's
Speaker 3: three or four or fifty, Yeah, then it's harder to ignore.
Speaker 3: So the fear of not being believed is so strong
Speaker 3: it's palpable.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And sometimes legally it's also say somebody say you sue
Speaker 1: for harassment and you don't win, then people think that
Speaker 1: means you were lying and it didn't happen, when a
Speaker 1: lot of times it just means you couldn't necessarily prove
Speaker 1: that legally.
Speaker 3: Right. And the thing is, and that's another thing too,
Speaker 3: is that in most often in cases where there's sexual harassment,
Speaker 3: it is always almost always a he said, she said,
Speaker 3: she said, she said, right. It's always going to be
Speaker 3: one person's word against the other. But that's what juries
Speaker 3: are for, right, And the jury can decide. I believe
Speaker 3: you and I don't believe you. The idea that you
Speaker 3: need that you need additional proof than your word is
Speaker 3: not true. It's helpful, don't get me wrong. I cannot
Speaker 3: understate that if you have a recording, a text, or
Speaker 3: anything that supports you in any way, it's gonna be helpful.
Speaker 3: But I tell clients who sit across me all the time,
Speaker 3: your word is enough evidence. You're going to be sworn
Speaker 3: under oath, just like they're gonna be sworn under oath,
Speaker 3: they're gonna say what happened in that room. You're gonna
Speaker 3: say what's gonna happen in what happened in that room?
Speaker 3: And the jury's gonna believe somebody.
Speaker 4: You know, I'm so glad you said that your word
Speaker 4: is enough because in my mind I was like, if
Speaker 4: it's not documented, how you have a witness, I would
Speaker 4: never want to come forward because it's like you said
Speaker 4: your word against another. But in the flip right on
Speaker 4: another scenario, I have I know somebody who felt retaliated
Speaker 4: against they were they had a workplace romance that ended
Speaker 4: poorly and then he felt like the woman retaliated by
Speaker 4: claiming that she was forced to do certain things because
Speaker 4: he was in a position of power and it really
Speaker 4: hurt him.
Speaker 5: And again it was his word against hers.
Speaker 4: And there was context, right, there's nuance, It wasn't they
Speaker 4: were in relationship. So in those type of circumstances, you know,
Speaker 4: how do I don't want to say how does? How
Speaker 4: can that the person in power be protected?
Speaker 5: But what happens?
Speaker 3: As as with anything, if you want to protect your perspective,
Speaker 3: you always want to document it in some way if
Speaker 3: you want to if you want to protect your no document,
Speaker 3: your no, if you want to protect their yes document. There, Yes,
Speaker 3: it cuts both ways, like that work received app that
Speaker 3: you know it's you know, it cuts both ways. I
Speaker 3: say that because what's good for the goose is good
Speaker 3: for the gander. Right, Overwhelmingly people do not make up,
Speaker 3: you know, sexual harassments and discriminatory claims, and overwhelming that
Speaker 3: is not the norm. But we cannot ignore that that exists,
Speaker 3: right right, So that's why there has to be a
Speaker 3: legal process. That's why there has to be a proof,
Speaker 3: and that's why a jury gets to decide who's telling
Speaker 3: the truth and who is not. There are attorneys who
Speaker 3: will not take cases that is only blased on their
Speaker 3: client's word, no matter how good they think that it is.
Speaker 3: They just simply will not do it. And that's where
Speaker 3: people get the messaging that their word is not enough.
Speaker 3: Because the more I'm able to establish what you said
Speaker 3: with something other than your word, my risk goes down.
Speaker 3: If you told me he said this and he said that,
Speaker 3: and you show me a text, I don't even have
Speaker 3: to believe you. The jury doesn't even need to like you.
Speaker 3: It's in a text.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, no, exactly, you know, exactly.
Speaker 3: That's all really the proof they need. But now if
Speaker 3: I go through this entire process and we get to
Speaker 3: the jury, and now the jury doesn't like you, and
Speaker 3: all I have is your word, that's a whole. That's
Speaker 3: a high risk. That's high risk, high reward. It could
Speaker 3: go either way. It could go either way.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you this too, because here's another
Speaker 1: thing in the work that I do and seeing what
Speaker 1: people have to say.
Speaker 2: Civil cases where people.
Speaker 1: Are, you know, trying to get a settlement for a
Speaker 1: cent amount of money or get paid. People also tend
Speaker 1: to look at that as this person's just trying to
Speaker 1: get a payday, right, And so I want you to
Speaker 1: break that down to because I feel like there's a
Speaker 1: misconception about why people file civil cases.
Speaker 3: First, right, So not everything that is discriminatory or harassing
Speaker 3: is criminal. Not everything that's discriminatory or harassing is criminal.
Speaker 3: So criminal has one standard above a reasonable doubt, right
Speaker 3: beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the standard for criminals. So
Speaker 3: that's high. Right beyond a reasonable doubt is if we're
Speaker 3: gonna do in percentages, let's say reason beyond a reasonable
Speaker 3: doubt is probably like eighty five percent sure, right, civil
Speaker 3: where you know, what you get is money, not not
Speaker 3: jail or anything like that. That standard, that standard is
Speaker 3: more likely than not forty nine to fifty one.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: So if I'm like, so, if you have to prove
Speaker 3: your case seventy five eighty five versus forty forty nine
Speaker 3: to fifty one, which one you're gonna go for? You're
Speaker 3: gonna go for the forty nine to fifty one because
Speaker 3: it's easier, particularly if it's a he said, she said
Speaker 3: type of thing. So many times even that acts that
Speaker 3: are harassing criminal prosecutors will decline to prosecute, or they
Speaker 3: won't charge them at the top charge. They'll do it
Speaker 3: at a lower charge, for all sorts of reasons. These
Speaker 3: these positions are politically elected, They have their own stats,
Speaker 3: you know, stats and stuff that they have to do.
Speaker 3: There's all sorts of reasons why they don't they decide
Speaker 3: not to prosecute. And if at every time that somebody,
Speaker 3: you know, you know, somebody's ego was hurt and they
Speaker 3: were turned down and they did something, you know, and
Speaker 3: they did something and it was prosecuted each and every time,
Speaker 3: then the courts would be overrun with that that sort
Speaker 3: of thing, right, So on the civil side, it gives
Speaker 3: you an opportunity for there to be accountability, but instead
Speaker 3: of somebody else deciding for you whether or not that
Speaker 3: person is going to be prosecuted, you are the one
Speaker 3: who gets to decide how much money is enough money,
Speaker 3: and if neither one of you can decide that, then
Speaker 3: the jury decides if any money is worth it at all.
Speaker 3: So that's why civil is an attractive is an attractive
Speaker 3: alternative because you are the one who makes the decision,
Speaker 3: not a prosecutor, and you're the one who gets to
Speaker 3: say how much is enough, not enough, not not a
Speaker 3: third party. Now, a lot of people will say the
Speaker 3: other part of it with with the civil prosecution is
Speaker 3: you have an opportunity to resolve it and nobody even
Speaker 3: know about it. That's that's good for the person who's
Speaker 3: been attacked and the person who who's allegedly did the attacking,
Speaker 3: because the last thing the same way that the that
Speaker 3: a lot of people that the same way that Diddy
Speaker 3: is getting dragged to the mud for all of the allegations,
Speaker 3: there are Diddy accusers who are equally being dragged through
Speaker 3: the mundy. Yes for even being bringing you know, bringing.
Speaker 2: Up the accusation.
Speaker 3: So a lot of people decide said, you know what,
Speaker 3: I don't want to deal with that. This is this
Speaker 3: is something that impacted me. I'm in therapy, I can't
Speaker 3: work anymore. I need money for my medical bills. I
Speaker 3: need money to live. I'm gonna suit for this. It's
Speaker 3: gonna be quiet and then it's all done. And there's
Speaker 3: nothing wrong with that.
Speaker 1: I feel like people tend to look down on you
Speaker 1: if you get a payment like a settlement, yeah, and
Speaker 1: have something to.
Speaker 2: Say about that. And you know, I want to bring
Speaker 2: this back to.
Speaker 1: Our theme for International Women's Day, give to gain and mentorship,
Speaker 1: and I want to talk about women giving their knowledge
Speaker 1: and support to one another and how that is. How
Speaker 1: can we do that more right in the workplace and
Speaker 1: things you've seen.
Speaker 3: No, absolutely, I think that we're doing it right now,
Speaker 3: just actively and earnestly participating in these conversations and saying,
Speaker 3: you know what the resources I have are available to you.
Speaker 3: I don't get keep I don't get keep with what
Speaker 3: I know. I don't get keep with the information that's
Speaker 3: available to me. If you tell me so and so
Speaker 3: has a problem of I'm like, okay, let's do it.
Speaker 3: Let's let's I'm going to roll up my sleeves and
Speaker 3: get in. That's the level. That's the level of collaboration
Speaker 3: effort that that women are really you know, leaning into
Speaker 3: all the way and it's and the momentum on this
Speaker 3: is incredibly significant. The same way that I can say
Speaker 3: this that of six hundred thousand black women have been
Speaker 3: forced out of the workplace, is that the other millions
Speaker 3: of black women in that same workplace are ushering their
Speaker 3: sisters in and using all of their power, dynamics, information
Speaker 3: connections to help them come right back into the market
Speaker 3: marketplace again, because what we've realized is that collaboration is
Speaker 3: better than competition, right.
Speaker 1: And you know, along those lines, even being able to
Speaker 1: discuss salaries because I know that's another conversation in the
Speaker 1: workplace when it comes to discrimination, and so I think
Speaker 1: that's important too for us to be able to discuss
Speaker 1: with each other what we're getting paid for things, So what.
Speaker 3: We're getting paid, what kind of packages that are you know,
Speaker 3: that are available, what worked for us, what didn't work
Speaker 3: for us. Because at the same time, it the mentality
Speaker 3: I think before used to be. I have to keep
Speaker 3: this close to the vest because if I don't, then
Speaker 3: what I have is going to be attacked. What we've realized,
Speaker 3: what we have is going to be attact regardless, right, there
Speaker 3: is no protection of that. So the only way we're
Speaker 3: gonna protect ourselves is if we're all on one accord
Speaker 3: and we know that this is the standard, and we're
Speaker 3: not accepting any less, then we force the hand. We
Speaker 3: forced the hand on the other side to say, now
Speaker 3: you can't mess with either you know, either three of
Speaker 3: us because now we're all exchanging information.
Speaker 4: Wasn't there laws or policies that prevented employees from talking
Speaker 4: about salaries? And wasn't that lifted a few years ago?
Speaker 3: Actually it's actually quite it's actually quite the opposite. Under
Speaker 3: the NLRB, your your ability to talk about your salary
Speaker 3: and workplace conditions is a right that you cannot that
Speaker 3: can you cannot be terminated for, you cannot be disciplined for,
Speaker 3: or anything of like. You have that right in any
Speaker 3: workplace to discuss both the conditions of your workplace. And
Speaker 3: that's not just like discrimination and harassment. I'm talking about safety,
Speaker 3: you know, I'm talking about like and salary are all
Speaker 3: completely protected if you are being if you are being
Speaker 3: terminated or disciplined for these for these types of for
Speaker 3: these types of discussions, you should definitely speak to an
Speaker 3: attorney about possible retaliation because that is a right that
Speaker 3: every every employee has in the workplace.
Speaker 2: Well, I appreciate this guy.
Speaker 1: I feel like this was a great empowering conversation for
Speaker 1: people who are listening. We've had so many people call
Speaker 1: in just to talk about things that have happened in
Speaker 1: the workplace.
Speaker 2: What should I do?
Speaker 1: And felt like there's nothing that they could do, but
Speaker 1: to know that these are the steps you could take.
Speaker 1: And one thing I want to say that I got
Speaker 1: from all of this is document, document, document.
Speaker 2: What is that app again? Receipts, work receipts, ye periods.
Speaker 2: You know they bring the receipts exactly.
Speaker 3: I think that the inspiration. But no, but exactly document document. Listen.
Speaker 3: Seventy percent of seventy percent of Americans with paycheck to paycheck.
Speaker 3: Seventy percent means most people. Seventy percent of people are
Speaker 3: one paycheck away from missing their rents, not being able
Speaker 3: to put food on the table. Just so people are
Speaker 3: desperate to keep their jobs, which is another reason why
Speaker 3: I always tell my clients there are no friends at work,
Speaker 3: and it's like no, I mean, it is fact because
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, we could all be
Speaker 3: we could all be cool.
Speaker 2: We can key key it up.
Speaker 3: As much as we want, but it's like, uh, you know,
Speaker 3: somebody's getting fired or somebody's like everybody's protecting their own
Speaker 3: because at the end of the day, my check is
Speaker 3: not going to pay for yours, right, and my check
Speaker 3: is not going to pay for yours. So there is
Speaker 3: this idea of like protecting you know, protecting themselves and
Speaker 3: protecting their own. Documenting is one of those ways.
Speaker 4: Yeah, one of my biggest takeaways is your word is enough.
Speaker 4: So hopefully that will encourage people if anything is happening,
Speaker 4: speak up, you know how you know, how can they
Speaker 4: get in contact with you or maybe somebody a local
Speaker 4: lawyer or attorney, Like what type of help of resources
Speaker 4: are out there for people who only have their word right.
Speaker 3: Fortune. A majority of employment discrimination attorneys are contingency based,
Speaker 3: which means they will take your case without you having
Speaker 3: a paying money up front. Good to know, and most
Speaker 3: of the time consultations are free. It costs you nothing
Speaker 3: to call an attorney for a free consultation to figure
Speaker 3: out say, is this a thing or is it not enough?
Speaker 3: If you get an attorney that cares. Because for us,
Speaker 3: particularly at Mesodor PLC, we are big with decline with dignity.
Speaker 3: I may not take your case because I have six
Speaker 3: attorneys at my firm. We can't take every case, right,
Speaker 3: we have to pick and choose. But I'm not going
Speaker 3: to just decline you and leave you high and dry.
Speaker 3: You're gonna walk away with resources. You're gonna walk away
Speaker 3: with more information on how to how to pursue this yourself.
Speaker 3: You may even walk away with information on how to
Speaker 3: speak to the next attorney about what it is that
Speaker 3: you have going on. And if all attorneys do the
Speaker 3: same thing, then people would be a lot would be
Speaker 3: a lot better off it because most of the time,
Speaker 3: what they're like, oh, I don't have a text, Oh sorry,
Speaker 3: it can't help you. I said, really, this person just
Speaker 3: open up to you and said that their body was touched, right,
Speaker 3: and you just said you don't. You don't have any proof.
Speaker 3: We're just gonna leave them high and dry. Then what's
Speaker 3: the point. What's the point of being an attorney? Right? This
Speaker 3: is why I don't gate keep because then then then
Speaker 3: our positions mean nothing. What's the point of being a
Speaker 3: black woman attorney if I.
Speaker 2: Gate keep right?
Speaker 3: Absolutely all my information, everything that's in here is available
Speaker 3: to all of you and then some all our sisters, brothers,
Speaker 3: you know, on all sides. When you think about policy too,
Speaker 3: are there things that you would like to see happen? Oh? Yeah,
Speaker 3: there's so many things I would love to see happen.
Speaker 3: One thing that I would sure love to see happen
Speaker 3: is after you do all the hard work and you
Speaker 3: actually win the case and you get a jury verdict.
Speaker 3: I would love it if they couldn't send it back
Speaker 3: to the judge and say, judge, we think the jury
Speaker 3: gave them too much. And the judge says, I think
Speaker 3: you're right. We're just gonna slash it down. Remitted her.
Speaker 3: So that's another thing that makes it very discouraging. You
Speaker 3: can go through all of that. Yes, your word is enough,
Speaker 3: you win. They believe you, they're on your side. They
Speaker 3: give you exactly how much you need for you to
Speaker 3: get your therapy and for you to be out of
Speaker 3: work for some time, for you to get yourself together,
Speaker 3: and then for the other side to say, you know what,
Speaker 3: we're gonna prolong it even more. You know everyone does
Speaker 3: that exactly in addition to the two years that it
Speaker 3: took you to even get to a jury verdict. Now
Speaker 3: we're gonna go to the judge and we're gonna do
Speaker 3: a post trial motion and we're gonna say the judge,
Speaker 3: we think that they gave them too much. And the
Speaker 3: judge may say one person can undo what a jury
Speaker 3: just did. And I don't think that when you have
Speaker 3: a jury of twelve people who sit down and look
Speaker 3: at your client in their eye, they see the tears
Speaker 3: in their face, they hear the breath when they testify,
Speaker 3: that their assessment of how much that person should should
Speaker 3: get is gonna be diminished by another judge that's just
Speaker 3: looking at a transcript. They don't know when she said yes,
Speaker 3: if she was bawling, crying yes. They don't know whether
Speaker 3: she could barely contain herself. They don't know. So that
Speaker 3: is one thing that I would love to see changed,
Speaker 3: is that remitted or would not be would not be
Speaker 3: a pathway that defendants can use all the time, all
Speaker 3: the time. But you don't really hear about it. You
Speaker 3: always hear about the big verdict. People will tell you, oh,
Speaker 3: didn't Tesla get one hundred million something verdict for race discrimination?
Speaker 3: Most people don't know that that was slash.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they didn't have to pay it.
Speaker 3: It was slash. And then when they slash it, they
Speaker 3: slash it to something so small. I've seen seven figure
Speaker 3: awards go down to a couple a couple of tens
Speaker 3: of thousands.
Speaker 1: That's wild and that's discouraging. Can you imagine how that
Speaker 1: feels to somebody?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 3: Exactly, And this is where, like you know, our continued
Speaker 3: conversation regarding the EI is important. Who those judges are important,
Speaker 3: the fact that you know, is it an elected judge
Speaker 3: or is it an appointed judge for life? Pointed judges
Speaker 3: for life. They come from a particular pedigree, right, the
Speaker 3: best schools, the best, this the best best, best best.
Speaker 3: And they may be a little bit removed I don't
Speaker 3: want to say out of touch, right, but they may
Speaker 3: be a little bit more removed from the average workers,
Speaker 3: the average workers plight versus somebody who may be elected.
Speaker 2: They got to grind for their Yeah.
Speaker 3: You know, they have to grind for there, They have
Speaker 3: to Exactly, they're they're more in sync with the people.
Speaker 3: So it's you know, it's different, but you don't get
Speaker 3: to pick and choose.
Speaker 1: This feels like a TV show, you know what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: We have reasonable doubt, what's the what's the Marjorie Mezzadors,
Speaker 1: just because I do feel like I could see all
Speaker 1: of these different scenarios playing out and then see somebody
Speaker 1: getting a verdict, and you know, I just I just
Speaker 1: see it in my head.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: But I also think watching shows like that is what
Speaker 1: helps people feel like they have more information and knowledge too.
Speaker 3: Right, absolutely. And the other thing that people don't talk
Speaker 3: about is what does it mean to be representing a
Speaker 3: marginalized population? Why you yourself are a marginal population? And
Speaker 3: the secondary trauma that comes from.
Speaker 2: That, Oh my gosh, I can't even imagine.
Speaker 3: Because then you're fighting multiple battles, right, I'm not only
Speaker 3: fighting for you and your and your situation in the
Speaker 3: justice system. I'm fighting my adversary to be taken seriously.
Speaker 3: I may be fighting the judge to be taken seriously.
Speaker 3: I may be doing all of these things simultaneously. So
Speaker 3: this is why again, gate keeping benefits no.
Speaker 2: One, absolutely not.
Speaker 3: It benefits no one.
Speaker 1: I know, you have had to have had some heartbreaking moments.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, there are there are cases that I still have
Speaker 3: nightmares about. Wow. There are people who are on the
Speaker 3: opposite side of this work, who are management side, who
Speaker 3: make it their business to punish those who bring up
Speaker 3: cases of discrimination and sexual harassment. So they punish them
Speaker 3: by using the process. They make sure that the litigation
Speaker 3: process is the most invasive, uncomfortable, like raw, gut wrenching thing.
Speaker 3: And that's how they make a name for themselves, and
Speaker 3: that's how they make a name for their companies, right,
Speaker 3: And this is why companies will hire them, because they'll
Speaker 3: know that somebody will think twice about bringing a sexual
Speaker 3: harassment claim because they know that their attorney is gonna
Speaker 3: gut is gonna try to gut them at the root,
Speaker 3: regardless of whether or not it's true. And that to
Speaker 3: me is so disgusting because I you know, you work
Speaker 3: with somebody, When you go through something with somebody, like
Speaker 3: there's an affinity there. Sometimes the client comes to me
Speaker 3: and they're telling me things that they don't even tell
Speaker 3: their spouse exactly exactly. They tell you things that they
Speaker 3: don't tell their spouses, their friends, their mothers. Sometimes none
Speaker 3: of those people even know it's coming out until you're
Speaker 3: getting ready to file a public case. And that's why
Speaker 3: deciding to file a public case is such a big, big,
Speaker 3: big decision.
Speaker 1: Yeah, people act like it's not just to even understand.
Speaker 1: And like you said earlier when we were discussing why
Speaker 1: people may wait, it is also at a time when
Speaker 1: you may feel safe enough to wrong enough, you know,
Speaker 1: just in a space where you're like okay, because it's
Speaker 1: a big deal.
Speaker 2: It is like it can be life changing.
Speaker 4: And I hear a lot of survivors saying they don't
Speaker 4: want to relive that, Like once they're out of the situation,
Speaker 4: they want to move forward where they want to move forward.
Speaker 4: They definitely don't want to go to trial and talk
Speaker 4: about it. Like we saw what happened with Cassieven she
Speaker 4: was like eight nine months.
Speaker 5: Pregnant and had to relive all of that.
Speaker 4: So there are a lot of different reasons why people
Speaker 4: don't you know, speak up at that time.
Speaker 3: Right, Not only that, it's just like we don't even
Speaker 3: need to take it that far. You could be a
Speaker 3: regular person and you saw you filed the lawsuit. You're
Speaker 3: out on a date and the person googled you and
Speaker 3: to find your lawsuit.
Speaker 5: Oh that's a good point, you know.
Speaker 2: And now friends go on days I'd be looking up
Speaker 2: all I said, what's his name?
Speaker 3: Exactly exactly, And now they have like information and like this.
Speaker 3: A lot of this stuff can be damning. Yeah, it
Speaker 3: can be damning. It can be right. And the law
Speaker 3: is evolving every requiring you to put more detailed, more
Speaker 3: facts in these pleadings, in these lawsuits. It used to
Speaker 3: be you could do a short and simple statement of
Speaker 3: the facts, so and so it's working here. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: They were asked out, they declined, they were retaliate against that.
Speaker 3: You could use the very bare minimum. Now they're asking you, no,
Speaker 3: we need more detail, we need specificity. So then now
Speaker 3: attorneys are throwing everything in there. And a lot of
Speaker 3: this stuff is intimate. Yeah, it is intimate. And even
Speaker 3: if it's something as small and I'm saying small on
Speaker 3: a relative scale, right, as a forced kiss, Right, who
Speaker 3: wants the first introduction that you have with the person
Speaker 3: is to know that their boss forcibly kissed them. Right,
Speaker 3: shouldn't you get to decide when that comes out and
Speaker 3: how that comes out?
Speaker 4: Why are there's so many requirements for those extra intimate details.
Speaker 3: Because the law is saying that the defendant needs to
Speaker 3: be reasonably unnotice on what it is that they're being
Speaker 3: accused about. They really need to know. They have to
Speaker 3: have an understanding. If I'm being sued for sexual harassment,
Speaker 3: what did I do that was sexually harassing? They want
Speaker 3: a full list, and they want everything. And when your
Speaker 3: complaint is not detailed, the presumption is it's made up.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: But when your complaint is more detailed time days. You guys,
Speaker 3: remember that Cassie complaint, Yeah that she filed again, Well,
Speaker 3: how many pages was that that she was.
Speaker 2: Telling all kind of stuff that I felt so oh right, yeah.
Speaker 4: Because we were like, I felt bad she had to
Speaker 4: disclose all of those details. But you're saying she had
Speaker 4: to in order to make her case.
Speaker 3: What I'm saying to you is the fact that her
Speaker 3: pleadings were so detailed it becomes very hard to ignore. Yeah, right,
Speaker 3: So the remember, the other side is always going to
Speaker 3: be like, oh, she's just looking for money. You know,
Speaker 3: she had a failed career and that's why she's coming out.
Speaker 3: And you know they're always throwing these things when you're like,
Speaker 3: but page seventy five says and this, and then what
Speaker 3: what happens? People start fact checking. They're like, she was
Speaker 3: at that party, and he was there too, and I
Speaker 3: do remember when his car blew up, and I do remember.
Speaker 3: And then because of all those details, then her word
Speaker 3: gets starts to get a little bit more exactly, it
Speaker 3: gets a little heavier. This is why attorneys, This is
Speaker 3: why attorneys do it. Did she have to go to
Speaker 3: those to that's painstaking detail in order for it not
Speaker 3: to be dismissed because there wasn't enough detail? Maybe not,
Speaker 3: you know, I'm not gonna you know, Monday night quarterback? Right?
Speaker 3: Maybe not? But did it help? Absolutely? Absolutely. Somebody's like,
Speaker 3: even if she was lying, she was lying about all
Speaker 3: whatever to her page.
Speaker 2: She was giving her own exactly why exactly.
Speaker 5: She put herself in a light that was not too
Speaker 5: flattering herself.
Speaker 3: And what do we always say, authenticity translates, truth translate.
Speaker 3: You won't know what them American public will accept as
Speaker 3: being okay and not being okay, but just be you,
Speaker 3: because one thing that we won't tolerate is that hypocrisy
Speaker 3: or lying or whatever. But if you're like, yeah, I
Speaker 3: did that and I did that too, but he definitely
Speaker 3: did this, and when this has happened, that gives more credibility.
Speaker 3: It gives more credibility to say that it was X,
Speaker 3: Y and Z.
Speaker 1: What about the Adult Survivors Act When when that, I
Speaker 1: want to know what your thoughts were on that and
Speaker 1: what kind of workloads you had during that time.
Speaker 3: So during the time of the Adult Survivors Act, workloads
Speaker 3: for all plaintive side attorneys definitely went up because what
Speaker 3: it did is it reopened the statute of limitations on
Speaker 3: old claims and revived them for a short window of time.
Speaker 3: So anything from basically the beginning of time all the
Speaker 3: way through, so long as it was filed within this
Speaker 3: window and met this specific criteria, and I'm not going
Speaker 3: to bore you with all the with all the details,
Speaker 3: then you could at least bring the claim right. Something
Speaker 3: like the ASA is so invaluable because it recognizes that
Speaker 3: people don't come forward because they're afraid, because they're afraid
Speaker 3: of retaliation, they're afraid of not being believed, and because
Speaker 3: they're afraid that the people who did this to them
Speaker 3: have a way of hurting them again. But since me
Speaker 3: too in particular, and me too wasn't the only time
Speaker 3: there was like this reckoning, right, but me too, in
Speaker 3: maybe like our most recent history in particular, started happening.
Speaker 3: We realized for those of us who didn't already know
Speaker 3: how commonplace it is having conversations. I do this work,
Speaker 3: and I found out things about aunts and cousins, and
Speaker 3: I was like, but you know, why wouldn't you ever?
Speaker 3: People don't talk about it because they are afraid of
Speaker 3: not being believed. So what this is doing is says, listen,
Speaker 3: we understand that it's difficult. We are reopening it for
Speaker 3: this period of time so that you can hold individuals
Speaker 3: accountable that perhaps you couldn't have. We. I remember having
Speaker 3: clients come to me with letters from there from people
Speaker 3: who assaulted them, apologizing waiting after the Statute of limitations.
Speaker 2: Because they knew they were safe.
Speaker 3: That they were safe, and they're just walking around with
Speaker 3: the with the person who assault them's letter like and
Speaker 3: it would be like in their in their purse pocket.
Speaker 3: It goes everywhere they go and they're like, what can
Speaker 3: I do about this? Well, during the ASA, you could
Speaker 3: do something about it, right, Unfortunately, now it's closed, it's sunseted.
Speaker 3: It doesn't you know it, you know, and it doesn't
Speaker 3: look like they're around. They're going to do around too.
Speaker 2: But that was a crazy time, but it wasn't.
Speaker 3: It was a crazy time. But the thing is is that, yeah,
Speaker 3: people should be afraid, and yeah, I think twice.
Speaker 2: You never know exactly that you got away with something.
Speaker 1: Don't do it because I always hear people saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it's the time period, Oh everybody was like that. Oh,
Speaker 1: And I hate that when people say it's just what
Speaker 1: people did, it's just how we acted. It was just
Speaker 1: what the workplace was like during that time. And certain
Speaker 1: things are if you're a stand up individual or never appropriate.
Speaker 4: And you know, another thing I really don't like is
Speaker 4: when you hear people saying, well, you can't believe women.
Speaker 4: A lot of them are lying and they're going after
Speaker 4: the money.
Speaker 3: Believe.
Speaker 4: Do you have statistics that that tell how many cases
Speaker 4: are actually not true or proven not true versus you know,
Speaker 4: is there.
Speaker 2: Like because that's not true.
Speaker 1: I don't mean it's not true sometimes exactly, but people
Speaker 1: coming forward and saying I lied, right, Yeah, But.
Speaker 5: Isn't it just like the mast majority are true.
Speaker 3: Are legitimate overwhelmingly we're talking about less than ten percent,
Speaker 3: so less than ten percent, ten percent. I don't like
Speaker 3: to throw out numbers on out there that I'm not
Speaker 3: like sure on, so I can't be like it's eight
Speaker 3: or it's two. But I know that it's less than
Speaker 3: ten percent.
Speaker 1: And I tell you what, there's way more people that
Speaker 1: don't never come forward than people who have come forward
Speaker 1: or people who you.
Speaker 2: Know it is not true. I guarantee you that number
Speaker 2: is multitudes.
Speaker 1: Exponentially more than people who have actually even come forward
Speaker 1: to tell their story.
Speaker 3: They say that seventy five percent of individuals do not
Speaker 3: come forward about sexual harassment in the workplace, specifically sexual
Speaker 3: five percent. So that means that means no matter how
Speaker 3: much sexual harassment that HR departments know about, just know
Speaker 3: that there's actually three times more.
Speaker 5: Wow.
Speaker 1: All right, well, I appreciate you. This was a whole
Speaker 1: power for us. But it does feel like we got
Speaker 1: some amazing valuable information. Hopefully people who are listening. If
Speaker 1: there's something that you've been contemplating, or some first steps
Speaker 1: you know you need to take, this is your sign
Speaker 1: to go ahead and make those first steps. And you know,
Speaker 1: I appreciate you for sharing all of this invaluable information
Speaker 1: with us.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Thank you for having me. Thank you ladies
Speaker 3: for shredding a light on this.
Speaker 2: And you're going to continue to be a resource for
Speaker 2: us on way up.
Speaker 3: Absolutely so we thing that you need.
Speaker 2: We are grateful for this. Thank you so much, Thank
Speaker 2: you