1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:07,440 --> 00:00:10,360
Speaker 1: President Trump has given no indication that he's preparing to

3
00:00:10,400 --> 00:00:14,040
Speaker 1: concede the election. In fact, Trump has indicated he's prepared

4
00:00:14,080 --> 00:00:18,480
Speaker 1: to explore all legal options. His personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani,

5
00:00:18,520 --> 00:00:21,560
Speaker 1: has said they're preparing to file lawsuits in several states

6
00:00:21,600 --> 00:00:24,480
Speaker 1: over ballot fraud, despite the fact that there's been no

7
00:00:24,560 --> 00:00:29,080
Speaker 1: evidence of widespread irregularities in the election or any fraudulent votes,

8
00:00:29,440 --> 00:00:33,559
Speaker 1: and courts have already dismissed several lawsuits in Georgia, Nevada, Michigan,

9
00:00:33,600 --> 00:00:37,120
Speaker 1: and Pennsylvania. Joining me as election law expert, Derek Muller,

10
00:00:37,159 --> 00:00:40,000
Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law,

11
00:00:40,760 --> 00:00:45,840
Speaker 1: is litigation over the election more difficult after the votes

12
00:00:45,880 --> 00:00:49,400
Speaker 1: have been counted. Absolutely. You know, once those ballots are

13
00:00:49,880 --> 00:00:52,120
Speaker 1: taken out of the envelopes, when you're dealing with apps

14
00:00:52,159 --> 00:00:56,160
Speaker 1: and t envelopes or provisional ballots that a jurisdiction chooses

15
00:00:56,200 --> 00:00:59,400
Speaker 1: to count, you know, they're all commingled, they're all counted,

16
00:00:59,440 --> 00:01:02,400
Speaker 1: they're all put the together. So legal challenges are pretty

17
00:01:02,400 --> 00:01:05,920
Speaker 1: limited at that point. You're looking at recounts recounts can

18
00:01:05,959 --> 00:01:07,679
Speaker 1: look at, you know, whether or not there were over

19
00:01:07,760 --> 00:01:10,479
Speaker 1: votes or under votes. That the machines are much better

20
00:01:10,520 --> 00:01:13,280
Speaker 1: at reading these things nowadays, the optical scan ballots are

21
00:01:13,400 --> 00:01:15,720
Speaker 1: very good at that. Maybe there's a little bit of

22
00:01:15,760 --> 00:01:17,959
Speaker 1: a dispute of a ballot here there, you know, some

23
00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:21,200
Speaker 1: set of absentee ballots that were rejected for a signature

24
00:01:21,240 --> 00:01:24,440
Speaker 1: mismatch that maybe you want to get counted. But unless

25
00:01:24,440 --> 00:01:27,800
Speaker 1: you're able to allege something like systemic fraud in the

26
00:01:27,840 --> 00:01:32,640
Speaker 1: election undermining the results, your options just become very very limited.

27
00:01:32,680 --> 00:01:34,840
Speaker 1: Once all the ballots have been counted the first time,

28
00:01:35,160 --> 00:01:38,240
Speaker 1: you would be challenging ballot by ballot then, So what

29
00:01:38,280 --> 00:01:41,280
Speaker 1: would it take to have systemic fraud? What would that

30
00:01:41,640 --> 00:01:45,400
Speaker 1: look like? Yeah, I mean so in the jurisdictions where

31
00:01:45,440 --> 00:01:47,800
Speaker 1: its happened, you know, So we can think about North

32
00:01:47,840 --> 00:01:52,040
Speaker 1: Carolina congressional election that was thrown out for first systemic fraud.

33
00:01:52,120 --> 00:01:54,600
Speaker 1: It was a pretty narrow election, but you know, there

34
00:01:54,680 --> 00:01:59,240
Speaker 1: was ample evidence of a campaign essentially bribing someone to

35
00:01:59,720 --> 00:02:05,680
Speaker 1: man manufacture absentee ballot requests, falsifying the absentee ballots by

36
00:02:05,680 --> 00:02:08,880
Speaker 1: completing them with forged signatures, completing them on behalf of

37
00:02:08,919 --> 00:02:11,360
Speaker 1: someone else and submitting them and that there was such

38
00:02:11,480 --> 00:02:15,520
Speaker 1: sufficient widespread evidence of fraud that the result of the

39
00:02:15,520 --> 00:02:17,840
Speaker 1: election was in doubt. Um. Now that was a few

40
00:02:17,919 --> 00:02:22,079
Speaker 1: hundred ballots, and um. Sometimes these kinds of dispute arise

41
00:02:22,120 --> 00:02:24,400
Speaker 1: in a in a city council or mayoral election in

42
00:02:24,400 --> 00:02:28,320
Speaker 1: a locality where it's a couple of thousand ballots that

43
00:02:28,360 --> 00:02:30,760
Speaker 1: are cast in total and someone's able to sort of

44
00:02:30,880 --> 00:02:33,440
Speaker 1: rig the election. But I mean, those are those are

45
00:02:33,440 --> 00:02:36,960
Speaker 1: pretty egregious examples, and in order to sort of achieve

46
00:02:37,160 --> 00:02:40,240
Speaker 1: fraud at that kind of scale is just, you know,

47
00:02:40,880 --> 00:02:43,919
Speaker 1: it's very difficult to do. So I think when we're

48
00:02:43,919 --> 00:02:46,399
Speaker 1: talking about that kind of evidence, it's worth emphasizing how

49
00:02:46,520 --> 00:02:48,560
Speaker 1: rare it is and how difficult it is to achieve

50
00:02:48,600 --> 00:02:53,480
Speaker 1: at that at that level. Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney,

51
00:02:53,760 --> 00:02:57,799
Speaker 1: on Fox on Sunday. He said that team is prepared

52
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:01,440
Speaker 1: to point to dozens of witnesses in Pennsylvania who would

53
00:03:01,440 --> 00:03:05,959
Speaker 1: attest under oath that they observed instances of election mouthfeasance. Quote,

54
00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:08,720
Speaker 1: there are upwards of fifty witnesses and this will be

55
00:03:08,720 --> 00:03:11,160
Speaker 1: the subject of a lawsuit that we filed Monday, for

56
00:03:11,320 --> 00:03:15,320
Speaker 1: violating civil rights, for conducting an unfair election, for violating

57
00:03:15,360 --> 00:03:18,600
Speaker 1: the law of the state, for treating Pittsburgh and Philadelphia

58
00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:21,160
Speaker 1: different than the rest of the state. What is he

59
00:03:21,240 --> 00:03:23,600
Speaker 1: referring to here. Let's say you found a couple of

60
00:03:23,600 --> 00:03:27,519
Speaker 1: witnesses who said I observed fraud. Does that just apply

61
00:03:27,639 --> 00:03:30,040
Speaker 1: to the ballot that they observed or does it apply

62
00:03:30,160 --> 00:03:33,079
Speaker 1: to the whole system there? Yeah, this is tricky. I

63
00:03:33,080 --> 00:03:35,080
Speaker 1: mean I want to work backwards for a minute to

64
00:03:35,120 --> 00:03:38,200
Speaker 1: think about the remedy. Right, Let's say you established all this,

65
00:03:38,360 --> 00:03:40,920
Speaker 1: what should happen? Um. You know, most of the time

66
00:03:40,960 --> 00:03:44,440
Speaker 1: we say you hold a new election, but that's you know,

67
00:03:44,520 --> 00:03:47,680
Speaker 1: when when we're thinking about the Electoral College meeting December fourteenth,

68
00:03:47,800 --> 00:03:51,720
Speaker 1: you know that seems pretty much impossible to do. Um. Additionally,

69
00:03:52,000 --> 00:03:54,880
Speaker 1: you know, there's some questions about the legislature key get involved.

70
00:03:54,920 --> 00:03:57,560
Speaker 1: But so far, I think the legislature seemed satisfied to

71
00:03:57,640 --> 00:04:00,600
Speaker 1: allow the election process to play out. So we can

72
00:04:00,600 --> 00:04:02,520
Speaker 1: take a step back and to think about what kinds

73
00:04:02,560 --> 00:04:04,400
Speaker 1: of fraud and evidence they have. And there's no question

74
00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:07,440
Speaker 1: I think, Um, you know, the campaign did win on election.

75
00:04:07,480 --> 00:04:10,000
Speaker 1: Observers that were in a room hundred feet away when

76
00:04:10,040 --> 00:04:12,680
Speaker 1: they were entitled to be six feet away. UM, to

77
00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:15,640
Speaker 1: see what was happening in those jurisdictions, and maybe you're

78
00:04:15,640 --> 00:04:19,160
Speaker 1: saying there's inconsistencies and how um, sort of the verification

79
00:04:19,320 --> 00:04:23,320
Speaker 1: of absentee ballots was processed from from county to county, right,

80
00:04:23,360 --> 00:04:26,040
Speaker 1: and so there's a potentially an equal protection argument to

81
00:04:26,120 --> 00:04:28,160
Speaker 1: raise there. But you know, but but each of these

82
00:04:28,200 --> 00:04:31,680
Speaker 1: things it's really hard to establish that, you know, on

83
00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:34,400
Speaker 1: the equal protection front. Let's say that's that the treatment

84
00:04:34,680 --> 00:04:38,000
Speaker 1: across counties was so desparate as to arise the level

85
00:04:38,040 --> 00:04:41,000
Speaker 1: of arbitrary and unfair treatment, which is a kind of

86
00:04:41,120 --> 00:04:44,240
Speaker 1: level that Bush Weegre talked about, sort of arbitrary treatment

87
00:04:44,279 --> 00:04:47,440
Speaker 1: of voters from from county to county. Another is to

88
00:04:47,480 --> 00:04:49,960
Speaker 1: sort of say, well, if there's no observers, what's the harm.

89
00:04:50,160 --> 00:04:52,159
Speaker 1: You know, a lot of cases say well, observers have

90
00:04:52,240 --> 00:04:54,039
Speaker 1: a right to be there. But we also know there's

91
00:04:54,080 --> 00:04:58,839
Speaker 1: a bipartisan process of canvassing votes of Republicans and Democrats

92
00:04:58,880 --> 00:05:01,960
Speaker 1: in all counties and pencil mania uh, sort of participating

93
00:05:01,960 --> 00:05:04,560
Speaker 1: in that process even if they're not formally affiliated with

94
00:05:04,600 --> 00:05:07,679
Speaker 1: the campaign. UM. And then finally you know the fact

95
00:05:07,720 --> 00:05:10,080
Speaker 1: that there are witnesses who come forward and testify about

96
00:05:10,120 --> 00:05:12,760
Speaker 1: something that they can and I think the Trump campaign

97
00:05:12,800 --> 00:05:15,760
Speaker 1: has filed lawsuits where they've had witnesses saying we've observed this,

98
00:05:15,760 --> 00:05:19,320
Speaker 1: This appears to be malfeasance. This seems to be a problem. Um.

99
00:05:19,400 --> 00:05:22,640
Speaker 1: And then you know, when there's a court hearing and

100
00:05:22,720 --> 00:05:25,320
Speaker 1: an election officials given a chance to ask questions on

101
00:05:25,360 --> 00:05:28,040
Speaker 1: the other side and provide evidence about what they were doing.

102
00:05:28,120 --> 00:05:30,720
Speaker 1: Some of these cases have been thrown out in other jurisdictions,

103
00:05:30,760 --> 00:05:32,840
Speaker 1: so you can have a witness alleged something, but they

104
00:05:32,920 --> 00:05:35,760
Speaker 1: might still be missing the context. So um, there's no

105
00:05:35,839 --> 00:05:38,040
Speaker 1: question I think that the Trump campaign has some legitimate

106
00:05:38,040 --> 00:05:42,719
Speaker 1: grievances about especially observation of the counting process. Um. I

107
00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:44,880
Speaker 1: have no doubt they're going to bring forward witnesses that

108
00:05:44,960 --> 00:05:48,440
Speaker 1: will sort of describe some regularities they saw. But then

109
00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:50,320
Speaker 1: you sort of wait for the legal process to play

110
00:05:50,320 --> 00:05:52,480
Speaker 1: out to see what the explanations are there. And again,

111
00:05:52,520 --> 00:05:55,240
Speaker 1: I think at this stage, I think it's very hard

112
00:05:55,279 --> 00:05:58,719
Speaker 1: to allege that there's such systematic fraud to suggest that

113
00:05:58,720 --> 00:06:02,039
Speaker 1: that the confidence of the election isn't doubt. Their greatest

114
00:06:02,080 --> 00:06:06,520
Speaker 1: efforts seemed to be focused on Pennsylvania. The election officials

115
00:06:06,560 --> 00:06:10,640
Speaker 1: there have said that both sides were allowed to view

116
00:06:10,800 --> 00:06:15,160
Speaker 1: the ballot counting process and that it was even live streaming. Yeah,

117
00:06:15,279 --> 00:06:17,240
Speaker 1: and I think again this gets to, you know, the

118
00:06:17,600 --> 00:06:20,240
Speaker 1: level of confidence you have in the election administrators at

119
00:06:20,320 --> 00:06:23,000
Speaker 1: various stages. Um, And I'll point to a couple of things.

120
00:06:23,000 --> 00:06:24,960
Speaker 1: So when you know, I'm a live streaming point, I

121
00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:27,400
Speaker 1: think it's important. But you know, it's not like it's

122
00:06:27,400 --> 00:06:30,800
Speaker 1: not like such a camera over each table providing everyone

123
00:06:30,920 --> 00:06:33,159
Speaker 1: sort of a look at what's happening in each stage

124
00:06:33,160 --> 00:06:35,840
Speaker 1: of the canvassing process. Right, So, Um, you know that

125
00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:38,600
Speaker 1: they're they're not concealing anything from the public, But I

126
00:06:38,640 --> 00:06:41,000
Speaker 1: don't know that it's the most servisible for us to

127
00:06:41,040 --> 00:06:44,680
Speaker 1: sort of exactly see what's happening. But you know, again,

128
00:06:45,240 --> 00:06:48,160
Speaker 1: we sort of have professional poll workers, professionals who are

129
00:06:48,680 --> 00:06:50,960
Speaker 1: sometimes some of them are full time, it's their full

130
00:06:50,960 --> 00:06:52,880
Speaker 1: time jobs. Someone more broad in part time and are

131
00:06:52,920 --> 00:06:55,919
Speaker 1: trained to handle this on a bipartisan basis. We're hopeling

132
00:06:56,040 --> 00:06:58,800
Speaker 1: some Democrats who are canvassing the vote are opening the

133
00:06:58,920 --> 00:07:01,040
Speaker 1: envelopes they're counting, and they're running through the machines if

134
00:07:01,080 --> 00:07:03,719
Speaker 1: there's a problem, if there's a dispute that arises, you know,

135
00:07:03,760 --> 00:07:06,120
Speaker 1: they'll they'll they'll try to resolve it amongst themselves or

136
00:07:06,200 --> 00:07:08,960
Speaker 1: bring in a higher up to resolve the dispute. And

137
00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:12,240
Speaker 1: on top of that is a chance for campaigns to

138
00:07:12,280 --> 00:07:16,040
Speaker 1: send their own election observers to see what the workers

139
00:07:16,040 --> 00:07:18,520
Speaker 1: are doing. And again, I think the Trump campaign did

140
00:07:18,560 --> 00:07:20,440
Speaker 1: point out, you know, at various points in time they

141
00:07:20,440 --> 00:07:22,760
Speaker 1: were denied the kind of access they wanted, and the

142
00:07:22,840 --> 00:07:25,200
Speaker 1: court found in their favor that they should have had

143
00:07:25,240 --> 00:07:28,560
Speaker 1: that access. But again, what's the sort of is the

144
00:07:28,600 --> 00:07:30,960
Speaker 1: allegation that in the moments they weren't there, that there

145
00:07:30,960 --> 00:07:35,640
Speaker 1: were somehow ballots being you know, fraudulently drafted. You know,

146
00:07:36,120 --> 00:07:38,440
Speaker 1: is it that, um, you know, when they're opening the envelopes,

147
00:07:38,480 --> 00:07:40,400
Speaker 1: they're not being as careful as they should be in

148
00:07:40,520 --> 00:07:42,720
Speaker 1: verifying that all of the information on the on the

149
00:07:42,800 --> 00:07:46,080
Speaker 1: on the envelope is accurate, that that that that it's

150
00:07:46,120 --> 00:07:49,960
Speaker 1: properly sealed, that there's not stray marks on the secrecy envelope.

151
00:07:49,960 --> 00:07:52,320
Speaker 1: You know that there's technical violations that can arise and

152
00:07:52,360 --> 00:07:55,200
Speaker 1: that an observer might want to challenge, But again, you know,

153
00:07:55,240 --> 00:07:57,400
Speaker 1: these are you know, in my judgment, sort of pretty

154
00:07:57,440 --> 00:07:59,840
Speaker 1: small scale stuff to the extent that there's a cons

155
00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:03,280
Speaker 1: earned being raised, and without that sort of evidence that

156
00:08:03,280 --> 00:08:07,440
Speaker 1: there's something systemic happening, that there's some deeper concern about

157
00:08:07,480 --> 00:08:10,800
Speaker 1: the administration of the process. It's really hard to get

158
00:08:10,840 --> 00:08:16,000
Speaker 1: from we were denied observing to therefore we're casting sort

159
00:08:16,040 --> 00:08:18,720
Speaker 1: of doubt on the election. There's still a missing link

160
00:08:18,800 --> 00:08:22,360
Speaker 1: in there about the malfeasance that might have occurred. And again, um,

161
00:08:22,880 --> 00:08:26,160
Speaker 1: I just so far, I haven't seen anything to that effect.

162
00:08:27,400 --> 00:08:31,760
Speaker 1: Ben Ginsburg, who has been a Republican election lawyer who

163
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:34,720
Speaker 1: was behind Bush Fie Gore, he said that what he

164
00:08:34,800 --> 00:08:38,160
Speaker 1: thought might be happening is that the Trump campaign was

165
00:08:38,200 --> 00:08:41,520
Speaker 1: trying to slow down the count in states in the

166
00:08:41,520 --> 00:08:45,000
Speaker 1: hope that the states don't complete the job of certifying

167
00:08:45,120 --> 00:08:49,280
Speaker 1: results in time for the Electoral College to meet. So

168
00:08:49,320 --> 00:08:51,840
Speaker 1: then you have those dates coming up. Do you think

169
00:08:51,840 --> 00:08:54,679
Speaker 1: that they could slow it down enough that they wouldn't

170
00:08:54,679 --> 00:08:58,160
Speaker 1: be able to certify at least by December fourte No,

171
00:08:58,280 --> 00:09:00,320
Speaker 1: I don't think so. The strategy might be to slow

172
00:09:00,320 --> 00:09:02,040
Speaker 1: it down a bit so that the legal team can

173
00:09:02,120 --> 00:09:04,559
Speaker 1: kind of gather evidence and get things together and make

174
00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:07,880
Speaker 1: sure again that some of these ballots aren't being processed

175
00:09:07,960 --> 00:09:10,439
Speaker 1: so that they can challenge them later. Right again, as

176
00:09:10,440 --> 00:09:12,240
Speaker 1: I mentioned, once they're ripped out of the envelope and

177
00:09:12,360 --> 00:09:15,960
Speaker 1: dropped into the machine are gone. They're circulated and commingled

178
00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:18,640
Speaker 1: with everything else. So I don't think it's a viable strategy,

179
00:09:18,640 --> 00:09:21,559
Speaker 1: and I doubt that would be the strategies the except

180
00:09:21,559 --> 00:09:25,079
Speaker 1: they're developing one at the Trump headquarters to sort of

181
00:09:25,160 --> 00:09:28,000
Speaker 1: hold off until December fourteenth, when the electors meet. You know,

182
00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:30,640
Speaker 1: that's just unrealistic. We when you think about Bush versus Score,

183
00:09:31,200 --> 00:09:33,760
Speaker 1: I mean, that was thirty six days of agony with

184
00:09:33,840 --> 00:09:37,280
Speaker 1: a series of pieces of litigation happening. But there was

185
00:09:37,320 --> 00:09:39,839
Speaker 1: already a count in place, there was already a result.

186
00:09:39,920 --> 00:09:43,080
Speaker 1: The Secretary of State was moving forward with the certification,

187
00:09:43,120 --> 00:09:44,760
Speaker 1: and it was just a question of whether or not

188
00:09:44,800 --> 00:09:46,760
Speaker 1: we need to do amend that certification, whether or not

189
00:09:46,800 --> 00:09:48,880
Speaker 1: we need to change those totals, whether or not the

190
00:09:48,960 --> 00:09:51,360
Speaker 1: recount would have altered things. So at this stage, you know,

191
00:09:51,400 --> 00:09:53,760
Speaker 1: I expect the count to be done in the very

192
00:09:53,760 --> 00:09:55,640
Speaker 1: near future, and then there's going to be, you know,

193
00:09:55,679 --> 00:09:59,320
Speaker 1: potentially some more litigation about whether the election results should

194
00:09:59,320 --> 00:10:01,600
Speaker 1: be set aside. Again, I think a very heavy lift

195
00:10:01,920 --> 00:10:04,880
Speaker 1: litigation over the recount, which is certainly something that can

196
00:10:04,920 --> 00:10:07,199
Speaker 1: extend a little bit longer, and how the Secretary of

197
00:10:07,240 --> 00:10:10,960
Speaker 1: State should handle uncertainty in that stage. But it's also

198
00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:14,000
Speaker 1: worth emphasizing as the margin grows larger in some of

199
00:10:14,040 --> 00:10:17,319
Speaker 1: these states like Pennsylvania, and as it's not just Pennsylvania

200
00:10:17,360 --> 00:10:19,480
Speaker 1: Trump needs to win the election, it would also be

201
00:10:20,720 --> 00:10:25,800
Speaker 1: Arizona and Georgia, and it becomes more and more challenging exponentially.

202
00:10:25,880 --> 00:10:28,880
Speaker 1: So as we start to think about building that path forward,

203
00:10:29,520 --> 00:10:32,679
Speaker 1: do you know which states right now look like they

204
00:10:32,679 --> 00:10:36,200
Speaker 1: would be eligible for a recount? I know that Trump

205
00:10:36,200 --> 00:10:38,120
Speaker 1: said that they were going to ask for a recount

206
00:10:38,120 --> 00:10:41,800
Speaker 1: in Michigan, and I don't know. Possibly Georgia, Yeah, I

207
00:10:41,800 --> 00:10:44,320
Speaker 1: mean Georgia seems very close and could go to a recount.

208
00:10:44,360 --> 00:10:46,800
Speaker 1: Wisconsin is another place where they would be entitled to

209
00:10:46,840 --> 00:10:48,679
Speaker 1: a recount. You know, I think any of these jurisdictions,

210
00:10:48,679 --> 00:10:51,079
Speaker 1: it depends on the state. Pennsylvania looks pretty good for

211
00:10:51,080 --> 00:10:53,960
Speaker 1: a recount to um, it depends on whether it's under

212
00:10:54,240 --> 00:10:56,800
Speaker 1: a quarter of a percent, half a percent, one percent.

213
00:10:57,000 --> 00:11:00,480
Speaker 1: It can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction not You know,

214
00:11:00,520 --> 00:11:02,960
Speaker 1: a recount is a recount. It it entitles you to

215
00:11:02,960 --> 00:11:05,120
Speaker 1: sort of get in there and and and look at

216
00:11:05,120 --> 00:11:07,280
Speaker 1: the ballots and rerun them through the machines. But you know,

217
00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:10,720
Speaker 1: the machines are really good these days. They're very accurate

218
00:11:10,840 --> 00:11:13,800
Speaker 1: and and there's not a lot that changes in a recount.

219
00:11:13,880 --> 00:11:17,000
Speaker 1: Sometimes it can be a couple hundred votes. Um. So

220
00:11:17,040 --> 00:11:19,800
Speaker 1: we can go back to twenty sixteen, where there was

221
00:11:19,840 --> 00:11:22,600
Speaker 1: a recount in Wisconsin where the margin is almost exactly

222
00:11:22,640 --> 00:11:26,200
Speaker 1: the margin it was right now, and the Trump campaign

223
00:11:26,320 --> 00:11:29,600
Speaker 1: had won that state by about two votes and picked

224
00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:32,319
Speaker 1: up about a hundred thirty votes in the recount, um.

225
00:11:32,360 --> 00:11:34,520
Speaker 1: And that that's something you would expect that if there's

226
00:11:34,840 --> 00:11:39,320
Speaker 1: sort of a random distribution of undercount undercounted votes, um,

227
00:11:39,360 --> 00:11:42,400
Speaker 1: they're probably gonna cut slightly in favor of the candidate

228
00:11:42,400 --> 00:11:46,440
Speaker 1: who's already ahead. So when we're talking about recounts, you know,

229
00:11:46,559 --> 00:11:48,880
Speaker 1: and there's that statutory entitlement to it, they can slow

230
00:11:48,880 --> 00:11:53,280
Speaker 1: down the process. The states have certification goals and objectives

231
00:11:53,280 --> 00:11:56,600
Speaker 1: to complete recounts by a specific period of time. Flora

232
00:11:56,679 --> 00:11:58,679
Speaker 1: two thousand was a very odd situation where there was

233
00:11:58,720 --> 00:12:02,000
Speaker 1: a lot of fighting about how to count certain ballots,

234
00:12:02,040 --> 00:12:06,240
Speaker 1: how a manual recount of these hanging chad ballots was

235
00:12:06,280 --> 00:12:08,880
Speaker 1: supposed to work, right. I think states have much more

236
00:12:08,960 --> 00:12:13,840
Speaker 1: streamlined recount procedures in place to sort of expedite this process.

237
00:12:13,880 --> 00:12:16,240
Speaker 1: And so again it will slow things down, but but

238
00:12:16,320 --> 00:12:18,560
Speaker 1: we'll just see if they choose to press forward with it,

239
00:12:18,840 --> 00:12:20,920
Speaker 1: what that looks like. Does the state have to do

240
00:12:21,000 --> 00:12:24,959
Speaker 1: the recount before they can certify the election? So most

241
00:12:25,040 --> 00:12:28,440
Speaker 1: states have an unofficial result and then they have, you know,

242
00:12:28,559 --> 00:12:30,880
Speaker 1: sort of the lot. There's a series of stages of

243
00:12:30,960 --> 00:12:35,680
Speaker 1: canvassing that occur before where they get to the final certification. Now,

244
00:12:35,720 --> 00:12:39,439
Speaker 1: again in Florida, the timing was to have the recount

245
00:12:39,600 --> 00:12:43,240
Speaker 1: in place in theory, under the statute ahead of the

246
00:12:43,280 --> 00:12:48,000
Speaker 1: certification deadline. But then there might be extenuating circumstances where

247
00:12:48,480 --> 00:12:51,960
Speaker 1: you can continue and persist in your recount even after

248
00:12:52,040 --> 00:12:55,360
Speaker 1: that certification deadline. So we've seen states and I think

249
00:12:55,360 --> 00:12:59,280
Speaker 1: about the Al Frankin Norm Coleman election in Minnesota in

250
00:12:59,360 --> 00:13:01,880
Speaker 1: two thousand eight, a Senate election that went to a recount,

251
00:13:02,200 --> 00:13:04,360
Speaker 1: and with all the judicial wrangling, it took over six

252
00:13:04,400 --> 00:13:07,040
Speaker 1: months to resolve that election. So even though there's a

253
00:13:07,040 --> 00:13:10,800
Speaker 1: certification deadline, sometimes the legal wrangling can also push that

254
00:13:10,880 --> 00:13:13,160
Speaker 1: much later. But one lesson we learned from Bush versus

255
00:13:13,240 --> 00:13:16,480
Speaker 1: Gore is that the Supreme Court was really interested in

256
00:13:16,520 --> 00:13:21,120
Speaker 1: having states resolve these disputes expeditiously. In presidential elections. They know,

257
00:13:21,280 --> 00:13:24,199
Speaker 1: there's that hard date of the meeting of the Electoral

258
00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:27,679
Speaker 1: College in December fourteen. Um. There's a softer date described

259
00:13:27,720 --> 00:13:30,560
Speaker 1: as the safe harbor, which this year is December eight,

260
00:13:31,080 --> 00:13:33,560
Speaker 1: Which is that states really ought to resolve all of

261
00:13:33,600 --> 00:13:36,840
Speaker 1: their election disputes pertaining to electors in order for Congress

262
00:13:36,880 --> 00:13:40,800
Speaker 1: to presume that those electors are are regularly chosen. UM.

263
00:13:40,840 --> 00:13:42,960
Speaker 1: And so you can miss that deadline, but they's try

264
00:13:43,040 --> 00:13:46,280
Speaker 1: not to. UM. They do update their totals a little

265
00:13:46,280 --> 00:13:50,199
Speaker 1: bit after after the December eighth deadline. It happens, UM.

266
00:13:50,240 --> 00:13:52,720
Speaker 1: But the point is we they're they're confident about who

267
00:13:52,800 --> 00:13:54,840
Speaker 1: the winner is at that point. Whether or not they

268
00:13:54,840 --> 00:13:57,079
Speaker 1: adjust some of the vote totals in the days after

269
00:13:57,120 --> 00:14:00,800
Speaker 1: that is a different story. UM. But but but in theory,

270
00:14:00,840 --> 00:14:06,840
Speaker 1: these states have statutory objectives to recount, to recount and complete, um,

271
00:14:06,880 --> 00:14:09,840
Speaker 1: you know, before the certification deadline, and only sort of

272
00:14:09,840 --> 00:14:13,600
Speaker 1: blow past that if there's some judicial problem that arises. Finally,

273
00:14:13,720 --> 00:14:17,040
Speaker 1: I want to discuss the Supreme Court in this whole thing,

274
00:14:17,160 --> 00:14:19,960
Speaker 1: because you know, Trump repeatedly has said this is going

275
00:14:20,000 --> 00:14:23,840
Speaker 1: to be decided by the Supreme Court, and Justice Alito

276
00:14:24,040 --> 00:14:27,080
Speaker 1: issued an order. Is there any possibility at this point

277
00:14:27,120 --> 00:14:30,400
Speaker 1: that that case that the Supreme Court could still consider

278
00:14:30,440 --> 00:14:34,400
Speaker 1: the case of those ballots that came in after election

279
00:14:34,480 --> 00:14:37,440
Speaker 1: day three days until three days after and we're counted,

280
00:14:38,080 --> 00:14:40,680
Speaker 1: So there's still a possibility they'll they'll hear that case.

281
00:14:40,800 --> 00:14:42,920
Speaker 1: But I think it remains a different question about whether

282
00:14:42,920 --> 00:14:45,880
Speaker 1: they would hear it um in time to affect the outcome,

283
00:14:46,840 --> 00:14:50,240
Speaker 1: whether it would affect the outcome, and whether the remedy

284
00:14:50,320 --> 00:14:53,480
Speaker 1: they offer um would necessarily be the one that the

285
00:14:53,480 --> 00:14:55,840
Speaker 1: Trump campaign wants. So let me say that there's there's

286
00:14:55,880 --> 00:14:59,120
Speaker 1: a lot of like moving pieces happening here. So right

287
00:14:59,120 --> 00:15:01,560
Speaker 1: now that the mark origin in Pennsylvania is, you know,

288
00:15:02,160 --> 00:15:05,800
Speaker 1: fifty thousand votes in Biden's favor. Um, So if there's

289
00:15:05,800 --> 00:15:08,280
Speaker 1: a fight over this sort of batch of ballots after

290
00:15:08,320 --> 00:15:10,200
Speaker 1: election day, one question we ask, because it doesn't even

291
00:15:10,240 --> 00:15:12,080
Speaker 1: matter at the end of the day, right would that

292
00:15:12,120 --> 00:15:14,960
Speaker 1: batch of ballots even make a difference. It's not clear

293
00:15:14,960 --> 00:15:17,440
Speaker 1: how many are out there. It seems like a low number.

294
00:15:17,480 --> 00:15:20,920
Speaker 1: I've seen numbers, as you know, maybe around ten thousand.

295
00:15:20,960 --> 00:15:23,320
Speaker 1: I saw some report today fifty thousand, although I think

296
00:15:23,320 --> 00:15:25,880
Speaker 1: that's probably a little bit high. But even that batch

297
00:15:25,880 --> 00:15:28,160
Speaker 1: of ballots, right, it's not they're not all coming in

298
00:15:28,240 --> 00:15:31,840
Speaker 1: for one candidate. They're coming in divided amongst candidates. So

299
00:15:31,880 --> 00:15:34,120
Speaker 1: it's it's not clear that it's going to even affect

300
00:15:34,240 --> 00:15:36,600
Speaker 1: the outcome of the election. If the margin is wide enough,

301
00:15:36,640 --> 00:15:38,680
Speaker 1: and if it doesn't affect the outcome of the election,

302
00:15:39,160 --> 00:15:41,760
Speaker 1: the court might not feel any urgency to take it

303
00:15:41,880 --> 00:15:44,360
Speaker 1: up right now. And even if they did take it up,

304
00:15:44,400 --> 00:15:46,760
Speaker 1: they might also look at it on a remedial side,

305
00:15:46,800 --> 00:15:50,840
Speaker 1: to say, listen, if we told voters before election day,

306
00:15:51,360 --> 00:15:54,080
Speaker 1: these votes need to come in by election day or

307
00:15:54,240 --> 00:15:57,920
Speaker 1: won't count them, um, they're unnoticed. But after election day,

308
00:15:58,280 --> 00:16:00,080
Speaker 1: where this rule had been in place at least in

309
00:16:00,200 --> 00:16:03,120
Speaker 1: theory that if they are postmarked by election day and

310
00:16:03,200 --> 00:16:04,880
Speaker 1: coming in the next three days, or if they come

311
00:16:04,880 --> 00:16:06,880
Speaker 1: in the next three days without a postmark and we'll

312
00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:09,560
Speaker 1: count them, um, you know, it's a little unfair to

313
00:16:09,560 --> 00:16:11,800
Speaker 1: sort of pull the rug out from the from the voters.

314
00:16:11,840 --> 00:16:14,160
Speaker 1: At that point when the Supreme Court swoops in later

315
00:16:14,240 --> 00:16:16,840
Speaker 1: on and says, no, no, we're not going to count

316
00:16:16,840 --> 00:16:19,200
Speaker 1: those ballots. Now, maybe they say you're unnoticed that there

317
00:16:19,280 --> 00:16:20,960
Speaker 1: was litigation. Maybe you should have been a little bit

318
00:16:21,000 --> 00:16:23,400
Speaker 1: more confident. But all this is to say, the Supreme

319
00:16:23,400 --> 00:16:27,440
Speaker 1: Court could decide this case, you know, next year, if

320
00:16:27,480 --> 00:16:29,880
Speaker 1: it wanted to. Just that the case has been brought

321
00:16:29,920 --> 00:16:32,920
Speaker 1: up before the court. Um, it's not moot even after

322
00:16:32,960 --> 00:16:36,480
Speaker 1: an election. Election law cases typically sort of a vaide

323
00:16:36,600 --> 00:16:40,480
Speaker 1: muteness concerns by the Court saying, as long as you

324
00:16:40,600 --> 00:16:42,280
Speaker 1: raised it, and we know that elections are sort of

325
00:16:42,360 --> 00:16:45,080
Speaker 1: quick things, we can resolve this later. I keep referring

326
00:16:45,080 --> 00:16:47,440
Speaker 1: back to a famous case called Anderson Dress the Celebrities,

327
00:16:47,920 --> 00:16:51,320
Speaker 1: which involved John B. Anderson's campaign in nineteen eighty and

328
00:16:51,360 --> 00:16:53,920
Speaker 1: the Court issued a decision in nineteen eight three. Right,

329
00:16:53,960 --> 00:16:57,040
Speaker 1: hardly hardly a kimely decision. So we can think about

330
00:16:57,040 --> 00:16:59,960
Speaker 1: the Court potentially wanted to. It has some academic interests

331
00:17:00,000 --> 00:17:03,720
Speaker 1: that wants to provide legal guidance ahead of election. Um,

332
00:17:03,960 --> 00:17:07,359
Speaker 1: but I think the odds of it deciding this case

333
00:17:07,920 --> 00:17:10,359
Speaker 1: in a way that issues a judgment that not only

334
00:17:10,400 --> 00:17:13,199
Speaker 1: affects the Trump campaign, but affects the Trump campaign. The

335
00:17:13,200 --> 00:17:16,520
Speaker 1: way that alters the outcome of the Pennsylvania litigation is

336
00:17:16,560 --> 00:17:20,399
Speaker 1: just exceedingly low. Thanks Derek. That's Derek Muller, professor at

337
00:17:20,400 --> 00:17:24,680
Speaker 1: the University of Iowa College of Law. It's been three

338
00:17:24,760 --> 00:17:27,320
Speaker 1: years since the eruption of the meat Too movement, and

339
00:17:27,400 --> 00:17:32,080
Speaker 1: businesses are still revamping their workplace dating policies, sometimes turning

340
00:17:32,080 --> 00:17:36,360
Speaker 1: to disclosure requirements that may make employees blush but don't

341
00:17:36,480 --> 00:17:40,200
Speaker 1: violate privacy laws. Joining me is employment law expert Anthony

342
00:17:40,240 --> 00:17:43,560
Speaker 1: on CD, a partner at Proscouer Rose. Let's start out

343
00:17:43,560 --> 00:17:46,760
Speaker 1: with the main question. Do employers have the right to

344
00:17:46,960 --> 00:17:52,520
Speaker 1: forbid relationships between employees because it sounds like a real

345
00:17:52,600 --> 00:17:56,439
Speaker 1: intrusion into their private lives. Yeah, it may seem at

346
00:17:56,480 --> 00:17:59,240
Speaker 1: first glance to be an intrusion into some kind of

347
00:17:59,240 --> 00:18:03,400
Speaker 1: a private relation ship. But when there's a workplace romance,

348
00:18:03,600 --> 00:18:08,760
Speaker 1: there are what I call fellow travelers that go along

349
00:18:08,760 --> 00:18:12,800
Speaker 1: with the happy couple who might be involved in that relationship.

350
00:18:12,880 --> 00:18:14,480
Speaker 1: And what do I mean by that, Well, the number

351
00:18:14,480 --> 00:18:19,200
Speaker 1: one fellow traveler is the employer. If the boss is

352
00:18:19,280 --> 00:18:22,760
Speaker 1: dating somebody who reports to him or her uh, and

353
00:18:23,119 --> 00:18:29,879
Speaker 1: the relationship goes four as sometimes happens in that situation. UH,

354
00:18:29,920 --> 00:18:34,200
Speaker 1: it is not unusual for the employee to claim that

355
00:18:34,240 --> 00:18:37,840
Speaker 1: the boss has retaliated against that employee because of the

356
00:18:37,880 --> 00:18:40,840
Speaker 1: relationship having gone sour, and may say that I no

357
00:18:40,920 --> 00:18:43,720
Speaker 1: longer am getting the perks I was getting previously, I

358
00:18:43,720 --> 00:18:46,600
Speaker 1: didn't get the bonus. Indeed, maybe and maybe the boss

359
00:18:46,680 --> 00:18:50,359
Speaker 1: is on the verge of firing me. And in that situation,

360
00:18:50,640 --> 00:18:54,960
Speaker 1: everybody starts calling lawyers. The HR department will start calling lawyers,

361
00:18:55,400 --> 00:18:59,080
Speaker 1: the employee himself or herself will start calling lawyers, and

362
00:18:59,160 --> 00:19:02,720
Speaker 1: suddenly what was a so called private relationship now is

363
00:19:02,760 --> 00:19:06,520
Speaker 1: a very public relationship, at least within the four walls

364
00:19:06,560 --> 00:19:10,920
Speaker 1: of the employer. And in that situation, suddenly everyone's looking

365
00:19:10,960 --> 00:19:14,480
Speaker 1: at the employer as the deep pocket to make things right.

366
00:19:14,520 --> 00:19:18,280
Speaker 1: So that's the number one fellow traveler in such a relationship,

367
00:19:18,280 --> 00:19:21,240
Speaker 1: and almost always if it, if it goes badly, ends

368
00:19:21,320 --> 00:19:24,080
Speaker 1: up in the lap of the employer. Another group of

369
00:19:24,080 --> 00:19:28,360
Speaker 1: fellow travelers in such a relationship in the workplace are

370
00:19:28,440 --> 00:19:32,679
Speaker 1: all the other employees who aren't dating the boss. It

371
00:19:32,800 --> 00:19:36,359
Speaker 1: is almost always the case that if one employee is

372
00:19:36,440 --> 00:19:38,320
Speaker 1: dating the boss and there are five or eight who

373
00:19:38,359 --> 00:19:42,320
Speaker 1: are not, and this becomes common knowledge, as it so

374
00:19:42,400 --> 00:19:45,919
Speaker 1: often does, whether it's water cooler talk or gossip, whatever,

375
00:19:46,000 --> 00:19:50,040
Speaker 1: it often becomes knowledge that is known by other employees.

376
00:19:50,600 --> 00:19:55,320
Speaker 1: It is I would say, certain, not even certain, but

377
00:19:55,359 --> 00:19:57,760
Speaker 1: a hundred percent certain that everybody who isn't dating the

378
00:19:57,800 --> 00:20:00,639
Speaker 1: boss is going to take the position, and that the

379
00:20:00,680 --> 00:20:04,080
Speaker 1: employee who is dating the boss is receiving some form

380
00:20:04,080 --> 00:20:07,880
Speaker 1: of preferential treatment. And even if that isn't happening, it's

381
00:20:07,920 --> 00:20:11,680
Speaker 1: almost impossible to dispel that perception. And so no matter

382
00:20:11,720 --> 00:20:15,400
Speaker 1: what happens, you've got again a fellow traveler in the relationship,

383
00:20:15,520 --> 00:20:19,199
Speaker 1: which probably neither of the happy participants, at least at

384
00:20:19,240 --> 00:20:23,720
Speaker 1: the beginning they were happy, may have anticipated. So how

385
00:20:23,760 --> 00:20:28,120
Speaker 1: common our workplace dating policies? How long have they been

386
00:20:28,119 --> 00:20:33,840
Speaker 1: in place? I would say they have risen exponentially in

387
00:20:33,880 --> 00:20:36,919
Speaker 1: the last three to five years. Certainly since the Harvey

388
00:20:36,960 --> 00:20:42,679
Speaker 1: Weinstein scandals broke in the me too movement began, things

389
00:20:42,760 --> 00:20:47,680
Speaker 1: have very much accelerated in this regard. Employers have taken

390
00:20:47,720 --> 00:20:53,640
Speaker 1: a more active role in monitoring and reporting and training employees.

391
00:20:53,800 --> 00:20:56,399
Speaker 1: In connection with these kinds of things. I think maybe

392
00:20:56,440 --> 00:21:00,400
Speaker 1: there was more of a propensity for employers who either

393
00:21:00,440 --> 00:21:02,680
Speaker 1: look the other way or considered to be a private matter.

394
00:21:03,040 --> 00:21:05,960
Speaker 1: Now because of, as I say, the fellow travelers that

395
00:21:06,040 --> 00:21:10,080
Speaker 1: exist in such a relationship, Employers who are knowledgeable recognize

396
00:21:10,119 --> 00:21:14,159
Speaker 1: that these are things that are potential liability centers and

397
00:21:14,280 --> 00:21:18,040
Speaker 1: can be really problematic in the event that the relationship

398
00:21:18,119 --> 00:21:20,800
Speaker 1: goes badly. One of the things that I always think

399
00:21:20,800 --> 00:21:24,080
Speaker 1: about in terms of perspective is we know that marriages

400
00:21:24,760 --> 00:21:27,560
Speaker 1: in the United States are destined for divorce. I don't

401
00:21:27,560 --> 00:21:31,600
Speaker 1: know for sure what percentage of workplace romances will fail,

402
00:21:32,160 --> 00:21:34,600
Speaker 1: but I would guess it's at least fifty And I

403
00:21:34,600 --> 00:21:38,920
Speaker 1: also assume the number of failed workplace romances increases exponentially

404
00:21:38,960 --> 00:21:41,800
Speaker 1: when one or both parties are married to other people,

405
00:21:42,320 --> 00:21:45,960
Speaker 1: as is so often the cake so well. I hate

406
00:21:45,960 --> 00:21:49,120
Speaker 1: to be um the non romantic in the conversation here,

407
00:21:49,200 --> 00:21:52,639
Speaker 1: but when one enters into such a relationship in the

408
00:21:52,640 --> 00:21:56,119
Speaker 1: workplace or anywhere, but certainly in the workingplace, the statistics

409
00:21:56,160 --> 00:21:58,000
Speaker 1: are not in your favor that it's it's going to

410
00:21:58,119 --> 00:22:01,240
Speaker 1: end well. And when you compare or a workplace romance

411
00:22:01,280 --> 00:22:05,000
Speaker 1: to a non workplace romance. There's a lot more fallout

412
00:22:05,080 --> 00:22:10,120
Speaker 1: in the workplace romance because once you have ceased being

413
00:22:10,160 --> 00:22:12,560
Speaker 1: interested in the other person, or one person has feast

414
00:22:12,600 --> 00:22:15,760
Speaker 1: being interested in the other person, it's much more difficult

415
00:22:15,800 --> 00:22:19,640
Speaker 1: to terminate connections when you work six ft away from

416
00:22:19,680 --> 00:22:23,760
Speaker 1: that person every day for eight to ten hours. And

417
00:22:23,840 --> 00:22:27,320
Speaker 1: that is something obviously that doesn't occur in the outside workplace.

418
00:22:27,320 --> 00:22:29,480
Speaker 1: There's a there's a term known as ghosting. You can

419
00:22:29,840 --> 00:22:31,879
Speaker 1: people ghost one another. I guess it's a kind of

420
00:22:31,880 --> 00:22:33,960
Speaker 1: a rude thing to do, but that happens. But you

421
00:22:34,000 --> 00:22:36,520
Speaker 1: can't go to somebody who works in the next cubicle

422
00:22:36,720 --> 00:22:39,560
Speaker 1: or in the next office, and certainly you can't go

423
00:22:39,640 --> 00:22:41,920
Speaker 1: to somebody who happens to be your boss or even

424
00:22:41,960 --> 00:22:45,639
Speaker 1: the person who reports to you. Do most companies require

425
00:22:46,160 --> 00:22:50,959
Speaker 1: disclosure of a relationship or just forbid them out right. UH.

426
00:22:51,000 --> 00:22:56,480
Speaker 1: That it comes in different flavors. Some employers differentiate between

427
00:22:56,600 --> 00:23:00,520
Speaker 1: workplace romances that exists in a reporting relationship. That's actually

428
00:23:00,560 --> 00:23:05,320
Speaker 1: the most dangerous area, both for the supervisor UH and

429
00:23:05,400 --> 00:23:09,800
Speaker 1: also for the employer. Why is that Because when a

430
00:23:09,920 --> 00:23:14,040
Speaker 1: supervisor act in connection with an employee that reports to

431
00:23:14,119 --> 00:23:18,080
Speaker 1: him or her, the Company Act UH. The supervisor is

432
00:23:18,200 --> 00:23:22,119
Speaker 1: essentially the embodiment of the company, and so if there

433
00:23:22,200 --> 00:23:26,240
Speaker 1: is sexual harassment or alleged sexual harassment that occurs by

434
00:23:26,280 --> 00:23:29,560
Speaker 1: a supervisor with respect to somebody who reports to that supervisor,

435
00:23:30,640 --> 00:23:34,199
Speaker 1: the employer is strictly liable, meaning that even if the

436
00:23:34,200 --> 00:23:36,800
Speaker 1: employer did not know there was a relationship, did not

437
00:23:36,920 --> 00:23:39,320
Speaker 1: know there was any harassment going on, indeed may not

438
00:23:39,480 --> 00:23:43,200
Speaker 1: have been able to find out. Perhaps the couple has

439
00:23:43,240 --> 00:23:45,639
Speaker 1: done a very good job in keeping it under wraps

440
00:23:46,400 --> 00:23:49,199
Speaker 1: and no circumstances. If the employee says he or she

441
00:23:49,359 --> 00:23:54,680
Speaker 1: was sexually harasked, the employer and the supervisor are strictly

442
00:23:54,760 --> 00:23:58,440
Speaker 1: liable in the event that harassment is proved. So employers

443
00:23:58,440 --> 00:24:02,960
Speaker 1: that recognize this are much more interested in regulating and

444
00:24:03,000 --> 00:24:07,840
Speaker 1: indeed often prohibiting a relationship between a supervised employee and

445
00:24:08,280 --> 00:24:11,840
Speaker 1: the boss that that supervised employee reports. There's also the

446
00:24:11,920 --> 00:24:15,479
Speaker 1: issue of co employees. This is often referred to as

447
00:24:15,880 --> 00:24:19,919
Speaker 1: paramour liability, where you have other employees reporting to the

448
00:24:19,960 --> 00:24:23,240
Speaker 1: same boss who have potential claims also who say that

449
00:24:23,320 --> 00:24:27,639
Speaker 1: there's favorable treatment that is being showered upon the employee

450
00:24:27,640 --> 00:24:31,200
Speaker 1: who happens to be having the relationship with the boss.

451
00:24:31,240 --> 00:24:35,920
Speaker 1: There are also policies that employers have that regulate, often

452
00:24:35,960 --> 00:24:41,000
Speaker 1: don't prohibit, but more closely regulate relationships between employees who

453
00:24:41,000 --> 00:24:43,840
Speaker 1: are co employed, meaning that they're not no one's reporting

454
00:24:43,840 --> 00:24:46,720
Speaker 1: to one another, no one's divorced, they may be in

455
00:24:46,720 --> 00:24:50,199
Speaker 1: different departments. Employers are less concerned about that kind of

456
00:24:50,200 --> 00:24:54,280
Speaker 1: a relationship because neither employee has the ability to affect

457
00:24:54,359 --> 00:24:57,920
Speaker 1: the terms and conditions of employment of the other. That's

458
00:24:57,920 --> 00:24:59,840
Speaker 1: where you get into trouble as an employer and as

459
00:24:59,840 --> 00:25:04,159
Speaker 1: a supervisor when there is that potential for controlling the

460
00:25:04,280 --> 00:25:09,680
Speaker 1: terms and conditions of employment. So that's workplace dating policies.

461
00:25:10,040 --> 00:25:15,480
Speaker 1: Are there also contracts that an employee might be required

462
00:25:15,520 --> 00:25:19,320
Speaker 1: to sign love contracts. Yeah, I would love to know

463
00:25:19,400 --> 00:25:23,359
Speaker 1: who actually coined the term allowed contracts. It has so

464
00:25:23,400 --> 00:25:27,120
Speaker 1: many different potential implications, but it is something that when

465
00:25:27,119 --> 00:25:30,080
Speaker 1: you mentioned love contracts to an employment lawyers such as myself,

466
00:25:30,520 --> 00:25:33,919
Speaker 1: we know exactly what that means and what those are

467
00:25:33,920 --> 00:25:37,400
Speaker 1: are kind of ways in which employers are are grappling

468
00:25:37,440 --> 00:25:42,040
Speaker 1: with the situation when it arises, and they often supplement

469
00:25:42,240 --> 00:25:45,320
Speaker 1: a policy such as the one I mentioned, which is

470
00:25:45,320 --> 00:25:49,320
Speaker 1: needed either prohibits dating between a supervisor and a support

471
00:25:49,320 --> 00:25:53,720
Speaker 1: and employee, or obligates at the very least a disclosure

472
00:25:53,800 --> 00:25:56,920
Speaker 1: of such a relationship. Um so before you get to

473
00:25:57,040 --> 00:26:00,040
Speaker 1: love contract. Oftentimes for policies, as they say, either of

474
00:26:00,119 --> 00:26:03,879
Speaker 1: bit a relationship with somebody who reports to the supervisor

475
00:26:05,040 --> 00:26:08,800
Speaker 1: or requires that puts the onus on the supervisor to

476
00:26:09,119 --> 00:26:13,760
Speaker 1: report such a relationship to Human resources or legal department

477
00:26:13,920 --> 00:26:17,720
Speaker 1: or both. Why is that so that somebody who doesn't

478
00:26:17,720 --> 00:26:19,960
Speaker 1: have a conflict of interest in HR or in the

479
00:26:20,000 --> 00:26:24,080
Speaker 1: legal department can put eyes on this relationship and make

480
00:26:24,119 --> 00:26:28,920
Speaker 1: a determination of whether uh, these two employee should continue

481
00:26:28,920 --> 00:26:32,840
Speaker 1: to work in such close proximity and importantly, whether the

482
00:26:32,840 --> 00:26:36,760
Speaker 1: subordinate employee should continue to report to the boss. Many employers,

483
00:26:36,800 --> 00:26:39,520
Speaker 1: when they find out about, either directly or indirectly, a

484
00:26:39,600 --> 00:26:47,119
Speaker 1: relationship between a supervisor and another employee, will move either

485
00:26:47,200 --> 00:26:49,679
Speaker 1: the boss or the subordinate. But yet to be very

486
00:26:49,680 --> 00:26:52,040
Speaker 1: careful with that as well, because the subordinate can't be

487
00:26:52,040 --> 00:26:55,520
Speaker 1: put in a position where he or she has fewer

488
00:26:55,640 --> 00:27:00,639
Speaker 1: job opportunities or where there's an adverse impact on they're

489
00:27:01,480 --> 00:27:04,640
Speaker 1: on their career, because they may very well say that

490
00:27:04,640 --> 00:27:07,600
Speaker 1: that somehow has retaliation or that's an extension of harassment

491
00:27:07,640 --> 00:27:11,040
Speaker 1: if that's what they're alleging has occurred. So the employee

492
00:27:11,040 --> 00:27:13,359
Speaker 1: has to be very very careful in making sure that

493
00:27:13,440 --> 00:27:19,080
Speaker 1: the relationship is severed, that the work relationship is severed,

494
00:27:19,960 --> 00:27:24,359
Speaker 1: so as to guard against potential liability, but also to

495
00:27:24,440 --> 00:27:26,880
Speaker 1: make sure that it doesn't look as though the employee

496
00:27:26,920 --> 00:27:30,760
Speaker 1: is being retaliated against in any way for having UM

497
00:27:31,160 --> 00:27:33,159
Speaker 1: been in this relationship, or as I say, if it

498
00:27:33,160 --> 00:27:37,240
Speaker 1: turns into harassment, especially in that situation. UM. A further

499
00:27:37,320 --> 00:27:43,040
Speaker 1: extension beyond a policy just prohibiting having these relationships or

500
00:27:43,119 --> 00:27:46,960
Speaker 1: obligating the supervisor to disclose is something called love contract.

501
00:27:47,040 --> 00:27:50,359
Speaker 1: And what that does is it puts everything on the

502
00:27:50,359 --> 00:27:55,520
Speaker 1: table and in writing, and it contains several common components.

503
00:27:55,600 --> 00:27:59,400
Speaker 1: Number One, there is a requirement that they're be full

504
00:27:59,480 --> 00:28:05,240
Speaker 1: disclosed by both the supervisor and the employee that a

505
00:28:05,320 --> 00:28:08,399
Speaker 1: relationship is going on. One of the first components of

506
00:28:08,760 --> 00:28:13,080
Speaker 1: a so called love contract is to remind both parties

507
00:28:13,119 --> 00:28:17,320
Speaker 1: to the relationship, and particularly the employee who is reporting

508
00:28:17,320 --> 00:28:22,480
Speaker 1: to the boss, that they are not compelled or obligated

509
00:28:22,560 --> 00:28:25,040
Speaker 1: in any way to enter into or remain in the

510
00:28:25,119 --> 00:28:30,119
Speaker 1: relationship that may seem like common sense, but what the

511
00:28:30,240 --> 00:28:33,000
Speaker 1: love contract is intended to do is to guard against

512
00:28:33,640 --> 00:28:37,160
Speaker 1: a future claim of harassment. So if at the very beginning,

513
00:28:37,359 --> 00:28:41,200
Speaker 1: presumably when there's still a very good relationship between the couple,

514
00:28:41,520 --> 00:28:44,880
Speaker 1: they both acknowledged this relationship is happening, and the employee

515
00:28:45,960 --> 00:28:48,360
Speaker 1: who will be asked to sign a love contract acknowledges

516
00:28:48,400 --> 00:28:51,360
Speaker 1: that if at any time, uh, he or she wishes

517
00:28:51,400 --> 00:28:55,840
Speaker 1: to exit the relationship, the romantic relationship, they have a

518
00:28:55,960 --> 00:28:58,120
Speaker 1: right to do so. Uh and that and it it

519
00:28:58,240 --> 00:29:02,160
Speaker 1: also generally can firms that they will suffer no retaliation

520
00:29:03,080 --> 00:29:07,440
Speaker 1: in terms of their job or their employment for making

521
00:29:07,480 --> 00:29:11,800
Speaker 1: a decision to exit the relationship. So this is kind

522
00:29:11,800 --> 00:29:14,800
Speaker 1: of a warning to the supervisor that if there's a breakup,

523
00:29:15,760 --> 00:29:18,280
Speaker 1: do not retality against this employee when it comes to

524
00:29:18,400 --> 00:29:22,120
Speaker 1: terms or conditions of employment. And it's a acknowledgement by

525
00:29:22,160 --> 00:29:25,560
Speaker 1: the employee that if they wish to exit the relationship,

526
00:29:25,600 --> 00:29:27,640
Speaker 1: they can do so and there will be no job

527
00:29:27,720 --> 00:29:32,520
Speaker 1: related repercussion. So there are many stages of love, as

528
00:29:32,560 --> 00:29:36,920
Speaker 1: you know, and I'm wondering how the employer draws the

529
00:29:37,040 --> 00:29:43,400
Speaker 1: line or has the employees draw the line between you know, flirting, infatuation, romance,

530
00:29:43,640 --> 00:29:47,040
Speaker 1: and relationship. Well. The good news is that much of

531
00:29:47,040 --> 00:29:51,600
Speaker 1: the heavy lifting in this kind of situation is usually

532
00:29:52,440 --> 00:29:56,200
Speaker 1: dealt with in a sexual harassment policy, and most well

533
00:29:56,240 --> 00:30:02,400
Speaker 1: advised employers in the IT States now have some form

534
00:30:02,640 --> 00:30:09,520
Speaker 1: of express harassment policy that that that actually gives examples

535
00:30:09,600 --> 00:30:13,560
Speaker 1: and that describes what is or could be harassment and

536
00:30:13,640 --> 00:30:22,720
Speaker 1: should be prohibited. Most sexual harassment policies differentiate between activities

537
00:30:22,760 --> 00:30:27,040
Speaker 1: that are relatively harmless and those that are more severe

538
00:30:27,720 --> 00:30:31,960
Speaker 1: or more pervasive, and those are those are important words

539
00:30:31,960 --> 00:30:34,880
Speaker 1: when you are assessing whether there is harassment. Something is

540
00:30:34,960 --> 00:30:39,480
Speaker 1: usually either severe in terms of the kind of activities

541
00:30:39,480 --> 00:30:41,760
Speaker 1: that were engaged in. It may involve some form of

542
00:30:41,840 --> 00:30:46,080
Speaker 1: touching or worse or pervasive meaning this has been a

543
00:30:46,080 --> 00:30:51,360
Speaker 1: lot of um asking out or you know, comments about

544
00:30:52,720 --> 00:30:56,320
Speaker 1: the way somebody addressed something like that. In the absence

545
00:30:56,320 --> 00:30:59,280
Speaker 1: of severe or pervasive oftentimes it's hard for an employee

546
00:30:59,280 --> 00:31:04,080
Speaker 1: to prove sexual harassment, but there are guide posts that

547
00:31:04,120 --> 00:31:07,440
Speaker 1: are provided in most sexual harassment policy. And getting back

548
00:31:07,440 --> 00:31:10,680
Speaker 1: to the love contract, it's usually very common to attach

549
00:31:11,440 --> 00:31:15,360
Speaker 1: to the love contract itself a copy of the company's

550
00:31:15,360 --> 00:31:19,400
Speaker 1: sexual harassment policy, so that again both the supervisor and

551
00:31:19,440 --> 00:31:23,600
Speaker 1: the employee are made very much aware of what the

552
00:31:23,640 --> 00:31:26,960
Speaker 1: policy is and indeed what the law is in connection

553
00:31:27,000 --> 00:31:29,400
Speaker 1: with this, so that it's not just a piece of

554
00:31:29,400 --> 00:31:31,840
Speaker 1: paper somewhere buried in the middle of a fifty or

555
00:31:31,880 --> 00:31:36,080
Speaker 1: sixty page employ handbooks. It is attached to policy itself,

556
00:31:36,320 --> 00:31:40,480
Speaker 1: to the love contract itself, so that both parties can

557
00:31:40,520 --> 00:31:43,160
Speaker 1: see what the requirements are and what the expectations are

558
00:31:43,640 --> 00:31:45,920
Speaker 1: from the employer. Thanks so much for being on The

559
00:31:45,920 --> 00:31:49,640
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Lawn Show, Tony. That's employment law expert Anthony on

560
00:31:49,800 --> 00:31:53,160
Speaker 1: cd A partnered Proscower Rose. And that's it for this

561
00:31:53,320 --> 00:31:56,040
Speaker 1: edition of the Bloomberg Lawn Show. Remember you can always

562
00:31:56,080 --> 00:31:58,640
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Lawn Podcast.

563
00:31:58,920 --> 00:32:02,080
Speaker 1: You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud, or at Bloomberg

564
00:32:02,160 --> 00:32:06,320
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Grosso. Thanks

565
00:32:06,320 --> 00:32:08,480
Speaker 1: so much for listening, and remember to tune to The

566
00:32:08,520 --> 00:32:11,680
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Eastern Pride

567
00:32:11,680 --> 00:32:12,880
Speaker 1: Tore on Bloomberg Radio