1
00:00:00,520 --> 00:00:02,840
Speaker 1: I'm gonna fight my battle. I'm gonna deliver.

2
00:00:03,320 --> 00:00:05,560
Speaker 2: I'm gonna fight the witch hud. I'm gonna take care

3
00:00:05,640 --> 00:00:07,680
Speaker 2: of Clary my name, and I look forward to doing that.

4
00:00:08,119 --> 00:00:12,760
Speaker 2: Republican Congressman George Santos came out swinging after pleading not

5
00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:16,720
Speaker 2: guilty to a thirteen count federal indictment for what the

6
00:00:16,880 --> 00:00:21,280
Speaker 2: US attorney described as an audacious scheme. Santos is accused

7
00:00:21,280 --> 00:00:25,320
Speaker 2: of defrauding his donors, using political contributions to line his

8
00:00:25,360 --> 00:00:30,440
Speaker 2: own pockets, claiming unemployment benefits unlawfully, and lying to Congress.

9
00:00:30,880 --> 00:00:35,080
Speaker 2: Many of the allegations have already been revealed as Santos's

10
00:00:35,240 --> 00:00:39,000
Speaker 2: fabricated life story came to light, in which he lied

11
00:00:39,080 --> 00:00:43,320
Speaker 2: about nearly everything from his family background to his education

12
00:00:43,479 --> 00:00:47,360
Speaker 2: and work experience. Yet Santos seemed to be surprised at

13
00:00:47,400 --> 00:00:51,800
Speaker 2: the indictment. It's a witch hut because it makes no

14
00:00:51,920 --> 00:00:56,480
Speaker 2: sense that in four months, four months, five months, I'm indicted.

15
00:00:56,760 --> 00:01:00,160
Speaker 2: My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, Apart and

16
00:01:00,240 --> 00:01:04,480
Speaker 2: McCarter and English, just how serious are these charges against Santos?

17
00:01:05,280 --> 00:01:10,200
Speaker 1: Federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment charging representative George Santos of

18
00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:13,560
Speaker 1: New York with thirteen counts, including counts of money laundering,

19
00:01:14,160 --> 00:01:18,039
Speaker 1: stealing public money, wire fraud, and making false statements to Congress.

20
00:01:18,319 --> 00:01:22,000
Speaker 1: These are very serious charges that carry with them long

21
00:01:22,080 --> 00:01:26,000
Speaker 1: jail sentences, and when you take together all the allegations

22
00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:29,240
Speaker 1: that are in this twenty page indictment, they paint a

23
00:01:29,240 --> 00:01:33,720
Speaker 1: pretty damning portrait of someone who utilized various deceptions and

24
00:01:33,800 --> 00:01:36,400
Speaker 1: schemes to help them get elected to Congress and to

25
00:01:36,480 --> 00:01:37,560
Speaker 1: line his own pockets.

26
00:01:37,920 --> 00:01:42,000
Speaker 2: The indictment comes less than five months after the Eastern

27
00:01:42,040 --> 00:01:46,120
Speaker 2: District of New York began their investigation, and Santo said,

28
00:01:46,640 --> 00:01:49,240
Speaker 2: it's a witch hunt because it makes no sense that

29
00:01:49,320 --> 00:01:53,080
Speaker 2: in four months, four months, five months, I'm indicted. How

30
00:01:53,160 --> 00:01:53,920
Speaker 2: fast is that?

31
00:01:54,280 --> 00:01:56,960
Speaker 1: Well, that actually is pretty fast for prosecutors to put

32
00:01:57,000 --> 00:02:00,280
Speaker 1: a case like this together. Often these cases can take

33
00:02:00,400 --> 00:02:03,280
Speaker 1: more than a year as they go through complicated financial

34
00:02:03,360 --> 00:02:06,680
Speaker 1: records to put this type of financial fraud or political

35
00:02:06,720 --> 00:02:09,880
Speaker 1: corruption case together. But here they did it in five months,

36
00:02:09,919 --> 00:02:13,560
Speaker 1: which suggests to me that the evidence was fairly clear

37
00:02:13,639 --> 00:02:16,200
Speaker 1: that prosecutors were able to put together a case that

38
00:02:16,240 --> 00:02:19,040
Speaker 1: they believed was going to get them a conviction in

39
00:02:19,080 --> 00:02:23,040
Speaker 1: a relatively short time, primarily going through bank records and

40
00:02:23,080 --> 00:02:27,160
Speaker 1: financial statements, although it's also clear, based upon the allegations

41
00:02:27,160 --> 00:02:31,120
Speaker 1: in the indictment that they also interviewed several victims of

42
00:02:31,160 --> 00:02:34,480
Speaker 1: this scheme and they have some inside information not only

43
00:02:34,520 --> 00:02:37,440
Speaker 1: based upon the bank records, but also upon testimony of

44
00:02:37,520 --> 00:02:40,000
Speaker 1: witnesses who we can expect to be central to the

45
00:02:40,040 --> 00:02:41,320
Speaker 1: government's case at trial.

46
00:02:41,720 --> 00:02:44,600
Speaker 2: So let's go through the indictment tell us about the

47
00:02:44,639 --> 00:02:49,320
Speaker 2: first alleged scheme and allegations of wire fraud and money laundering.

48
00:02:50,040 --> 00:02:53,280
Speaker 1: This indictment is very detailed and include seven counts of

49
00:02:53,360 --> 00:02:56,840
Speaker 1: wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, two counts of

50
00:02:56,880 --> 00:02:59,639
Speaker 1: making false statements to the House of Representative, and one

51
00:02:59,720 --> 00:03:02,760
Speaker 1: count of best to public funds. The wirefraud of the

52
00:03:02,760 --> 00:03:06,320
Speaker 1: money laundering actually overlapped the various schemes that are charged

53
00:03:06,360 --> 00:03:09,680
Speaker 1: in the indictment, and basically this indictment comes down to

54
00:03:09,880 --> 00:03:14,480
Speaker 1: three schemes alleged by prosecutors. The first scheme alleges that

55
00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:20,000
Speaker 1: mister Santos was involved in a fraudulent political contribution scheme.

56
00:03:20,080 --> 00:03:24,080
Speaker 1: Prosecutors said mister Santos and an unnamed Queen's based political

57
00:03:24,120 --> 00:03:27,960
Speaker 1: consultant induced donors to give money to a limited liability

58
00:03:27,960 --> 00:03:31,160
Speaker 1: company he controlled. According to the indictment, he then used

59
00:03:31,200 --> 00:03:34,480
Speaker 1: the money for personal expenses, such as buying designer goods

60
00:03:34,520 --> 00:03:37,480
Speaker 1: and to payoff personal debts. The allegations in the complaint

61
00:03:37,560 --> 00:03:41,600
Speaker 1: don't identify by name the companies, the people, the investment firm,

62
00:03:41,920 --> 00:03:46,400
Speaker 1: or the contributors involved. Prosecutors never named victims or companies

63
00:03:46,440 --> 00:03:48,760
Speaker 1: that are alleged to be victims by name in indictments,

64
00:03:48,800 --> 00:03:51,880
Speaker 1: so they referred to as company number one, person number one,

65
00:03:52,040 --> 00:03:55,680
Speaker 1: contributor number one, et cetera. But as this case continues,

66
00:03:55,920 --> 00:03:59,560
Speaker 1: prosecutors will reveal who these individuals are, who these companies

67
00:03:59,560 --> 00:04:01,840
Speaker 1: are that will come out in discovery, and some in

68
00:04:01,880 --> 00:04:04,560
Speaker 1: the media have already figured out who these are based

69
00:04:04,600 --> 00:04:08,160
Speaker 1: upon the generalized descriptions in the indictment. So it's clear

70
00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:10,120
Speaker 1: that there is a lot going on here in this

71
00:04:10,240 --> 00:04:13,320
Speaker 1: first scheme, and prosecutors seem to have a lot of

72
00:04:13,400 --> 00:04:16,280
Speaker 1: evidence based on the allegations outlined in the indictment.

73
00:04:16,640 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 2: The unemployment fraud claim is new and surprising. He applied

74
00:04:21,400 --> 00:04:24,239
Speaker 2: for unemployment insurance even though he was making one hundred

75
00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:26,680
Speaker 2: and twenty thousand dollars in annual salary.

76
00:04:26,880 --> 00:04:29,360
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is a new allegation that had not yet

77
00:04:29,360 --> 00:04:32,160
Speaker 1: come to light, despite a lot of media reports on

78
00:04:32,279 --> 00:04:36,360
Speaker 1: many statements that, according to reporters, were faults that were

79
00:04:36,360 --> 00:04:40,120
Speaker 1: made during the election and prior to the election. This

80
00:04:40,160 --> 00:04:42,719
Speaker 1: is a new scheme where in the indictment he's charged

81
00:04:42,760 --> 00:04:46,960
Speaker 1: with unemployment insurance fraud. Federal prosecutors say that in June

82
00:04:47,000 --> 00:04:49,600
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty, in the early months of the COVID

83
00:04:49,680 --> 00:04:53,800
Speaker 1: nineteen pandemic, mister Santos applied for government assistance in New

84
00:04:53,880 --> 00:04:56,360
Speaker 1: York even though at the time he was employed by

85
00:04:56,400 --> 00:04:59,279
Speaker 1: a Florida based investment firm, which appears to be a

86
00:04:59,279 --> 00:05:02,279
Speaker 1: company called Arbor City Capital, and he drew an annual

87
00:05:02,320 --> 00:05:04,719
Speaker 1: salary of one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. This is

88
00:05:04,760 --> 00:05:07,880
Speaker 1: one of those allegations that seem to be pretty clear cut.

89
00:05:08,080 --> 00:05:12,960
Speaker 1: It's something that prosecutors can fairly easily document because presumably

90
00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:16,800
Speaker 1: they have records of mister Santos making this application for

91
00:05:16,920 --> 00:05:20,039
Speaker 1: unemployment benefits. At the same time, they will have to

92
00:05:20,080 --> 00:05:22,960
Speaker 1: prove that he was employed by Harbor City Capital and

93
00:05:23,040 --> 00:05:26,320
Speaker 1: drawing the annual salary. That's the case. That's largely built

94
00:05:26,360 --> 00:05:29,200
Speaker 1: on records, and we can presume that prosecutors have gone

95
00:05:29,200 --> 00:05:31,880
Speaker 1: through those records and believe that this is a clear

96
00:05:31,920 --> 00:05:34,920
Speaker 1: cut case that they won't have much difficulty proving a trial.

97
00:05:35,160 --> 00:05:38,440
Speaker 2: And yet Santos told a reporter outside the courthouse that

98
00:05:38,920 --> 00:05:42,279
Speaker 2: this was inaccurate information, and I don't understand where the

99
00:05:42,320 --> 00:05:45,680
Speaker 2: government is getting their information from. Well, the government is

100
00:05:45,680 --> 00:05:48,080
Speaker 2: getting their information from documents, right.

101
00:05:48,000 --> 00:05:50,240
Speaker 1: Well, that does seem to be what this is based on,

102
00:05:50,320 --> 00:05:53,360
Speaker 1: and it does answer the question why this indictment came

103
00:05:53,440 --> 00:05:56,680
Speaker 1: about in only five months. It is largely based on

104
00:05:56,800 --> 00:06:00,000
Speaker 1: financial records. It seems that prosecutors have gone through these bankqwreeks,

105
00:06:00,480 --> 00:06:04,479
Speaker 1: have gone through these applications that were made to government agencies,

106
00:06:04,640 --> 00:06:07,440
Speaker 1: and they put this together in a fairly solid way

107
00:06:07,560 --> 00:06:10,640
Speaker 1: so that they could bring this case quickly. Whenever prosecutors

108
00:06:10,680 --> 00:06:15,760
Speaker 1: bring any case, particularly cases involving political corruption, they always

109
00:06:15,760 --> 00:06:18,320
Speaker 1: want to proceed cautiously. They never want to pull the

110
00:06:18,320 --> 00:06:21,360
Speaker 1: trigger too early because they know that these cases are

111
00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:23,719
Speaker 1: going to get a lot of publicity. They know these

112
00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:26,760
Speaker 1: cases are going to be vigorously defended, and so they

113
00:06:26,800 --> 00:06:29,159
Speaker 1: don't want to move ahead until they believe they have

114
00:06:29,360 --> 00:06:32,480
Speaker 1: all the evidence necessary in order to bring these charges.

115
00:06:32,680 --> 00:06:36,720
Speaker 1: The fact that prosecutors moved so quickly here suggests that

116
00:06:36,800 --> 00:06:41,120
Speaker 1: they believe they have significant financial and documentary evidence that

117
00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:43,119
Speaker 1: they will be able to use to prove their case,

118
00:06:43,520 --> 00:06:46,160
Speaker 1: and that the defense will not be able to attack

119
00:06:46,240 --> 00:06:48,760
Speaker 1: because the records are what they are, and to the

120
00:06:48,839 --> 00:06:51,960
Speaker 1: extent the records conflict with one another, is going to

121
00:06:51,960 --> 00:06:54,039
Speaker 1: be very typical for the defense to attack them.

122
00:06:54,279 --> 00:06:57,839
Speaker 2: And Santos is one of nearly three dozen Republicans sponsoring

123
00:06:57,920 --> 00:07:02,359
Speaker 2: legislation clamping down on the abuse of unemployment insurance, the

124
00:07:02,400 --> 00:07:05,719
Speaker 2: same type of fraud that Santos himself is now alleged

125
00:07:05,720 --> 00:07:08,840
Speaker 2: to have committed. So that's a bit of irony. Now,

126
00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:12,320
Speaker 2: the third scheme that Santos is accused of committing, lying

127
00:07:12,360 --> 00:07:17,160
Speaker 2: on congressional financial disclosure forms, will also be based on records.

128
00:07:17,600 --> 00:07:20,680
Speaker 1: Yeah. The third scheme that's outlined in the indictment said

129
00:07:20,680 --> 00:07:24,080
Speaker 1: that mister Santos misled the House of Representatives about his

130
00:07:24,240 --> 00:07:29,880
Speaker 1: financial circumstances on disclosure statements required for federal candidates. Prosecutors

131
00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:34,120
Speaker 1: essentially accused him of overstating during his unsuccessful twenty twenty

132
00:07:34,160 --> 00:07:37,480
Speaker 1: campaign one source of income while failing to disclose the

133
00:07:37,600 --> 00:07:40,200
Speaker 1: salary from an investment firm that he worked at at

134
00:07:40,240 --> 00:07:43,960
Speaker 1: the same time. So he's basically accused of falsely reporting

135
00:07:44,280 --> 00:07:47,640
Speaker 1: his income in one case and overstating it in another. Again,

136
00:07:47,720 --> 00:07:50,320
Speaker 1: that is a case where prosecutors should be able to

137
00:07:50,360 --> 00:07:53,640
Speaker 1: show financial records in order to prove their case, and

138
00:07:53,680 --> 00:07:56,320
Speaker 1: you would think that this would be a fairly straightforward

139
00:07:56,360 --> 00:07:57,560
Speaker 1: case for prosecutors.

140
00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:01,200
Speaker 2: The congressman's lawyer, Joe Murray, told reporters that he wants

141
00:08:01,200 --> 00:08:04,800
Speaker 2: to meet with prosecutors and quote, share what we've learned

142
00:08:04,840 --> 00:08:07,400
Speaker 2: and what we have. We have information that I think

143
00:08:07,440 --> 00:08:10,720
Speaker 2: they would be interested to see. Is that a likely scenario?

144
00:08:11,200 --> 00:08:14,560
Speaker 1: Well, I thought it was interesting that mister Santos in

145
00:08:14,640 --> 00:08:17,600
Speaker 1: court was very deferential, very soft spoken, but when he

146
00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:20,120
Speaker 1: left the court room, he stood out on the courthouse steps.

147
00:08:20,360 --> 00:08:23,120
Speaker 1: I was really rather defiant. He said that he would

148
00:08:23,200 --> 00:08:25,880
Speaker 1: use this as an opportunity to prove his innocence. He

149
00:08:26,000 --> 00:08:29,200
Speaker 1: called the investigation a witch hunt. He said, I'm going

150
00:08:29,240 --> 00:08:32,920
Speaker 1: to fight this battle, I'm going to deliver, And basically

151
00:08:33,160 --> 00:08:36,400
Speaker 1: he pitched this as an opportunity that he'd been waiting

152
00:08:36,440 --> 00:08:39,240
Speaker 1: for to clear his name so he could move forward.

153
00:08:39,320 --> 00:08:42,240
Speaker 1: Because remember, not only is he refusing to resign from

154
00:08:42,280 --> 00:08:44,599
Speaker 1: a seat in Congress, but he's actively running for re

155
00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:47,400
Speaker 1: election at this point, So he is pitching this as

156
00:08:47,400 --> 00:08:50,640
Speaker 1: an opportunity to clear his name and trying to suggest

157
00:08:50,720 --> 00:08:53,520
Speaker 1: that prosecutors are falsely going after him on some kind

158
00:08:53,520 --> 00:08:56,000
Speaker 1: of witch hunt, although he's given no indication as to

159
00:08:56,040 --> 00:08:59,680
Speaker 1: why he would be singled out for this unfair treatment. Interestingly,

160
00:08:59,800 --> 00:09:03,320
Speaker 1: his lawyer was much more circumspect in terms of where

161
00:09:03,360 --> 00:09:05,920
Speaker 1: the case stands right now, and as you mentioned, he

162
00:09:06,000 --> 00:09:09,320
Speaker 1: talked about meeting with prosecutors sharing information with them. That's

163
00:09:09,400 --> 00:09:12,319
Speaker 1: kind of the standard playbook of the defense lawyer in

164
00:09:12,360 --> 00:09:15,240
Speaker 1: a circumstance like this, to meet with prosecutors to try

165
00:09:15,280 --> 00:09:17,640
Speaker 1: to flesh out the government's case a little more to

166
00:09:17,640 --> 00:09:21,120
Speaker 1: the extend, prosecutors will share that information. At this point,

167
00:09:21,160 --> 00:09:23,600
Speaker 1: they do have to provide discovery, so they do have

168
00:09:23,640 --> 00:09:26,560
Speaker 1: to really give the defense here an opportunity to see

169
00:09:26,720 --> 00:09:29,240
Speaker 1: not only what the charges are, but how the government's

170
00:09:29,280 --> 00:09:32,000
Speaker 1: going to prove those charges. They've got to provide the documents,

171
00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:35,520
Speaker 1: the bank records, statements by witnesses. But at the same time,

172
00:09:35,800 --> 00:09:38,760
Speaker 1: the defense has an opportunity to share with prosecutors what

173
00:09:38,960 --> 00:09:41,800
Speaker 1: it believes are some of the weaknesses in the government's case.

174
00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:45,400
Speaker 1: Usually this kind of back and forth goes on before

175
00:09:45,440 --> 00:09:48,920
Speaker 1: an indictment. Once it gets to this stage, prosecutors are

176
00:09:49,040 --> 00:09:51,719
Speaker 1: going to move forward with this case. It's exceedingly rare

177
00:09:51,800 --> 00:09:53,560
Speaker 1: that a defense lerner can ever go in there and

178
00:09:53,600 --> 00:09:56,600
Speaker 1: convince prosecutors to drop a case, and particularly a case

179
00:09:56,679 --> 00:09:59,440
Speaker 1: like this where there appears to be so much evidence

180
00:09:59,480 --> 00:10:03,480
Speaker 1: in prosecutes. I have put together three separate schemes, all

181
00:10:03,559 --> 00:10:07,080
Speaker 1: of which are standalone cases that they could bring really

182
00:10:07,440 --> 00:10:10,760
Speaker 1: without bringing the other cases. But here when they put

183
00:10:10,760 --> 00:10:13,600
Speaker 1: them all together, it does pain the picture of a

184
00:10:13,640 --> 00:10:18,160
Speaker 1: defendant who, according to prosecutors, would lie, would deceive, and

185
00:10:18,280 --> 00:10:20,480
Speaker 1: did all of this in order to win a seat

186
00:10:20,520 --> 00:10:24,120
Speaker 1: in Congress and also make money for himself at the

187
00:10:24,160 --> 00:10:25,400
Speaker 1: expense of taxpayers.

188
00:10:25,960 --> 00:10:28,880
Speaker 2: It's always possible, But does it seem like a case

189
00:10:28,960 --> 00:10:30,960
Speaker 2: where a plea deal could be reached.

190
00:10:31,559 --> 00:10:34,880
Speaker 1: Well, a plea is always possible, particularly if the defendant

191
00:10:35,000 --> 00:10:39,200
Speaker 1: ultimately realizes that a conviction a trial is highly likely.

192
00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:43,560
Speaker 1: Prosecutors always give defendants an opportunity to plead to something

193
00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:46,720
Speaker 1: that is going to be more favorable than the outcome

194
00:10:47,040 --> 00:10:48,920
Speaker 1: if they had gone to trial and get convicted of

195
00:10:48,960 --> 00:10:50,760
Speaker 1: all counts. Now, at the end of the day, it's

196
00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:53,080
Speaker 1: always up to the judge as to what the sentence

197
00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:56,480
Speaker 1: will be, so prosecutors can never promise a particular sentence.

198
00:10:56,800 --> 00:10:59,720
Speaker 1: But generally speaking, if a defendant pleads guilty, they're going

199
00:10:59,760 --> 00:11:02,040
Speaker 1: to get a slightly better deal than if they go

200
00:11:02,120 --> 00:11:05,480
Speaker 1: to trial. Here, the charges are so serious that I

201
00:11:05,520 --> 00:11:08,280
Speaker 1: would never expect prosecutors to put anything on the table

202
00:11:08,320 --> 00:11:11,400
Speaker 1: that is not going to involve some significant jail time

203
00:11:11,720 --> 00:11:14,760
Speaker 1: that leaves the defendant in a difficult situation. Do they

204
00:11:14,840 --> 00:11:17,360
Speaker 1: roll the dice, Do they try to win a trial

205
00:11:17,640 --> 00:11:19,679
Speaker 1: and walk away with no jail time at all, or

206
00:11:19,720 --> 00:11:22,080
Speaker 1: do they risk a trial where they would face even

207
00:11:22,120 --> 00:11:24,160
Speaker 1: more jail time than if they take a plea deal.

208
00:11:24,400 --> 00:11:28,319
Speaker 2: Bob, what could his defense be? Does anything come to mind?

209
00:11:28,640 --> 00:11:30,400
Speaker 2: I didn't know. I didn't understand.

210
00:11:30,760 --> 00:11:32,640
Speaker 1: There's a couple things that defense lawyer will deal and

211
00:11:32,640 --> 00:11:35,360
Speaker 1: look into this case. First of all, he will review

212
00:11:35,520 --> 00:11:38,000
Speaker 1: the evidence, so look at the documents and see whether

213
00:11:38,000 --> 00:11:40,760
Speaker 1: they are as clear cut as prosecutors claim, to see

214
00:11:40,760 --> 00:11:43,200
Speaker 1: whether there's language in there that he may be able

215
00:11:43,240 --> 00:11:47,359
Speaker 1: to exploit to suggest that this wrongdoing was not wilful.

216
00:11:47,640 --> 00:11:50,520
Speaker 1: There may have been mistakes made, but the mistakes were

217
00:11:50,600 --> 00:11:53,800
Speaker 1: not intentional, because prosecutors have to prove that all of

218
00:11:53,840 --> 00:11:56,840
Speaker 1: these crimes were done knowingly and wilfully. So that's one

219
00:11:56,880 --> 00:12:00,320
Speaker 1: strategy defense lawyers will use. Another is whether or not

220
00:12:00,440 --> 00:12:04,080
Speaker 1: somebody else may have been involved in submitting these falsified records.

221
00:12:04,120 --> 00:12:06,480
Speaker 1: There have been talk of a treasurer who was involved

222
00:12:06,520 --> 00:12:09,719
Speaker 1: in the Santos campaign. It's possible that the defense will

223
00:12:09,720 --> 00:12:12,000
Speaker 1: try to shift some of the blame onto others who

224
00:12:12,040 --> 00:12:14,720
Speaker 1: were not charged in this case and suggest that while

225
00:12:14,840 --> 00:12:18,199
Speaker 1: false documents were submitted to banks or possibly to the

226
00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:21,679
Speaker 1: House of Representatives, that it was done without mister Santos's

227
00:12:21,720 --> 00:12:25,520
Speaker 1: knowledge or complicity. So that's another area that a defense

228
00:12:25,600 --> 00:12:27,719
Speaker 1: lawyer will take a look at and try to use

229
00:12:27,760 --> 00:12:31,160
Speaker 1: as a possible defense here. Remember, the burden is always

230
00:12:31,200 --> 00:12:34,040
Speaker 1: on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

231
00:12:34,200 --> 00:12:36,560
Speaker 1: The defense doesn't have to put on any case at all.

232
00:12:36,600 --> 00:12:39,880
Speaker 1: It bears no burden to prove its innocence, but they

233
00:12:39,920 --> 00:12:42,520
Speaker 1: can try to poke holes in the government's case to

234
00:12:42,640 --> 00:12:45,120
Speaker 1: at least raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of

235
00:12:45,120 --> 00:12:47,839
Speaker 1: some jurors as to whether or not the government has

236
00:12:47,920 --> 00:12:50,400
Speaker 1: met its burdens. So that also could be a strategy

237
00:12:50,440 --> 00:12:53,520
Speaker 1: we could see employed if this case ever gets to trial.

238
00:12:53,920 --> 00:12:57,840
Speaker 2: If it goes to trial, could he defend himself without

239
00:12:57,960 --> 00:13:00,280
Speaker 2: taking the stand or is this the kind of case

240
00:13:00,320 --> 00:13:03,400
Speaker 2: where he really have to take the stand to establish

241
00:13:03,640 --> 00:13:07,320
Speaker 2: his defense, even though of course a defendant always has

242
00:13:07,360 --> 00:13:09,120
Speaker 2: the legal right not to testify.

243
00:13:09,679 --> 00:13:13,080
Speaker 1: Often the strategy is to try to convince durers that

244
00:13:13,160 --> 00:13:16,360
Speaker 1: prosecutors have not met their burden of proof, to show

245
00:13:16,640 --> 00:13:19,560
Speaker 1: that the evidence that the government has produced does not

246
00:13:19,800 --> 00:13:24,600
Speaker 1: conclusively show that the defendant willfully and knowingly violated the law.

247
00:13:24,800 --> 00:13:29,120
Speaker 1: The difficulty here is that there's three separate schemes, and

248
00:13:29,200 --> 00:13:33,559
Speaker 1: so they have to convince jurors that, in three different occasions,

249
00:13:34,080 --> 00:13:38,320
Speaker 1: in three different schemes involving three different crimes, that all

250
00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:40,840
Speaker 1: of them were cases where the government has failed to

251
00:13:40,880 --> 00:13:43,920
Speaker 1: prove their case. That's going to be exceedingly difficult to

252
00:13:43,960 --> 00:13:47,840
Speaker 1: do unless mister Santos takes the stand in his own defense.

253
00:13:48,120 --> 00:13:51,240
Speaker 1: But that comes with its own list of perils, because

254
00:13:51,280 --> 00:13:54,720
Speaker 1: prosecutors have the opportunity to cross examine him and to

255
00:13:54,800 --> 00:13:57,600
Speaker 1: ask him lots of difficult questions that he will have

256
00:13:57,679 --> 00:13:59,640
Speaker 1: to try to look jurors in the eye and convince

257
00:13:59,679 --> 00:14:00,920
Speaker 1: them that he's telling the truth.

258
00:14:01,360 --> 00:14:04,200
Speaker 2: I'll bet prosecutors would consider it a gift if they

259
00:14:04,240 --> 00:14:07,800
Speaker 2: could cross examine Santos. Oh, we'll have to see what happens.

260
00:14:08,120 --> 00:14:10,280
Speaker 2: How long before the case might go to trial.

261
00:14:10,840 --> 00:14:14,240
Speaker 1: Well, defense is entitled under federal law to a speedy trial.

262
00:14:14,320 --> 00:14:17,280
Speaker 1: That means is the defense wants this trial to go

263
00:14:17,360 --> 00:14:20,880
Speaker 1: within seventy days, they can force the government to try

264
00:14:20,920 --> 00:14:25,080
Speaker 1: the case that quickly. Usually the defense wants more time

265
00:14:25,120 --> 00:14:28,040
Speaker 1: to prepare their case, and judges will always give the

266
00:14:28,080 --> 00:14:30,560
Speaker 1: defendants more time because they don't want to have a

267
00:14:30,600 --> 00:14:33,320
Speaker 1: trial go forward and then have a court of appeals

268
00:14:33,720 --> 00:14:37,400
Speaker 1: find that the defense was not given adequate time to prepare. So,

269
00:14:37,560 --> 00:14:41,000
Speaker 1: depending upon the volume of these financial records, what the

270
00:14:41,040 --> 00:14:43,600
Speaker 1: evidence looks like, how much the defense has to go

271
00:14:43,720 --> 00:14:46,200
Speaker 1: through in order to prepare for trial, I think we

272
00:14:46,240 --> 00:14:48,680
Speaker 1: would not expect to see this case go to trial

273
00:14:49,040 --> 00:14:51,120
Speaker 1: before a year and perhaps longer.

274
00:14:51,840 --> 00:14:55,160
Speaker 2: Prosecutors said that Santo's face is as many as twenty

275
00:14:55,320 --> 00:14:58,400
Speaker 2: years in prison if convicted of the most serious charges,

276
00:14:58,560 --> 00:15:01,600
Speaker 2: but his likely sentence if he's convicted would be much

277
00:15:01,640 --> 00:15:02,800
Speaker 2: shorter than that, wouldn't it.

278
00:15:03,280 --> 00:15:05,960
Speaker 1: Yeah, So the way it works is that each of

279
00:15:06,040 --> 00:15:09,520
Speaker 1: these separate charges have a statutory maximum. So, for example,

280
00:15:09,880 --> 00:15:13,360
Speaker 1: wire fraud carries a maximum of twenty years in prison

281
00:15:13,880 --> 00:15:18,080
Speaker 1: unlawful monetary transactions. The money laundering carries a range of

282
00:15:18,280 --> 00:15:21,520
Speaker 1: a few years to decades in prison. Effect of public

283
00:15:21,560 --> 00:15:23,600
Speaker 1: money is a maximum sense of one year in prison.

284
00:15:23,920 --> 00:15:27,040
Speaker 1: But the practical reality is that if a defendant pleads guilty,

285
00:15:27,120 --> 00:15:29,800
Speaker 1: or of a defendant is convicted a trial, all of these

286
00:15:29,880 --> 00:15:33,960
Speaker 1: charges merge together, and then the federal sentencing guidelines really

287
00:15:34,040 --> 00:15:36,920
Speaker 1: control here, and that will wind up with a sentence

288
00:15:36,960 --> 00:15:40,080
Speaker 1: that is much less than these statutory maximums. So we're

289
00:15:40,120 --> 00:15:42,480
Speaker 1: not going to see a prison sentence of forty or

290
00:15:42,480 --> 00:15:45,760
Speaker 1: fifty years. Even if mister Santos is convicted a trial,

291
00:15:46,000 --> 00:15:49,240
Speaker 1: it would likely be something much lower than that, maybe

292
00:15:49,320 --> 00:15:51,480
Speaker 1: in the eight to ten year range if he goes

293
00:15:51,520 --> 00:15:54,680
Speaker 1: to trial and loses, and something slightly less than that

294
00:15:54,760 --> 00:15:56,840
Speaker 1: if he decides to take a plea deal. That's just

295
00:15:56,880 --> 00:15:59,920
Speaker 1: an estimate because it really depends on lots of factors,

296
00:16:00,040 --> 00:16:03,240
Speaker 1: how much money is involved, other aggravating factors that can

297
00:16:03,320 --> 00:16:06,680
Speaker 1: push up the sentencing guidelines more. But typically these are

298
00:16:06,680 --> 00:16:09,800
Speaker 1: cases that are not ten twenty years. It's something between

299
00:16:09,800 --> 00:16:13,040
Speaker 1: five and ten years in most of these political corruption cases.

300
00:16:13,520 --> 00:16:15,960
Speaker 2: So Santos, as you mentioned, said he doesn't plan to

301
00:16:16,000 --> 00:16:18,800
Speaker 2: resign from Congress and that he is going to run

302
00:16:18,840 --> 00:16:22,520
Speaker 2: for reelection next year. I know it's rare for someone

303
00:16:22,560 --> 00:16:24,800
Speaker 2: to be kicked out of Congress, and it certainly won't

304
00:16:24,840 --> 00:16:27,800
Speaker 2: happen before a verdict in the case. But if there's

305
00:16:27,840 --> 00:16:30,360
Speaker 2: a guilty verdict, will he be kicked out of Congress?

306
00:16:30,560 --> 00:16:34,240
Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting that no law prevents mister Santos from

307
00:16:34,240 --> 00:16:38,360
Speaker 1: continuing to serve in Congress even after this bombshell indictment.

308
00:16:38,880 --> 00:16:41,600
Speaker 1: That is something that is ultimately up to the House

309
00:16:41,640 --> 00:16:44,360
Speaker 1: of Representatives as to whether or not they want to

310
00:16:44,480 --> 00:16:48,320
Speaker 1: expel a member of the House. The history here is

311
00:16:48,360 --> 00:16:51,360
Speaker 1: that only twenty members since the beginning of the country

312
00:16:51,400 --> 00:16:54,760
Speaker 1: have actually been expelled from Congress. Five of those were

313
00:16:54,800 --> 00:16:57,560
Speaker 1: House members, and a number of those were done during

314
00:16:57,600 --> 00:17:00,760
Speaker 1: the Confederacy as a result of law or siding with

315
00:17:00,800 --> 00:17:04,440
Speaker 1: the Confederacy during the Civil War. Article one, section five

316
00:17:04,480 --> 00:17:08,320
Speaker 1: of the Constitution requires a two thirds vote to expel

317
00:17:08,400 --> 00:17:11,840
Speaker 1: a member, So it's going to take more than just

318
00:17:12,080 --> 00:17:14,800
Speaker 1: Republicans or more than just Democrats to remove them. It's

319
00:17:14,840 --> 00:17:19,360
Speaker 1: going to take a bipartisan vote to remove them from Congress. Historically,

320
00:17:19,640 --> 00:17:23,920
Speaker 1: what's happened is that a member is removed from any

321
00:17:24,000 --> 00:17:26,679
Speaker 1: committees they may be on once they're indicted. Now, in

322
00:17:26,720 --> 00:17:30,280
Speaker 1: this case, mister Sanchez has already been removed from committees

323
00:17:30,400 --> 00:17:33,280
Speaker 1: due to the false statements and the exaggerations that he

324
00:17:33,359 --> 00:17:36,560
Speaker 1: made during his campaign, so they can't remove them from that.

325
00:17:36,920 --> 00:17:40,880
Speaker 1: Usually what happens is once they're convicted, they either resign

326
00:17:41,520 --> 00:17:44,359
Speaker 1: or the House of Representatives will move to expel them.

327
00:17:44,720 --> 00:17:47,520
Speaker 1: Usually they resign, but there have been many members of

328
00:17:47,560 --> 00:17:51,000
Speaker 1: Congress who have been indicted who have continued to remain

329
00:17:51,080 --> 00:17:53,800
Speaker 1: in Congress while they fight those charges, and I think

330
00:17:53,800 --> 00:17:55,280
Speaker 1: that's what we're going to expect to see here.

331
00:17:55,560 --> 00:17:58,040
Speaker 2: It will be interesting to see how the case develops

332
00:17:58,200 --> 00:18:02,639
Speaker 2: considering all the evidence that prosecutors have outlined in the indictment.

333
00:18:03,040 --> 00:18:06,480
Speaker 2: Santos will be back at the courthouse on June thirtieth

334
00:18:06,520 --> 00:18:09,600
Speaker 2: for another hearing and perhaps we'll learn more then. Thanks

335
00:18:09,600 --> 00:18:12,280
Speaker 2: so much for your insights, Bob. That's Robert Mints of

336
00:18:12,320 --> 00:18:17,399
Speaker 2: maccarter and English Goldman Sachs is shelling out two hundred

337
00:18:17,400 --> 00:18:19,960
Speaker 2: and fifteen million dollars to put an end to one

338
00:18:20,000 --> 00:18:24,399
Speaker 2: of Wall Street's biggest gender discrimination cases, a class action

339
00:18:24,560 --> 00:18:28,399
Speaker 2: where about twenty eight hundred female associates and vice presidents

340
00:18:28,560 --> 00:18:33,560
Speaker 2: accused the finance giant of systematically underpaying and under promoting women.

341
00:18:34,119 --> 00:18:36,439
Speaker 2: The settlement came just a few weeks ahead of a

342
00:18:36,480 --> 00:18:39,160
Speaker 2: trial that would have provided a window into the fabric

343
00:18:39,200 --> 00:18:43,280
Speaker 2: of Goldman's workplace and a rare public forum for testimony

344
00:18:43,320 --> 00:18:47,520
Speaker 2: about inequity inside the financial industry, where all but one

345
00:18:47,560 --> 00:18:51,040
Speaker 2: of the six biggest US banks have only ever been

346
00:18:51,119 --> 00:18:53,800
Speaker 2: run by men. It's been more than a decade of

347
00:18:53,840 --> 00:18:57,280
Speaker 2: litigation in one of the highest profile lawsuits over paid

348
00:18:57,280 --> 00:19:00,919
Speaker 2: disparity on Wall Street, where women have long complain that

349
00:19:01,160 --> 00:19:05,960
Speaker 2: unfair treatment can derail careers. Goldman denied wrongdoing and agreeing

350
00:19:06,000 --> 00:19:09,840
Speaker 2: to settle, it did agree to engage an independent expert

351
00:19:09,920 --> 00:19:14,280
Speaker 2: to conduct additional analysis on how it evaluates performance and

352
00:19:14,359 --> 00:19:18,639
Speaker 2: its process for promotion. Joining me is Dominique Camacho Moran,

353
00:19:19,040 --> 00:19:22,240
Speaker 2: head of the labor and employment practice at Faroh Fritz.

354
00:19:22,760 --> 00:19:26,160
Speaker 2: So tell us about this class action lawsuit that's been

355
00:19:26,200 --> 00:19:28,200
Speaker 2: going on since twenty ten.

356
00:19:29,680 --> 00:19:33,879
Speaker 3: So interestingly, in twenty ten the lawsuit was filed, but

357
00:19:34,040 --> 00:19:37,480
Speaker 3: the action actually commenced before that when there was a

358
00:19:37,600 --> 00:19:40,639
Speaker 3: charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. So this

359
00:19:40,720 --> 00:19:43,360
Speaker 3: case has been around for a very long time. The

360
00:19:43,359 --> 00:19:47,360
Speaker 3: initial litigation began with a complaint. When it was filed

361
00:19:47,400 --> 00:19:50,520
Speaker 3: in twenty ten, it was filed as a class action,

362
00:19:51,320 --> 00:19:54,440
Speaker 3: and so as a result, there was an initial phase

363
00:19:54,520 --> 00:19:59,080
Speaker 3: of discovery and court decisions regarding whether the complaint should

364
00:19:59,119 --> 00:20:02,360
Speaker 3: proceed on on behalf of the one plaintiff who filed

365
00:20:02,440 --> 00:20:06,600
Speaker 3: the litigation or on behalf of all female employees who

366
00:20:06,640 --> 00:20:10,160
Speaker 3: were similarly situated. So as a result, it took longer

367
00:20:10,200 --> 00:20:14,199
Speaker 3: in that initial stage. Combine that with the pandemic and

368
00:20:14,520 --> 00:20:17,439
Speaker 3: cases that were not going to trial were looking at

369
00:20:17,480 --> 00:20:21,440
Speaker 3: a very lengthy window of discovery and preparation for.

370
00:20:21,359 --> 00:20:26,480
Speaker 2: A trial date and explain what the allegations are in

371
00:20:26,520 --> 00:20:27,200
Speaker 2: the lawsuit.

372
00:20:27,880 --> 00:20:33,080
Speaker 3: So there were essentially three different kinds of allegations that

373
00:20:33,240 --> 00:20:37,600
Speaker 3: women were not evaluated on their performance fairly, that they

374
00:20:37,600 --> 00:20:40,639
Speaker 3: were not paid fairly, and that they were not promoted

375
00:20:40,720 --> 00:20:44,640
Speaker 3: in a fair way. And so all three issues are

376
00:20:45,040 --> 00:20:48,679
Speaker 3: similar but a little bit different. Women were paid less

377
00:20:48,760 --> 00:20:53,480
Speaker 3: allegedly than their male counterparts. Women were evaluated more harshly

378
00:20:53,600 --> 00:20:57,760
Speaker 3: allegedly than their male counterparts, and they were not promoted

379
00:20:58,080 --> 00:21:00,520
Speaker 3: for the same reasons as their male caait parts.

380
00:21:01,119 --> 00:21:03,879
Speaker 2: The trial was scheduled for next month in New York,

381
00:21:04,480 --> 00:21:08,240
Speaker 2: so it would have been a public forum for testimony

382
00:21:08,840 --> 00:21:13,320
Speaker 2: about any quality inside the financial industry. The two sides

383
00:21:13,359 --> 00:21:16,400
Speaker 2: were racing to settle before trial. I can see why

384
00:21:16,440 --> 00:21:18,959
Speaker 2: the banks would want to settle before trial, but why

385
00:21:19,000 --> 00:21:21,080
Speaker 2: did the plaintiffs want to settle before trial?

386
00:21:21,600 --> 00:21:25,040
Speaker 3: The plaintiff claim was not easy. When you look at

387
00:21:25,080 --> 00:21:29,760
Speaker 3: a claim of pay disparity or some sort of promotion discrimination,

388
00:21:30,800 --> 00:21:34,120
Speaker 3: the plaintiff has to establish that the reason why they

389
00:21:34,119 --> 00:21:37,720
Speaker 3: were paid less, the reason why they were not promoted

390
00:21:37,960 --> 00:21:41,000
Speaker 3: was because of their gender. That typically is not an

391
00:21:41,119 --> 00:21:45,879
Speaker 3: easy thing to establish because there are often many reasons,

392
00:21:45,960 --> 00:21:49,960
Speaker 3: and it's hard to establish that two employees are identical.

393
00:21:50,400 --> 00:21:53,600
Speaker 3: So not easy for the plaintiffs to go forward. It's

394
00:21:53,680 --> 00:21:56,520
Speaker 3: hard to make the claim that there's a pattern or

395
00:21:56,600 --> 00:22:02,760
Speaker 3: practice that Goldman intentionally was described dominating and intentionally paying

396
00:22:02,840 --> 00:22:05,760
Speaker 3: women less. The other thing is in a big organization,

397
00:22:06,359 --> 00:22:11,080
Speaker 3: the decision makers are likely numerous, and so the plaintiff

398
00:22:11,119 --> 00:22:14,360
Speaker 3: also has to establish that all of those decision makers

399
00:22:14,600 --> 00:22:19,040
Speaker 3: were engaged in some sort of systematic discrimination. That's a

400
00:22:19,080 --> 00:22:21,840
Speaker 3: hard thing for the plaintiffs to prove, and so to

401
00:22:22,000 --> 00:22:26,040
Speaker 3: avoid the risk that they don't meet the threshold, a

402
00:22:26,080 --> 00:22:28,360
Speaker 3: settlement was likely in their best interests.

403
00:22:29,119 --> 00:22:31,920
Speaker 2: And what do you think about the amount of the settlement.

404
00:22:32,200 --> 00:22:35,640
Speaker 2: It's a big number, but the average payout may only

405
00:22:35,680 --> 00:22:39,359
Speaker 2: be about forty seven thousand dollars for each plaintiff after

406
00:22:39,400 --> 00:22:42,240
Speaker 2: deducting legal fees and costs.

407
00:22:42,800 --> 00:22:46,240
Speaker 3: So according to news reports, there's about twenty eight hundred

408
00:22:46,280 --> 00:22:49,320
Speaker 3: women in the class. I think, based on the time

409
00:22:49,359 --> 00:22:53,159
Speaker 3: that has lapsed, the number is a number that will

410
00:22:53,200 --> 00:22:56,280
Speaker 3: allow meaningful dollars to go to each one of those

411
00:22:56,320 --> 00:23:00,560
Speaker 3: class members. Again, I think the challenges on a pattern

412
00:23:00,640 --> 00:23:03,480
Speaker 3: and practice case, which is what this was. It is

413
00:23:03,520 --> 00:23:07,119
Speaker 3: difficult for any one of those plaintiffs to establish that

414
00:23:07,240 --> 00:23:10,800
Speaker 3: the reason they were paid X and not hy was

415
00:23:10,880 --> 00:23:15,000
Speaker 3: solely based on their gender. The more important impact, though

416
00:23:15,119 --> 00:23:18,800
Speaker 3: than the dollar number, is the other components of the settlement.

417
00:23:19,240 --> 00:23:22,240
Speaker 3: Goldman has agreed that they will hire an expert to

418
00:23:22,320 --> 00:23:26,639
Speaker 3: help them analyze their pay practices, to go through and

419
00:23:26,800 --> 00:23:31,639
Speaker 3: analyze and to the extent necessary improve their performance review

420
00:23:31,720 --> 00:23:36,679
Speaker 3: process to look at, analyze, and make recommendations regarding their

421
00:23:36,720 --> 00:23:41,679
Speaker 3: promotion practice. Those are valuable and key and meaningful for

422
00:23:41,720 --> 00:23:44,879
Speaker 3: those that still work in the financial services industry.

423
00:23:45,480 --> 00:23:50,399
Speaker 2: So for years Goldman and its peers have pledged to

424
00:23:50,480 --> 00:23:55,480
Speaker 2: diversify their ranks, but only twenty nine percent of Goldman's

425
00:23:55,560 --> 00:23:59,680
Speaker 2: current partners and managing directors are women. That may be

426
00:23:59,760 --> 00:24:03,080
Speaker 2: an improvement, but it's nowhere near equity.

427
00:24:03,600 --> 00:24:06,200
Speaker 3: One of the really difficult things when you're looking at

428
00:24:06,240 --> 00:24:11,280
Speaker 3: diversifying employees at a variety of levels in an organization

429
00:24:11,720 --> 00:24:15,040
Speaker 3: is it takes time to build the people that are qualified,

430
00:24:15,359 --> 00:24:18,400
Speaker 3: and so it's hard to say that in any one

431
00:24:18,480 --> 00:24:21,600
Speaker 3: moment we have the group of people ready to go

432
00:24:21,640 --> 00:24:25,040
Speaker 3: who meet our diversity goals. It is, though, important that

433
00:24:25,080 --> 00:24:30,000
Speaker 3: we are looking at what is every individual organization's path

434
00:24:30,119 --> 00:24:34,920
Speaker 3: to promotion and helping organizations and employers learn to articulate

435
00:24:35,400 --> 00:24:40,359
Speaker 3: what is the path to promotion will ultimately yield better diversity.

436
00:24:40,760 --> 00:24:43,359
Speaker 2: So what do you think this settlement stands forward?

437
00:24:43,760 --> 00:24:46,680
Speaker 3: I think it is a reminder for every employer that

438
00:24:46,840 --> 00:24:51,360
Speaker 3: we need to be thoughtful and intentional about pay, promotion

439
00:24:51,560 --> 00:24:56,760
Speaker 3: and performance decisions. Too often in organizations, people that are

440
00:24:56,800 --> 00:25:00,439
Speaker 3: well liked to get very strong performance reviews, not that

441
00:25:00,480 --> 00:25:03,480
Speaker 3: they're not great performers, but it's critical that we are

442
00:25:03,480 --> 00:25:07,679
Speaker 3: evaluating everyone on the same criteria. So this decision should

443
00:25:07,680 --> 00:25:11,679
Speaker 3: be a reminder to every organization we need to establish

444
00:25:11,760 --> 00:25:16,720
Speaker 3: intentional practices when it comes to pay, promotion and performance.

445
00:25:17,119 --> 00:25:20,320
Speaker 3: I do think New York has taken steps towards making

446
00:25:20,400 --> 00:25:25,440
Speaker 3: sure that employers are intentional by passing the Pay Transparency Law.

447
00:25:25,760 --> 00:25:28,439
Speaker 3: That law is already enforced in New York City, it

448
00:25:28,480 --> 00:25:31,959
Speaker 3: will be enforced in New York State. That allows every

449
00:25:32,119 --> 00:25:35,879
Speaker 3: applicant for employment to know what is the range of pay.

450
00:25:36,480 --> 00:25:40,960
Speaker 3: That should allow the applicant and employees to have better

451
00:25:41,000 --> 00:25:43,800
Speaker 3: information about whether their employer is paying them fairly.

452
00:25:44,760 --> 00:25:48,080
Speaker 2: Mandatory arbitration agreements are all over the place, certainly in

453
00:25:48,160 --> 00:25:51,960
Speaker 2: this industry. Are you seeing an increasing wave of litigation

454
00:25:52,800 --> 00:25:54,600
Speaker 2: in this area rather than arbitration?

455
00:25:55,119 --> 00:25:57,879
Speaker 3: So interesting that that issue sort of has a wave,

456
00:25:58,520 --> 00:26:00,760
Speaker 3: And so over the course of my there have been

457
00:26:00,800 --> 00:26:04,840
Speaker 3: moments where private arbitration was very popular and moments where

458
00:26:04,840 --> 00:26:09,840
Speaker 3: it's not. Generally speaking, private arbitration benefits all of the

459
00:26:09,840 --> 00:26:14,399
Speaker 3: parties who don't want their claims to become a cause

460
00:26:14,480 --> 00:26:18,119
Speaker 3: celeb They want to address the issues that have harmed them,

461
00:26:18,760 --> 00:26:22,960
Speaker 3: and they are much less interested in creating new law

462
00:26:23,320 --> 00:26:28,600
Speaker 3: or any sort of lasting conversation or narrative around the issue.

463
00:26:28,880 --> 00:26:31,879
Speaker 3: I am at the moment, arbitration is back in vogue.

464
00:26:32,000 --> 00:26:35,760
Speaker 3: Lots of people would like to do private arbitration. Today,

465
00:26:35,880 --> 00:26:39,640
Speaker 3: it is more of a choice because most organizations wait

466
00:26:39,800 --> 00:26:43,159
Speaker 3: until there is some sort of claim before having an

467
00:26:43,200 --> 00:26:47,919
Speaker 3: agreement to privately arbitrate. Again, that is a consequence of

468
00:26:48,000 --> 00:26:51,480
Speaker 3: New York State's sexual harassment law. In the aftermath of

469
00:26:51,480 --> 00:26:54,960
Speaker 3: the last Me Too movement, there was a move to

470
00:26:55,040 --> 00:26:58,719
Speaker 3: make arbitration more difficult. If you agree at the beginning

471
00:26:58,720 --> 00:27:01,800
Speaker 3: of employment to they at the end of employment, you

472
00:27:01,880 --> 00:27:04,439
Speaker 3: can agree that if we have a dispute, we'll go

473
00:27:04,480 --> 00:27:08,280
Speaker 3: to arbitration. It's quicker, it's less expensive, and it's private.

474
00:27:09,080 --> 00:27:13,160
Speaker 2: I know you represent employers, but usually the complaint from

475
00:27:13,720 --> 00:27:18,560
Speaker 2: plaintiff's attorneys is that plaintiffs don't fare as well in

476
00:27:18,760 --> 00:27:21,040
Speaker 2: arbitrations as they would before a jury.

477
00:27:21,760 --> 00:27:24,360
Speaker 3: I don't think there are studies that would say that

478
00:27:24,359 --> 00:27:26,960
Speaker 3: that is the case. I certainly understand that could be

479
00:27:27,000 --> 00:27:30,520
Speaker 3: a perception, but for all the parties the speed with

480
00:27:30,560 --> 00:27:35,040
Speaker 3: which issues get resolved, and arbitrators are subject to doing

481
00:27:35,200 --> 00:27:39,240
Speaker 3: and following the law. And while their decisions are not

482
00:27:39,400 --> 00:27:43,280
Speaker 3: appealable just because they got it wrong, an arbitrator that

483
00:27:43,320 --> 00:27:46,159
Speaker 3: gets it really wrong is subject to review. And so

484
00:27:46,440 --> 00:27:50,679
Speaker 3: for plaintiffs they are within the scope of they should

485
00:27:50,840 --> 00:27:54,480
Speaker 3: bear the same and they should be better served by

486
00:27:54,480 --> 00:27:56,640
Speaker 3: the speed with which their issues are resolved.

487
00:27:57,080 --> 00:27:59,920
Speaker 2: You mentioned the Meat too movement. How is the Meat

488
00:28:00,000 --> 00:28:02,520
Speaker 2: two movement influenced this area?

489
00:28:03,160 --> 00:28:06,280
Speaker 3: In the last five years, we have seen a push

490
00:28:06,359 --> 00:28:09,760
Speaker 3: with new legislation that benefits women in the workplace, and

491
00:28:09,800 --> 00:28:12,919
Speaker 3: we're seeing improvement. It's not the kind of improvement everybody

492
00:28:12,960 --> 00:28:16,280
Speaker 3: would like to see overnight, but the pay disparity is

493
00:28:16,359 --> 00:28:19,520
Speaker 3: smaller today than it was five years ago. And in

494
00:28:19,600 --> 00:28:22,240
Speaker 3: the aftermath of Me Too, we saw changes to the

495
00:28:22,280 --> 00:28:26,359
Speaker 3: sexual harassment law that gave employees more power when it

496
00:28:26,400 --> 00:28:29,720
Speaker 3: came to arbitration. It gave employees more power when it

497
00:28:29,760 --> 00:28:33,560
Speaker 3: came to confidentiality agreements. We also have seen in the

498
00:28:33,560 --> 00:28:37,199
Speaker 3: wake of that movement this move on pay transparency and

499
00:28:37,240 --> 00:28:42,560
Speaker 3: pay equity. Pay transparency is designed to address pay inequity

500
00:28:43,040 --> 00:28:46,400
Speaker 3: and so that will allow us another step. We also

501
00:28:46,560 --> 00:28:50,040
Speaker 3: saw a change in the law that precludes employers in

502
00:28:50,120 --> 00:28:54,160
Speaker 3: New York City from asking about salary history. That too,

503
00:28:54,440 --> 00:28:57,840
Speaker 3: was designed to address pay inequity. So the me Too

504
00:28:57,920 --> 00:29:02,320
Speaker 3: movement was the start of another wave of strong legislation

505
00:29:02,640 --> 00:29:06,320
Speaker 3: designed to address the issues that women face in the workplace.

506
00:29:06,640 --> 00:29:10,680
Speaker 2: And what are you advising companies to do in this area?

507
00:29:11,520 --> 00:29:16,320
Speaker 3: So Goldman is an opportunity for every organization to step

508
00:29:16,360 --> 00:29:21,120
Speaker 3: back to evaluate pay practices, and I ask employers to

509
00:29:21,200 --> 00:29:25,160
Speaker 3: do a self audit regularly. That might not be every month,

510
00:29:25,280 --> 00:29:29,200
Speaker 3: but certainly on an annual or a biannual basis. We

511
00:29:29,280 --> 00:29:33,080
Speaker 3: want them to look at job classifications, what they're paying

512
00:29:33,160 --> 00:29:37,280
Speaker 3: people and make sure there's no disparity or pattern that

513
00:29:37,440 --> 00:29:40,160
Speaker 3: means any one group of people is being paid less

514
00:29:40,160 --> 00:29:44,360
Speaker 3: than another. The second thing is training of supervisors, managers,

515
00:29:44,360 --> 00:29:51,360
Speaker 3: and executives. That's the key to avoiding promotion and performance discrimination.

516
00:29:51,840 --> 00:29:56,320
Speaker 3: We need to educate those supervisors and executives on how

517
00:29:56,360 --> 00:30:00,160
Speaker 3: to be consistent and intentional in what they are evaluating.

518
00:30:00,880 --> 00:30:04,920
Speaker 3: One of the things that we sometimes forget is promotions

519
00:30:04,960 --> 00:30:09,480
Speaker 3: oftentimes are based on someone's prior performance. Just because someone

520
00:30:09,480 --> 00:30:12,920
Speaker 3: has been a great performer, doesn't mean they're a great manager.

521
00:30:13,200 --> 00:30:15,280
Speaker 3: So we need to make sure we're doing the training

522
00:30:15,400 --> 00:30:19,160
Speaker 3: and giving those new managers the tools to ensure they

523
00:30:19,160 --> 00:30:22,960
Speaker 3: are engaging in intentional practices when it comes to pay,

524
00:30:23,520 --> 00:30:24,800
Speaker 3: performance and promotion.

525
00:30:25,200 --> 00:30:27,120
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for being on the Bloomberg Law Show.

526
00:30:27,440 --> 00:30:31,760
Speaker 2: That's Dominique Camacho Moran, a partner Farah Fritz, and that's

527
00:30:31,800 --> 00:30:34,680
Speaker 2: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

528
00:30:34,720 --> 00:30:37,120
Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news by listening

529
00:30:37,200 --> 00:30:40,280
Speaker 2: to our Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso and you're

530
00:30:40,320 --> 00:30:41,320
Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg