Speaker 1: I'm gonna fight my battle. I'm gonna deliver.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna fight the witch hud. I'm gonna take care
Speaker 2: of Clary my name, and I look forward to doing that.
Speaker 2: Republican Congressman George Santos came out swinging after pleading not
Speaker 2: guilty to a thirteen count federal indictment for what the
Speaker 2: US attorney described as an audacious scheme. Santos is accused
Speaker 2: of defrauding his donors, using political contributions to line his
Speaker 2: own pockets, claiming unemployment benefits unlawfully, and lying to Congress.
Speaker 2: Many of the allegations have already been revealed as Santos's
Speaker 2: fabricated life story came to light, in which he lied
Speaker 2: about nearly everything from his family background to his education
Speaker 2: and work experience. Yet Santos seemed to be surprised at
Speaker 2: the indictment. It's a witch hut because it makes no
Speaker 2: sense that in four months, four months, five months, I'm indicted.
Speaker 2: My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, Apart and
Speaker 2: McCarter and English, just how serious are these charges against Santos?
Speaker 1: Federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment charging representative George Santos of
Speaker 1: New York with thirteen counts, including counts of money laundering,
Speaker 1: stealing public money, wire fraud, and making false statements to Congress.
Speaker 1: These are very serious charges that carry with them long
Speaker 1: jail sentences, and when you take together all the allegations
Speaker 1: that are in this twenty page indictment, they paint a
Speaker 1: pretty damning portrait of someone who utilized various deceptions and
Speaker 1: schemes to help them get elected to Congress and to
Speaker 1: line his own pockets.
Speaker 2: The indictment comes less than five months after the Eastern
Speaker 2: District of New York began their investigation, and Santo said,
Speaker 2: it's a witch hunt because it makes no sense that
Speaker 2: in four months, four months, five months, I'm indicted. How
Speaker 2: fast is that?
Speaker 1: Well, that actually is pretty fast for prosecutors to put
Speaker 1: a case like this together. Often these cases can take
Speaker 1: more than a year as they go through complicated financial
Speaker 1: records to put this type of financial fraud or political
Speaker 1: corruption case together. But here they did it in five months,
Speaker 1: which suggests to me that the evidence was fairly clear
Speaker 1: that prosecutors were able to put together a case that
Speaker 1: they believed was going to get them a conviction in
Speaker 1: a relatively short time, primarily going through bank records and
Speaker 1: financial statements, although it's also clear, based upon the allegations
Speaker 1: in the indictment that they also interviewed several victims of
Speaker 1: this scheme and they have some inside information not only
Speaker 1: based upon the bank records, but also upon testimony of
Speaker 1: witnesses who we can expect to be central to the
Speaker 1: government's case at trial.
Speaker 2: So let's go through the indictment tell us about the
Speaker 2: first alleged scheme and allegations of wire fraud and money laundering.
Speaker 1: This indictment is very detailed and include seven counts of
Speaker 1: wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, two counts of
Speaker 1: making false statements to the House of Representative, and one
Speaker 1: count of best to public funds. The wirefraud of the
Speaker 1: money laundering actually overlapped the various schemes that are charged
Speaker 1: in the indictment, and basically this indictment comes down to
Speaker 1: three schemes alleged by prosecutors. The first scheme alleges that
Speaker 1: mister Santos was involved in a fraudulent political contribution scheme.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors said mister Santos and an unnamed Queen's based political
Speaker 1: consultant induced donors to give money to a limited liability
Speaker 1: company he controlled. According to the indictment, he then used
Speaker 1: the money for personal expenses, such as buying designer goods
Speaker 1: and to payoff personal debts. The allegations in the complaint
Speaker 1: don't identify by name the companies, the people, the investment firm,
Speaker 1: or the contributors involved. Prosecutors never named victims or companies
Speaker 1: that are alleged to be victims by name in indictments,
Speaker 1: so they referred to as company number one, person number one,
Speaker 1: contributor number one, et cetera. But as this case continues,
Speaker 1: prosecutors will reveal who these individuals are, who these companies
Speaker 1: are that will come out in discovery, and some in
Speaker 1: the media have already figured out who these are based
Speaker 1: upon the generalized descriptions in the indictment. So it's clear
Speaker 1: that there is a lot going on here in this
Speaker 1: first scheme, and prosecutors seem to have a lot of
Speaker 1: evidence based on the allegations outlined in the indictment.
Speaker 2: The unemployment fraud claim is new and surprising. He applied
Speaker 2: for unemployment insurance even though he was making one hundred
Speaker 2: and twenty thousand dollars in annual salary.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is a new allegation that had not yet
Speaker 1: come to light, despite a lot of media reports on
Speaker 1: many statements that, according to reporters, were faults that were
Speaker 1: made during the election and prior to the election. This
Speaker 1: is a new scheme where in the indictment he's charged
Speaker 1: with unemployment insurance fraud. Federal prosecutors say that in June
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty, in the early months of the COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen pandemic, mister Santos applied for government assistance in New
Speaker 1: York even though at the time he was employed by
Speaker 1: a Florida based investment firm, which appears to be a
Speaker 1: company called Arbor City Capital, and he drew an annual
Speaker 1: salary of one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. This is
Speaker 1: one of those allegations that seem to be pretty clear cut.
Speaker 1: It's something that prosecutors can fairly easily document because presumably
Speaker 1: they have records of mister Santos making this application for
Speaker 1: unemployment benefits. At the same time, they will have to
Speaker 1: prove that he was employed by Harbor City Capital and
Speaker 1: drawing the annual salary. That's the case. That's largely built
Speaker 1: on records, and we can presume that prosecutors have gone
Speaker 1: through those records and believe that this is a clear
Speaker 1: cut case that they won't have much difficulty proving a trial.
Speaker 2: And yet Santos told a reporter outside the courthouse that
Speaker 2: this was inaccurate information, and I don't understand where the
Speaker 2: government is getting their information from. Well, the government is
Speaker 2: getting their information from documents, right.
Speaker 1: Well, that does seem to be what this is based on,
Speaker 1: and it does answer the question why this indictment came
Speaker 1: about in only five months. It is largely based on
Speaker 1: financial records. It seems that prosecutors have gone through these bankqwreeks,
Speaker 1: have gone through these applications that were made to government agencies,
Speaker 1: and they put this together in a fairly solid way
Speaker 1: so that they could bring this case quickly. Whenever prosecutors
Speaker 1: bring any case, particularly cases involving political corruption, they always
Speaker 1: want to proceed cautiously. They never want to pull the
Speaker 1: trigger too early because they know that these cases are
Speaker 1: going to get a lot of publicity. They know these
Speaker 1: cases are going to be vigorously defended, and so they
Speaker 1: don't want to move ahead until they believe they have
Speaker 1: all the evidence necessary in order to bring these charges.
Speaker 1: The fact that prosecutors moved so quickly here suggests that
Speaker 1: they believe they have significant financial and documentary evidence that
Speaker 1: they will be able to use to prove their case,
Speaker 1: and that the defense will not be able to attack
Speaker 1: because the records are what they are, and to the
Speaker 1: extent the records conflict with one another, is going to
Speaker 1: be very typical for the defense to attack them.
Speaker 2: And Santos is one of nearly three dozen Republicans sponsoring
Speaker 2: legislation clamping down on the abuse of unemployment insurance, the
Speaker 2: same type of fraud that Santos himself is now alleged
Speaker 2: to have committed. So that's a bit of irony. Now,
Speaker 2: the third scheme that Santos is accused of committing, lying
Speaker 2: on congressional financial disclosure forms, will also be based on records.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The third scheme that's outlined in the indictment said
Speaker 1: that mister Santos misled the House of Representatives about his
Speaker 1: financial circumstances on disclosure statements required for federal candidates. Prosecutors
Speaker 1: essentially accused him of overstating during his unsuccessful twenty twenty
Speaker 1: campaign one source of income while failing to disclose the
Speaker 1: salary from an investment firm that he worked at at
Speaker 1: the same time. So he's basically accused of falsely reporting
Speaker 1: his income in one case and overstating it in another. Again,
Speaker 1: that is a case where prosecutors should be able to
Speaker 1: show financial records in order to prove their case, and
Speaker 1: you would think that this would be a fairly straightforward
Speaker 1: case for prosecutors.
Speaker 2: The congressman's lawyer, Joe Murray, told reporters that he wants
Speaker 2: to meet with prosecutors and quote, share what we've learned
Speaker 2: and what we have. We have information that I think
Speaker 2: they would be interested to see. Is that a likely scenario?
Speaker 1: Well, I thought it was interesting that mister Santos in
Speaker 1: court was very deferential, very soft spoken, but when he
Speaker 1: left the court room, he stood out on the courthouse steps.
Speaker 1: I was really rather defiant. He said that he would
Speaker 1: use this as an opportunity to prove his innocence. He
Speaker 1: called the investigation a witch hunt. He said, I'm going
Speaker 1: to fight this battle, I'm going to deliver, And basically
Speaker 1: he pitched this as an opportunity that he'd been waiting
Speaker 1: for to clear his name so he could move forward.
Speaker 1: Because remember, not only is he refusing to resign from
Speaker 1: a seat in Congress, but he's actively running for re
Speaker 1: election at this point, So he is pitching this as
Speaker 1: an opportunity to clear his name and trying to suggest
Speaker 1: that prosecutors are falsely going after him on some kind
Speaker 1: of witch hunt, although he's given no indication as to
Speaker 1: why he would be singled out for this unfair treatment. Interestingly,
Speaker 1: his lawyer was much more circumspect in terms of where
Speaker 1: the case stands right now, and as you mentioned, he
Speaker 1: talked about meeting with prosecutors sharing information with them. That's
Speaker 1: kind of the standard playbook of the defense lawyer in
Speaker 1: a circumstance like this, to meet with prosecutors to try
Speaker 1: to flesh out the government's case a little more to
Speaker 1: the extend, prosecutors will share that information. At this point,
Speaker 1: they do have to provide discovery, so they do have
Speaker 1: to really give the defense here an opportunity to see
Speaker 1: not only what the charges are, but how the government's
Speaker 1: going to prove those charges. They've got to provide the documents,
Speaker 1: the bank records, statements by witnesses. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: the defense has an opportunity to share with prosecutors what
Speaker 1: it believes are some of the weaknesses in the government's case.
Speaker 1: Usually this kind of back and forth goes on before
Speaker 1: an indictment. Once it gets to this stage, prosecutors are
Speaker 1: going to move forward with this case. It's exceedingly rare
Speaker 1: that a defense lerner can ever go in there and
Speaker 1: convince prosecutors to drop a case, and particularly a case
Speaker 1: like this where there appears to be so much evidence
Speaker 1: in prosecutes. I have put together three separate schemes, all
Speaker 1: of which are standalone cases that they could bring really
Speaker 1: without bringing the other cases. But here when they put
Speaker 1: them all together, it does pain the picture of a
Speaker 1: defendant who, according to prosecutors, would lie, would deceive, and
Speaker 1: did all of this in order to win a seat
Speaker 1: in Congress and also make money for himself at the
Speaker 1: expense of taxpayers.
Speaker 2: It's always possible, But does it seem like a case
Speaker 2: where a plea deal could be reached.
Speaker 1: Well, a plea is always possible, particularly if the defendant
Speaker 1: ultimately realizes that a conviction a trial is highly likely.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors always give defendants an opportunity to plead to something
Speaker 1: that is going to be more favorable than the outcome
Speaker 1: if they had gone to trial and get convicted of
Speaker 1: all counts. Now, at the end of the day, it's
Speaker 1: always up to the judge as to what the sentence
Speaker 1: will be, so prosecutors can never promise a particular sentence.
Speaker 1: But generally speaking, if a defendant pleads guilty, they're going
Speaker 1: to get a slightly better deal than if they go
Speaker 1: to trial. Here, the charges are so serious that I
Speaker 1: would never expect prosecutors to put anything on the table
Speaker 1: that is not going to involve some significant jail time
Speaker 1: that leaves the defendant in a difficult situation. Do they
Speaker 1: roll the dice, Do they try to win a trial
Speaker 1: and walk away with no jail time at all, or
Speaker 1: do they risk a trial where they would face even
Speaker 1: more jail time than if they take a plea deal.
Speaker 2: Bob, what could his defense be? Does anything come to mind?
Speaker 2: I didn't know. I didn't understand.
Speaker 1: There's a couple things that defense lawyer will deal and
Speaker 1: look into this case. First of all, he will review
Speaker 1: the evidence, so look at the documents and see whether
Speaker 1: they are as clear cut as prosecutors claim, to see
Speaker 1: whether there's language in there that he may be able
Speaker 1: to exploit to suggest that this wrongdoing was not wilful.
Speaker 1: There may have been mistakes made, but the mistakes were
Speaker 1: not intentional, because prosecutors have to prove that all of
Speaker 1: these crimes were done knowingly and wilfully. So that's one
Speaker 1: strategy defense lawyers will use. Another is whether or not
Speaker 1: somebody else may have been involved in submitting these falsified records.
Speaker 1: There have been talk of a treasurer who was involved
Speaker 1: in the Santos campaign. It's possible that the defense will
Speaker 1: try to shift some of the blame onto others who
Speaker 1: were not charged in this case and suggest that while
Speaker 1: false documents were submitted to banks or possibly to the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives, that it was done without mister Santos's
Speaker 1: knowledge or complicity. So that's another area that a defense
Speaker 1: lawyer will take a look at and try to use
Speaker 1: as a possible defense here. Remember, the burden is always
Speaker 1: on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: The defense doesn't have to put on any case at all.
Speaker 1: It bears no burden to prove its innocence, but they
Speaker 1: can try to poke holes in the government's case to
Speaker 1: at least raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of
Speaker 1: some jurors as to whether or not the government has
Speaker 1: met its burdens. So that also could be a strategy
Speaker 1: we could see employed if this case ever gets to trial.
Speaker 2: If it goes to trial, could he defend himself without
Speaker 2: taking the stand or is this the kind of case
Speaker 2: where he really have to take the stand to establish
Speaker 2: his defense, even though of course a defendant always has
Speaker 2: the legal right not to testify.
Speaker 1: Often the strategy is to try to convince durers that
Speaker 1: prosecutors have not met their burden of proof, to show
Speaker 1: that the evidence that the government has produced does not
Speaker 1: conclusively show that the defendant willfully and knowingly violated the law.
Speaker 1: The difficulty here is that there's three separate schemes, and
Speaker 1: so they have to convince jurors that, in three different occasions,
Speaker 1: in three different schemes involving three different crimes, that all
Speaker 1: of them were cases where the government has failed to
Speaker 1: prove their case. That's going to be exceedingly difficult to
Speaker 1: do unless mister Santos takes the stand in his own defense.
Speaker 1: But that comes with its own list of perils, because
Speaker 1: prosecutors have the opportunity to cross examine him and to
Speaker 1: ask him lots of difficult questions that he will have
Speaker 1: to try to look jurors in the eye and convince
Speaker 1: them that he's telling the truth.
Speaker 2: I'll bet prosecutors would consider it a gift if they
Speaker 2: could cross examine Santos. Oh, we'll have to see what happens.
Speaker 2: How long before the case might go to trial.
Speaker 1: Well, defense is entitled under federal law to a speedy trial.
Speaker 1: That means is the defense wants this trial to go
Speaker 1: within seventy days, they can force the government to try
Speaker 1: the case that quickly. Usually the defense wants more time
Speaker 1: to prepare their case, and judges will always give the
Speaker 1: defendants more time because they don't want to have a
Speaker 1: trial go forward and then have a court of appeals
Speaker 1: find that the defense was not given adequate time to prepare. So,
Speaker 1: depending upon the volume of these financial records, what the
Speaker 1: evidence looks like, how much the defense has to go
Speaker 1: through in order to prepare for trial, I think we
Speaker 1: would not expect to see this case go to trial
Speaker 1: before a year and perhaps longer.
Speaker 2: Prosecutors said that Santo's face is as many as twenty
Speaker 2: years in prison if convicted of the most serious charges,
Speaker 2: but his likely sentence if he's convicted would be much
Speaker 2: shorter than that, wouldn't it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So the way it works is that each of
Speaker 1: these separate charges have a statutory maximum. So, for example,
Speaker 1: wire fraud carries a maximum of twenty years in prison
Speaker 1: unlawful monetary transactions. The money laundering carries a range of
Speaker 1: a few years to decades in prison. Effect of public
Speaker 1: money is a maximum sense of one year in prison.
Speaker 1: But the practical reality is that if a defendant pleads guilty,
Speaker 1: or of a defendant is convicted a trial, all of these
Speaker 1: charges merge together, and then the federal sentencing guidelines really
Speaker 1: control here, and that will wind up with a sentence
Speaker 1: that is much less than these statutory maximums. So we're
Speaker 1: not going to see a prison sentence of forty or
Speaker 1: fifty years. Even if mister Santos is convicted a trial,
Speaker 1: it would likely be something much lower than that, maybe
Speaker 1: in the eight to ten year range if he goes
Speaker 1: to trial and loses, and something slightly less than that
Speaker 1: if he decides to take a plea deal. That's just
Speaker 1: an estimate because it really depends on lots of factors,
Speaker 1: how much money is involved, other aggravating factors that can
Speaker 1: push up the sentencing guidelines more. But typically these are
Speaker 1: cases that are not ten twenty years. It's something between
Speaker 1: five and ten years in most of these political corruption cases.
Speaker 2: So Santos, as you mentioned, said he doesn't plan to
Speaker 2: resign from Congress and that he is going to run
Speaker 2: for reelection next year. I know it's rare for someone
Speaker 2: to be kicked out of Congress, and it certainly won't
Speaker 2: happen before a verdict in the case. But if there's
Speaker 2: a guilty verdict, will he be kicked out of Congress?
Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting that no law prevents mister Santos from
Speaker 1: continuing to serve in Congress even after this bombshell indictment.
Speaker 1: That is something that is ultimately up to the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives as to whether or not they want to
Speaker 1: expel a member of the House. The history here is
Speaker 1: that only twenty members since the beginning of the country
Speaker 1: have actually been expelled from Congress. Five of those were
Speaker 1: House members, and a number of those were done during
Speaker 1: the Confederacy as a result of law or siding with
Speaker 1: the Confederacy during the Civil War. Article one, section five
Speaker 1: of the Constitution requires a two thirds vote to expel
Speaker 1: a member, So it's going to take more than just
Speaker 1: Republicans or more than just Democrats to remove them. It's
Speaker 1: going to take a bipartisan vote to remove them from Congress. Historically,
Speaker 1: what's happened is that a member is removed from any
Speaker 1: committees they may be on once they're indicted. Now, in
Speaker 1: this case, mister Sanchez has already been removed from committees
Speaker 1: due to the false statements and the exaggerations that he
Speaker 1: made during his campaign, so they can't remove them from that.
Speaker 1: Usually what happens is once they're convicted, they either resign
Speaker 1: or the House of Representatives will move to expel them.
Speaker 1: Usually they resign, but there have been many members of
Speaker 1: Congress who have been indicted who have continued to remain
Speaker 1: in Congress while they fight those charges, and I think
Speaker 1: that's what we're going to expect to see here.
Speaker 2: It will be interesting to see how the case develops
Speaker 2: considering all the evidence that prosecutors have outlined in the indictment.
Speaker 2: Santos will be back at the courthouse on June thirtieth
Speaker 2: for another hearing and perhaps we'll learn more then. Thanks
Speaker 2: so much for your insights, Bob. That's Robert Mints of
Speaker 2: maccarter and English Goldman Sachs is shelling out two hundred
Speaker 2: and fifteen million dollars to put an end to one
Speaker 2: of Wall Street's biggest gender discrimination cases, a class action
Speaker 2: where about twenty eight hundred female associates and vice presidents
Speaker 2: accused the finance giant of systematically underpaying and under promoting women.
Speaker 2: The settlement came just a few weeks ahead of a
Speaker 2: trial that would have provided a window into the fabric
Speaker 2: of Goldman's workplace and a rare public forum for testimony
Speaker 2: about inequity inside the financial industry, where all but one
Speaker 2: of the six biggest US banks have only ever been
Speaker 2: run by men. It's been more than a decade of
Speaker 2: litigation in one of the highest profile lawsuits over paid
Speaker 2: disparity on Wall Street, where women have long complain that
Speaker 2: unfair treatment can derail careers. Goldman denied wrongdoing and agreeing
Speaker 2: to settle, it did agree to engage an independent expert
Speaker 2: to conduct additional analysis on how it evaluates performance and
Speaker 2: its process for promotion. Joining me is Dominique Camacho Moran,
Speaker 2: head of the labor and employment practice at Faroh Fritz.
Speaker 2: So tell us about this class action lawsuit that's been
Speaker 2: going on since twenty ten.
Speaker 3: So interestingly, in twenty ten the lawsuit was filed, but
Speaker 3: the action actually commenced before that when there was a
Speaker 3: charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. So this
Speaker 3: case has been around for a very long time. The
Speaker 3: initial litigation began with a complaint. When it was filed
Speaker 3: in twenty ten, it was filed as a class action,
Speaker 3: and so as a result, there was an initial phase
Speaker 3: of discovery and court decisions regarding whether the complaint should
Speaker 3: proceed on on behalf of the one plaintiff who filed
Speaker 3: the litigation or on behalf of all female employees who
Speaker 3: were similarly situated. So as a result, it took longer
Speaker 3: in that initial stage. Combine that with the pandemic and
Speaker 3: cases that were not going to trial were looking at
Speaker 3: a very lengthy window of discovery and preparation for.
Speaker 2: A trial date and explain what the allegations are in
Speaker 2: the lawsuit.
Speaker 3: So there were essentially three different kinds of allegations that
Speaker 3: women were not evaluated on their performance fairly, that they
Speaker 3: were not paid fairly, and that they were not promoted
Speaker 3: in a fair way. And so all three issues are
Speaker 3: similar but a little bit different. Women were paid less
Speaker 3: allegedly than their male counterparts. Women were evaluated more harshly
Speaker 3: allegedly than their male counterparts, and they were not promoted
Speaker 3: for the same reasons as their male caait parts.
Speaker 2: The trial was scheduled for next month in New York,
Speaker 2: so it would have been a public forum for testimony
Speaker 2: about any quality inside the financial industry. The two sides
Speaker 2: were racing to settle before trial. I can see why
Speaker 2: the banks would want to settle before trial, but why
Speaker 2: did the plaintiffs want to settle before trial?
Speaker 3: The plaintiff claim was not easy. When you look at
Speaker 3: a claim of pay disparity or some sort of promotion discrimination,
Speaker 3: the plaintiff has to establish that the reason why they
Speaker 3: were paid less, the reason why they were not promoted
Speaker 3: was because of their gender. That typically is not an
Speaker 3: easy thing to establish because there are often many reasons,
Speaker 3: and it's hard to establish that two employees are identical.
Speaker 3: So not easy for the plaintiffs to go forward. It's
Speaker 3: hard to make the claim that there's a pattern or
Speaker 3: practice that Goldman intentionally was described dominating and intentionally paying
Speaker 3: women less. The other thing is in a big organization,
Speaker 3: the decision makers are likely numerous, and so the plaintiff
Speaker 3: also has to establish that all of those decision makers
Speaker 3: were engaged in some sort of systematic discrimination. That's a
Speaker 3: hard thing for the plaintiffs to prove, and so to
Speaker 3: avoid the risk that they don't meet the threshold, a
Speaker 3: settlement was likely in their best interests.
Speaker 2: And what do you think about the amount of the settlement.
Speaker 2: It's a big number, but the average payout may only
Speaker 2: be about forty seven thousand dollars for each plaintiff after
Speaker 2: deducting legal fees and costs.
Speaker 3: So according to news reports, there's about twenty eight hundred
Speaker 3: women in the class. I think, based on the time
Speaker 3: that has lapsed, the number is a number that will
Speaker 3: allow meaningful dollars to go to each one of those
Speaker 3: class members. Again, I think the challenges on a pattern
Speaker 3: and practice case, which is what this was. It is
Speaker 3: difficult for any one of those plaintiffs to establish that
Speaker 3: the reason they were paid X and not hy was
Speaker 3: solely based on their gender. The more important impact, though
Speaker 3: than the dollar number, is the other components of the settlement.
Speaker 3: Goldman has agreed that they will hire an expert to
Speaker 3: help them analyze their pay practices, to go through and
Speaker 3: analyze and to the extent necessary improve their performance review
Speaker 3: process to look at, analyze, and make recommendations regarding their
Speaker 3: promotion practice. Those are valuable and key and meaningful for
Speaker 3: those that still work in the financial services industry.
Speaker 2: So for years Goldman and its peers have pledged to
Speaker 2: diversify their ranks, but only twenty nine percent of Goldman's
Speaker 2: current partners and managing directors are women. That may be
Speaker 2: an improvement, but it's nowhere near equity.
Speaker 3: One of the really difficult things when you're looking at
Speaker 3: diversifying employees at a variety of levels in an organization
Speaker 3: is it takes time to build the people that are qualified,
Speaker 3: and so it's hard to say that in any one
Speaker 3: moment we have the group of people ready to go
Speaker 3: who meet our diversity goals. It is, though, important that
Speaker 3: we are looking at what is every individual organization's path
Speaker 3: to promotion and helping organizations and employers learn to articulate
Speaker 3: what is the path to promotion will ultimately yield better diversity.
Speaker 2: So what do you think this settlement stands forward?
Speaker 3: I think it is a reminder for every employer that
Speaker 3: we need to be thoughtful and intentional about pay, promotion
Speaker 3: and performance decisions. Too often in organizations, people that are
Speaker 3: well liked to get very strong performance reviews, not that
Speaker 3: they're not great performers, but it's critical that we are
Speaker 3: evaluating everyone on the same criteria. So this decision should
Speaker 3: be a reminder to every organization we need to establish
Speaker 3: intentional practices when it comes to pay, promotion and performance.
Speaker 3: I do think New York has taken steps towards making
Speaker 3: sure that employers are intentional by passing the Pay Transparency Law.
Speaker 3: That law is already enforced in New York City, it
Speaker 3: will be enforced in New York State. That allows every
Speaker 3: applicant for employment to know what is the range of pay.
Speaker 3: That should allow the applicant and employees to have better
Speaker 3: information about whether their employer is paying them fairly.
Speaker 2: Mandatory arbitration agreements are all over the place, certainly in
Speaker 2: this industry. Are you seeing an increasing wave of litigation
Speaker 2: in this area rather than arbitration?
Speaker 3: So interesting that that issue sort of has a wave,
Speaker 3: And so over the course of my there have been
Speaker 3: moments where private arbitration was very popular and moments where
Speaker 3: it's not. Generally speaking, private arbitration benefits all of the
Speaker 3: parties who don't want their claims to become a cause
Speaker 3: celeb They want to address the issues that have harmed them,
Speaker 3: and they are much less interested in creating new law
Speaker 3: or any sort of lasting conversation or narrative around the issue.
Speaker 3: I am at the moment, arbitration is back in vogue.
Speaker 3: Lots of people would like to do private arbitration. Today,
Speaker 3: it is more of a choice because most organizations wait
Speaker 3: until there is some sort of claim before having an
Speaker 3: agreement to privately arbitrate. Again, that is a consequence of
Speaker 3: New York State's sexual harassment law. In the aftermath of
Speaker 3: the last Me Too movement, there was a move to
Speaker 3: make arbitration more difficult. If you agree at the beginning
Speaker 3: of employment to they at the end of employment, you
Speaker 3: can agree that if we have a dispute, we'll go
Speaker 3: to arbitration. It's quicker, it's less expensive, and it's private.
Speaker 2: I know you represent employers, but usually the complaint from
Speaker 2: plaintiff's attorneys is that plaintiffs don't fare as well in
Speaker 2: arbitrations as they would before a jury.
Speaker 3: I don't think there are studies that would say that
Speaker 3: that is the case. I certainly understand that could be
Speaker 3: a perception, but for all the parties the speed with
Speaker 3: which issues get resolved, and arbitrators are subject to doing
Speaker 3: and following the law. And while their decisions are not
Speaker 3: appealable just because they got it wrong, an arbitrator that
Speaker 3: gets it really wrong is subject to review. And so
Speaker 3: for plaintiffs they are within the scope of they should
Speaker 3: bear the same and they should be better served by
Speaker 3: the speed with which their issues are resolved.
Speaker 2: You mentioned the Meat too movement. How is the Meat
Speaker 2: two movement influenced this area?
Speaker 3: In the last five years, we have seen a push
Speaker 3: with new legislation that benefits women in the workplace, and
Speaker 3: we're seeing improvement. It's not the kind of improvement everybody
Speaker 3: would like to see overnight, but the pay disparity is
Speaker 3: smaller today than it was five years ago. And in
Speaker 3: the aftermath of Me Too, we saw changes to the
Speaker 3: sexual harassment law that gave employees more power when it
Speaker 3: came to arbitration. It gave employees more power when it
Speaker 3: came to confidentiality agreements. We also have seen in the
Speaker 3: wake of that movement this move on pay transparency and
Speaker 3: pay equity. Pay transparency is designed to address pay inequity
Speaker 3: and so that will allow us another step. We also
Speaker 3: saw a change in the law that precludes employers in
Speaker 3: New York City from asking about salary history. That too,
Speaker 3: was designed to address pay inequity. So the me Too
Speaker 3: movement was the start of another wave of strong legislation
Speaker 3: designed to address the issues that women face in the workplace.
Speaker 2: And what are you advising companies to do in this area?
Speaker 3: So Goldman is an opportunity for every organization to step
Speaker 3: back to evaluate pay practices, and I ask employers to
Speaker 3: do a self audit regularly. That might not be every month,
Speaker 3: but certainly on an annual or a biannual basis. We
Speaker 3: want them to look at job classifications, what they're paying
Speaker 3: people and make sure there's no disparity or pattern that
Speaker 3: means any one group of people is being paid less
Speaker 3: than another. The second thing is training of supervisors, managers,
Speaker 3: and executives. That's the key to avoiding promotion and performance discrimination.
Speaker 3: We need to educate those supervisors and executives on how
Speaker 3: to be consistent and intentional in what they are evaluating.
Speaker 3: One of the things that we sometimes forget is promotions
Speaker 3: oftentimes are based on someone's prior performance. Just because someone
Speaker 3: has been a great performer, doesn't mean they're a great manager.
Speaker 3: So we need to make sure we're doing the training
Speaker 3: and giving those new managers the tools to ensure they
Speaker 3: are engaging in intentional practices when it comes to pay,
Speaker 3: performance and promotion.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for being on the Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 2: That's Dominique Camacho Moran, a partner Farah Fritz, and that's
Speaker 2: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news by listening
Speaker 2: to our Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso and you're
Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg