Avoiding the story getting more national attention, avoid court fees.
If the suit has no merit, CVS can actually get court fees back from the plaintiff. The national attention hasn't done them any damage so far.
Avoiding the story getting more national attention, avoid court fees.
When you find evidence that I condemned anything more than your words of uninformed judgement let me know.
If the suit has no merit, CVS can actually get court fees back from the plaintiff. The national attention hasn't done them any damage so far.
For being such a smart guy you sure do need some pretty basic stuff explained to you in fine detail before you catch on.
As for why they might settle, perhaps having this story just go away and not tarnish their brand would be enough reason for some sort of settlement.
Interesting. I would have said that if this was a one-time incident, and CVS has no other history of this happening, they shouldn't need to pay anything.
I agree that genuine cultural change would be better than money, but the legal system can only force the money change in this case.
Plus juries can be unpredictable.
A conclussion that you reached by knowing nothing about Cy or this woman.
Since you have a very well documented, by your own hand no less, history of routinely assigning racism and sexism to white males by virtue of them simply being white males ...
I am sure that some would. But I can see motive in avoiding a damaging PR issue. We will see what they decide to do in the coming days.
Of course you can. I would not be surprised if, regardless of facts, you attrributed any settlement to b e for the purposes of PR.
A) Do you have numbers showing no damage so far?
B) Maybe as the case gets more attention, there would be more damage
C) You never know what can happen in court