Joe Conason: Why won't Rick Scott disclose his company's secret legal settlements?

[babylonsister]

I have to assume Floridians didn't know about this guy. Maybe now they'll be privy to all this dirt.


Why won't Rick Scott disclose his company's secret legal settlements?
The would-be Florida governor's firm settled lawsuits charging discrimination and fraud -- but they're sealed
By Joe Conason


Now that Rick Scott is the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Florida, perhaps voters there will start to ask the same question posed by reporters during the primary: Why won't he disclose the secret legal settlements between his corporate medical clinic chain and a dozen or so former employees?

Questions about Solantic, the Scott company that operates a string of for-profit clinics across the Sunshine State, were first raised in a two-part series by reporter Tristram Korten that Salon published last fall (with the cooperation of the Investigative Fund). At the time, Scott had not yet declared his candidacy for governor but was spending millions of dollars to spearhead a national advertising campaign against President Obama’s healthcare reform initiative.

What Korten found -- aside from Scott’s notorious $300 million engorgement from Columbia/HCA, the crooked hospital chain he once ran -- was a series of lawsuits charging Solantic with employment discrimination, wrongful death and other abuses. Among those who sued the company was its first regional medical director, Dr. David Yarian, who complained that Scott’s obsession with hiring only “mainstream” employees was not only discriminatory but prevented him from employing the most qualified applicants, a serious problem in staffing health clinics. That complaint led to the medical director’s dismissal, followed by a legal confrontation and eventually a settlement of his severance claim.

But the Yarian case was only the beginning. Dozens of employees told Korten that Scott’s chain discriminated on the basis of race, age and weight. Qualified applicants were often rejected by Solantic managers, apparently because they were black or Hispanic, over a certain age or simply too “hefty,” the adjective applied to a woman who had recently given birth.

Seven women filed suit together against the company in July 2006, which resulted in a settlement for an undisclosed sum in May 2007. The terms of the settlement gagged all of the plaintiffs, who declined to speak with Salon.

more...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/08/25/scott

[movonne]

1. Maybe this is something Rachael will bring attention to. I hope so..

[gratuitous]

2. Confidential settlements are just that - confidential

I sympathize with the public, which should know as much as it can about whether Rick Scott is a low-down rotten motherfucker (though his party affiliation should be prima facie evidence). But civil lawsuit settlements are made confidential for any number of reasons, not all of them having to do with the heinousness of the defendant's behavior. The settlement may be confidential to protect the plaintiff's privacy as well. Breaking the confidentiality of the settlement can invalidate it, and subject a person to more litigation. So that's kind of an answer to why Scott won't discuss the confidential settlements.

The question of whether a settlement should be confidential in the first place has been the subject of a lot of debate in the last 20 years in the civil litigation community. The pattern has emerged among some serial corporate offenders of sealing all settlements, denying the public of knowledge of just how deep and long-standing a corporation's bad citizenship record is. If I were involved in the planning of Scott's opponent's campaign, I'd be sure to drop the most sinister innuendos about his record that I could get away with short of actionable slander or libel. Let Scott worry about defending his own record.

[babylonsister]

3. That's exactly what should happen. If there's no way around

the confidentiality, fine. Even the info Conason gave in the OP would be a great start; just pound those points home and yes, let Scott defend himself or deny what few facts we know about.

[malaise]

4. Truth will out

Go Dems!

[onethatcares]

5. just askin

If Alex Sink had a settlement that was declared "confidential" relating to her running a business into the ground and discriminating against anyone, how fast do you think the pukes would jump on it and post lies, lies, lies and sometime down the line issue a one to three word apology to be posted on page 9 of the classified section where everyone would pass over it.

If Florida elects this scott guy, we are in bigger trouble than we ever were with jebbie. scott has no idea, no team, no anything that would make one think he could be a governor.

I'm looking to move to the high desert chapperal sooner or later, I just don't want to do it now.

Peace

[SoCalDem]

6. Because if secrecy is part of the legal settlement, it's just that...secret.

Personally, I think there should be NO secrecy deals in legal settlements. If it's embarrassing, so be it, but the party who was wronged should have the right to tell whatever they want to, about the case, and of course the other party should also be allowed to air their side too.. the hearing/litigation in court is usually about financial compensation and/or jail sentences, but once the details have been worked out legally, both sides should be free to comment at will.

Any evidence/testimony found to be legally "true", could of course be subject to another suit for libel or slander, so the people speaking out, should know that, but no one should be able to "buy" perpetual silence.