Why would the Restaurant Assn be willing to rescind the confidentiality agreement?

[LiberalFighter]

Wouldn't it put them in a bad light should facts come out that they didn't do anything about the incident except pay the women off?

[skip fox]

1. yes, but . . .

They will have to have a good reason to deny. That's what they are probably discussing all day before getting back to Jane Doe's lawyer.

They can't give the reason you gave (which would likely be the truth), but such a reply itself would reflect poorly on the Association. So . . . what will it be??

I cannot think of one and that's one reason I think this will open up in the next day or so.

If they don't release her, then someone could pay the penalty for her breakig the agreement (10-20% of the settlement amount we're told is normal) and then she might talk.

The only reason I think that we might not hear her side is if she wants to avoid the publicity. (But I have a feeling that if her name gets put out there, which is likely, the concern about publicity will go by the boards.)

[SheilaT]

2. My guess is that they don't believe

it would harm them.

[ljm2002]

3. I wonder if Herman Cain's comments so far...

...have invalidated the agreement? After all, he is out there calling these women liars. Why should they have to adhere to an agreement when the other party can go around saying they were lying?

[AtomicKitten]

5. I think you're right. Cain himself is letting the genie out of the bottle.

As of last night, one woman in particular has declined to come forward. Can't blame her really. The GOP Wrecking Machine will back over her with a truck. Maybe some brave soul will step forward ...

:popcorn:

[MurrayDelph]

4. I believe that if they DON'T rescind the confidentiality agreement

they could be held liable for additional action in not going after Cain for violating his part of the agreement when he started claiming they fired the woman for cause.