Yale settles sexual-harassment suit
After three years, Sally Greenhouse’s legal battle is over at last.
Greenhouse, who filed a Title IX suit against the University in 2005 claiming she was dismissed from the Yale School of Drama in retaliation for reporting an incident of sexual harassment, tenaciously pursued her case until Yale settled out of court last month. Provisions of the settlement stipulated that the University would pay her lawyer $10,000 to cover her legal fees but not admit any wrongdoing.
According to Greenhouse, who was 49 at the time, the incident began in an improvisation and cooperation...
When are people going to learn that Yale only likes its women young and silent. How many cases like this does it take for women to stop attending and working at an institution that sees them as a necessary evil; nothing more!
I don't understand why Greenhouse would settle just to break even. She was dismissed from a school which could have implications on her entry into another prestigious school if she so chooses and this must have taken a lot of time away from her. Again, Why would she settle for nothing. I would have to guess that there was some other incentive given to her for her to allow such an injustice. I agree with anon before me that women should stop attending and working for this institution. It is warped and it even says in the article that "We view it as a validation of the drama school’s careful evaluation of students.” He just verified with anon said before me that they like their women young and silent. Sickening!!!
The only part of the settlement that matters is the money. Yale paid. The rest is just legal language to prevent this case from having an impact on any other case.
The article claims: "Although Greenhouse signed the statement, which said Yale had done no wrong," yet also according to the article: "[t]he official court statement signed by Greenhouse read: “I acknowledge that the claims I made in this matter were disputed and doubtful, and the payment of $10,000.00 toward my attorney’s fees does not represent an admission of liability or wrongdoing on the party of Yale University.”"
There is no admission in that cited language that says as the article claims that "Yale had done no wrong," rather there is merely an acknowledgment that Yale has not admitted wrongdoing. There is an arguably big difference between the two. Is there more agreement text that has gone uncited that supports the articles claim that the statement "said Yale had done no wrong?"