Impressions of settling lawsuits

July 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Eli Lilly and Co. settled its racial discrimination lawsuit yesterday for $64,000, ending a claim by an employee who alleged the company fired her because she was disfigured through exposure to a blood pathogen.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Lilly retaliated against the African-American woman after she filed a discrimination charge. In offering the settlement, Lilly denied violating laws or regulations.

Companies increasingly settle charges of various kinds without admitting guilt.

When they do, how does it come across to you?

Do you think to yourself, the company must be guilty or they wouldnâ??t have paid out the money? That the company made a business decision to end the negative publicity and legal costs?

Something else?
  • Not just the Equal Employment Opportunity laws out there, but the Genetic Discrimination laws could have benefited this Woman's case. It is cheaper both on the pocketbook and the negative publicity to settle than it is to fight cases where there is any shadow of a doubt of that there could be any genetic discrimination.

    We don't know the whole story of both sides to make the decision of Lilly's Guilty or the ex-employee is try to make a quick buck Unfortunately there are cases out there where the ex-employee is trying to make a quick buck because of race, gender, or another genetic related difference. The true question is How do you handle someone who could potentially sue you for Discrimination when he/she is repetitively refuse to follow the rules of the company?

    Some Big companies will just pay the ex-employee off to just get past the issue, like lilly has done.
  • One of the distinguishing features about settlements, as opposed to judgments, is that no one except the parties has any idea of what the facts and the evidence was, so any conclusions are invalid from the start. It has been said : A bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit. Let's leave it at that.

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.