Thanks for writing. It’s nice to get a dissenting view.

There is logical appeal to what you say. Many employers say as you do that it is worth paying more money in the short-term, to avoid precedent of paying a big settlement and encouraging more lawsuits (and more money paid) in the long-term.

In response, the first thing I’ll say is please know my post was NOT intended to suggest employers should pay settlements to every employee who demands one. The post is strictly about how employers deal with those employees who have meritorious (non-frivolous) lawsuits. In other words, I am saying employers should consider paying reasonable settlements to those employees who demand a settlement AND who have a legitimately arguable lawsuit supported by witnesses and documentation. This type of non-frivolous lawsuit could be won by either side, thus the importance of both sides getting over the feeling of “being right,” and deciding on a fair financial resolution.

The second response I have to the employer-avoiding-precedent argument is that most employers don’t get sued enough for precedent to be relevant. If a small or medium- sized employer is sued, that is usually an uncommon occurrence, unlikely to happen to them more than a few times. (If it happens more than that, then to avoid further precedent it’s time to look in the mirror!). Most employers simply don’t encounter enough lawsuits or settlements that they could develop any sort of trend or reputation. Most of their employees will have no idea the employer ever got sued (particularly as time passes), much less know about the settling employee’s legal merits or settlement amount. Nearly all settlements have required terms of confidentiality, which further restricts word from getting out about settlement precedent.

It’s true there are large employers who get sued several times each year, and in their case there ARE trends and precedents set.

However, many of the same limitations above (e.g. settlement confidentiality) apply to large employers, and there are only a few large employers I know of who have developed a litigation reputation one way or the other. A few of them think they are playing hardball by refusing to settle non-frivolous cases, believing they are avoiding precedent of high settlements and avoiding future lawsuits. In my observation, these employers don’t get sued any less as a result of their hardball. I personally recommend my clients pursue lawsuits based on their case merits, costs, and potential legal award. The employer’s reputed hardball/precedent-avoiding approach doesn’t discourage or encourage litigation.

Thanks again for your comment, and again I appreciate the chance to hear views different than my own.

Mike

Then whats to stop them? Bring another suit a month later…then another…Gee, it will cost me 20k to defend this again…here’s another check.

This is why many employers silently won’t hire certain people to begin with.