Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dan Druff
That's what I'm afraid was going on here.
As I said, this differs from other sexual harassment suits, where the women reluctantly tolerate it without reporting anything, but don't directly receive financial benefit from going along with it and keeping their mouth shut.
Here she received a lot of money and benefit for years, then received hush money and signed an NDA, and now suddenly she's suing. Does look like a money grab. I'm sure she thought McMahon was an old, gross freak, and didn't enjoy doing any of this stuff, but she very well might have enjoyed the money enough to want to keep going with it.
Money grab?
You guys are unbelievable, sometimes. I don't understand why you'd use that kind of terminology. The complaint can be found here:
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/d..._complaint.pdf
If anyone is interested.
In any event, McMahon hires her to a position as a pass and play fuck toy where she doesn't really do much of anything in terms of her official employment capacity; according to the complaint, in addition to salary, she also gets other forms of compensation along the way.
I mean, it's pretty tough to accuse someone of attempting a, 'Cash grab,' when she was literally employed, by WWE, for the specific purpose of getting fucked for money.
In my view, the most important aspect of the complaint is that the NDA was violated. McMahon, allegedly, agreed to $3,000,000 in payments in exchange for the NDA, of which he paid $1,000,000. I don't know if you guys have ever heard anything about McMahon's business dealings when he was taking over the territories, but not paying people he agrees to pay (despite having the money) is a very on-brand thing for him to do; it's no wonder he and Trump are buddies.
Accordingly, my objection to, 'Cash Grab,' is that, even if
ONLY that aspect of the complaint is true, she's still rightfully entitled to $2,000,000 more. Vince agreed to the NDA; he wasn't required to do that.
Other than the very flimsy (in my opinion) characterization as, 'Trafficking,' or this or that being functionally without consent (I'm probably closer to agreeing with you guys than disagreeing, on that one...one or two of the things, here or there, might have been without consent, but it's tough to make an argument for every single thing that happened over a three-year period), the fact remains that he seems to have violated the NDA. She's entitled to the full 3M because McMahon himself entered into the NDA that entitled her to same. I don't like the notion of portraying something as a, 'Cash grab,' when the cash she's trying to grab rightly belongs to her. An NDA was always going to be part and parcel of what McMahon was using her for should the company ever part ways with her.
The worst part is that, if the NDA aspect is true, McMahon could easily afford the other 2M; he basically refused to pay it out of some weird sense of principle, I think.
Had she gotten paid in full on the NDA, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you and characterize the lawsuit as a, 'Cash grab.'