Attorney Accusing Cain Has History of Litigating Trivial Employment Cases

Joel P. Bennett, the lawyer who has accused Herman Cain of “sexual harassment” without providing a shred of evidence of any kind, nor producing the name of Mr. Cain’s accuser, has a history of filing employment discrimination cases that are without merit, or so the findings of both lower and appellate courts would certainly lead us to believe.

In CURRIER v. POSTMASTER GENERAL, No. 01-5248, Argued Sept. 5, 2002. — October 04, 2002 the Appellate court dismissed Kenneth Currier’s claim alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In his original pleading Currier claimed that he was reassigned to a “materially lower position with materially lower duties.”   But by his own admission, the job he held immediately before the 1995 Reduction In Force was a “do nothing position.”  After the RIF he became a manager for legislative support in government relations. He had general budget duties for an office and supervised up to a dozen workers. He thus went from a position before the RIF with no duties to a position after the RIF with some duties.

In CZEKALSKI v. LaHOOD Loni Czekalski sued the Department of Transportation (DOT), alleging that her supervisor at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) discriminated against her on the basis of sex by reassigning her to an inferior position. The FAA contended that her re-assignment was due to her “failure to provide direction and support,” “allowing a program to languish” and a general lack of “leadership qualities.” Her new position was to serve as Program Manager for the Year 2000(Y2K) Project. This position turned out to be “probably the single most significant office in the entire agency” according to an FAA employee. In the end, the lower court dismissed Ms. Czekalski’s case and the appellate court agreed.

In CATHY S. NEUREN v. ADDUCI, MASTRIANI, MEEKS & SCHILL, et al., Mr. Bennett argued successfully against the plaintiff in a sexual discrimination suit. Ms. Neuren claimed that she was dismissed due to sexual discrimination, and the law firm for whom she worked argued that she was dismissed for cause. The lower court found for the law firm and the appellate court agreed.

There are many other examples.

Mr. Joel P. Bennett has been actively involved in litigation on both sides of the employment practices field for most of his career, and it would seem, at least from his lack of any presentation of any confirm-able facts of any kind, that he is simply the kind of attorney who will take whatever case comes his way, regardless of the facts, if he sees a material benefit to his law firm.

To make these kind of allegations, especially given Mr. Bennett’s history of trying trivial cases, against the leader of the GOP Presidential field is worse than irresponsible, and for supposed journalists to report unfounded allegations such as these without documentation, sources, or anything even remotely resembling confirmation, borders on criminal.

It seems perfectly reasonable for the Cain campaign to refuse to answer any more questions about this matter, unless or until the media or the ambulance chaser come up with an actual named witness who will come forward, or some actual documentation. After all, our constitution guarantees the right to face one’s accuser, and further, contrary to the national media’s bent these days, presumes innocence until proven guilty.

So Politico, NBC, CBS, ABC, all other National Media, and Joel P. Bennett, put up or shut up!