Marjorie Mesidor The Harassment Slayer On Survivors Experiences

Marjorie Mesidor discusses why many SA survivors choose not to report their experiences, sharing a client's story to shed light on the barriers that often keep survivors silent.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up his way of at Angela Yee and my
girl Selena Hill is hanging out with me.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Yep, yep.

Speaker 1 (00:05):
I'm a journalist extraordinaire and we're really excited. We have
so many questions for you.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Today. We have Marjorie Mezzador here.

Speaker 1 (00:11):
She is the harassment slayer, but you're also the founder
and chief visionary officer of Mezzador PLLC, which is a
workplace discrimination law firm employment and workplace discrimination law firm
dedicated to advancing justice, equity, and accountability in the workplace.
Thank you for joining us today.

Speaker 3 (00:30):
Thank you for having me.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
Man.

Speaker 1 (00:32):
We have so many things going on and so many
people call up for ask ye with questions when it
comes to you know, things that happen in the workplace
and how to go about it. And we know it's
something that's difficult for people to navigate.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
No, absolutely, I mean you would be surprised even when
people know they're being discriminated against. Just how uncomfortable that
people are even using the word discrimination. Right most of
the time when things are going on, they're like, oh,
this person has a personal problem with me. I don't
know what the issue is, I don't know why being
treated so differently. They'll run through the gamut of questions

(01:05):
all through their head and the very last thing that
they come up with this with is I think it's
because I'm a woman. I think it's because I'm black.
I think it's because I am not a Nate, I
am a foreign born in national or something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
Yeah, And a lot of times we can feel powerless
to do anything about it. And it's interesting in this
dnage that we're in right now, Selena.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
You were just covering a situation with COC. What was this?

Speaker 4 (01:32):
Yeah, So the EEOC recently filed a lawsuit against a
Coca Cola distributor for hosting a women only networking event.

Speaker 5 (01:41):
The federal government.

Speaker 4 (01:42):
Is literally saying or claiming that this company discriminated against
men because they were not invited on this retreat right,
which was for you know, women's empowerment purposes. So you know,
my question is I want, as an attorney who is
working to protect underrepresented groups and historic, historically marginalized groups,

(02:04):
what are your thoughts on this? How can both companies
and these marginalized groups protect themselves when in Trump's era,
the federal government can actually sue for something like this.

Speaker 3 (02:15):
Right, So, a couple of different things, right, First and foremost,
if a private company is putting forth programs to push
forth an agenda that helps their bottom line that happens
to align with gender or race or anything like that,
that is never going to be discriminatory in and of itself. Right.

(02:38):
So if you if you are tampaks and you are
running you know, an empowerment group for that, it's because
you have you sell a product that is directly geared
toward women, right, that is going to be otherwise helpful
and beneficial to them. Where they can run into tricky
waters is because this particular administration is putting this particular

(03:02):
administration has taken a stance on DEI. Right, that is
that makes it like a four letter word, a very
very like de I is naughty. D I is bad.
For this administration, they they see DEI and putting forth
and pushing for the agenda of one race or one

(03:23):
gender one of them to be the same. So, because
they just take a very cookery cutter view of that,
and they have the purse strings of the federal government,
they can weaponize. Right, an agency like the EEOC, and
the EEOC only exists to investigate and research any discrimination
that takes places in places that have fifteen or more employees. Okay,

(03:47):
so because they have that that that ability, they have
that authority and that they have that a power. If
you have fifteen or more employees, the EEOC can take
a look at your policies, your procedures, your DEI policies
and say that, you know what, this doesn't align with
what we think is appropriate or legal, or any one
of those things. So we're going to investigate it. But

(04:07):
what the EEOC does not have the ability to do
is declare it illegal just because they're investigating. So none
of the laws have changed. None of the way that
we look at the law that says that when marginalized
populations come together in order to create affinity groups and
to otherwise elevate agendas and the stuff that in and

(04:29):
of itself is not discriminatory, that has not changed. But
the government's ability to direct the EOC and say, you
know what, we're gonna we're not going to look at
these transgender issues anymore. We're going to focus on just
the DEI policies that are focused just for women or
just for people of color, because we're calling that illegal indiscriminatory,

(04:51):
even though they are saying that they can and they
can do that. They can go in and investigate and
they can make life very uncomfortable for Coco Colas. They
cannot declare it illegal though that only the law can do,
only the court can do. But they'll just make it uncomfortable.
And nobody wants the EOC in their backyard.

Speaker 1 (05:11):
And it's kind of like a warning for other companies too,
exactly that happens.

Speaker 2 (05:16):
Do you want to have to deal with all of
this exactly?

Speaker 3 (05:18):
And this administration has been very effective by saying by saying,
we are going to throw our entire weight and authority
behind what we can do to make it as uncomfortable
for you as possible so that you can do what
we want you to do.

Speaker 4 (05:35):
And to Angela's point, like it's definitely setting our precedence
so that because we see a lot of companies are
no longer in acting DEI policies. But with the lawsuit,
they're saying the company violated Title seven of the Civil
Rights Act because men supposedly were not invited to this
women's retreat.

Speaker 5 (05:55):
During work hours, during work hours.

Speaker 4 (05:58):
So they're saying that's the case and I'm saying, like
the pendulum has definitely shifted because instead of protecting women, minorities, immigrants,
now it's like they're attacking them, and they're using the
same laws that were created to protect these groups now
to attack workers while they are on the job.

Speaker 5 (06:19):
Like, how do we navigate that?

Speaker 3 (06:21):
So a few different things with this particular case, I
don't know, like all the ins and outs of like
what kind of program it was under, what like how
they were able to otherwise nagel it, you know before,
or anything like that. But if the only criteria for
you to go to this retreat is your gender, then
that is discriminatory. If the only criteria only right, you're women,

(06:47):
you're a woman, you're in, your guy, you're out, that
on its face absolutely is discriminatory. However, right, a lot
of the programs that we're talking about, like the DEI programs,
the affinity programs, a lot of them have to do
and invite anyone who is in support of anything that

(07:08):
is going to otherwise elevate support the cause of and
the issues of the affinity group so it doesn't become
a situation where it's only men versus women. This is
a woman's retreat for issues that are particularly important to women.
If you are a man and issues and issues are
important of women are important to you, you are welcome

(07:30):
to come.

Speaker 2 (07:30):
Right.

Speaker 3 (07:31):
This is what makes it okay because it's not about
the setting up to who's invited and who's not based
on gender, but what is the platform, what is the
agenda here?

Speaker 1 (07:41):
We have International Women's Day here right now, and we
are doing all these different panels, and it specifically says
men are invited, right.

Speaker 5 (07:51):
They have to highlight that now.

Speaker 2 (07:53):
Specifically says that right. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (07:55):
And then and then you have people who have different
philosophies about it. You'll have men who's like, you know what,
I'm a feminist too, I want to be in the
room and I want to help. And then you'll have
other men who will say, you know what, this is
a private space for women for them to share and
maybe in an intimate setting with only things that they
believe that other women would share. I'm going to respect it,

(08:15):
and I'm just going to refrain. But you're invited, right.
But you're invited right exactly as long as it's not
a prohibition saying that you cannot come because you are
a male.

Speaker 2 (08:25):
Yeah, man, this is just so much going on.

Speaker 1 (08:28):
I do want to know in this era right now
of what's going on. It's a lot of things have
been unprecedented, a lot of things have been rolled back.

Speaker 2 (08:36):
How has your job and what you do for people?
What are the shifts that you've seen?

Speaker 3 (08:42):
Right? So, unfortunately, I'm busier than ever right And I
say that unfortunately because I would prefer not to be
doing this work. I would love if there was no discrimination,
no sexual harassment, and I was completely obsolete. That's actually
very much how our firm runs. We want to work
ourselves out of existence. But we are busier than ever
because now what people are doing is they're taking this

(09:07):
new anti DEI stance and they're using that to bolster
they're already existing prejudice and discrimination. So now they just
think that it's okay. They think that they're protected or
exactly they feel protected. And then on the other side,
those who are doing this work don't feel protected, right,
and they feel like they have to work on eggshells.

(09:29):
So that changes the level of aggression with which they
seek change. It changes with the type of programs that
they're putting forth and the kind of communities are that
they are supporting because everybody is running scared. So what
we're seeing is things like six hundred thousand black women
have been completely disenfranchised out of the workplace last year.

Speaker 2 (09:51):
Absolutely, we're talking about that before.

Speaker 3 (09:53):
You, right. So they're like, why is that? Why is that?
Why is that? You know, why is that the case?
They're well, let's look at it. Statistics say that black
women are the most educated demographic in the United States.
So if this is all truly based on a meritocracy,
you would find that the qualifications are there, the education

(10:14):
and there. Why is it a matching up? Because what
people are doing is because they are rolling back the support,
the resources, the financing, the head counts on these DEI programs.
They're doing that to a lot of the time. You'll
find that black women are the one and onlies right,
they're the one and only females in this, or they're

(10:34):
the one and only black person in this So as
not to rival the iriy of the administration, people are
pulling back those things too. So then what one after
the other, one after the other, Each one of these
individuals are ending up without a job under the excuse
of the temperature has changed, the political climate has shifted.
I cannot tell you how many women who who I

(10:56):
have counseled, who have received letters that have literally said,
the police, ohitical climate has shifted in regards to your
blah blah blah, and therefore we are going to be
expending resources and X, Y and z on other things,
on other things.

Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yeah, you know, the most unqualified people work in our government.

Speaker 5 (11:12):
Crazy at that part, right, It's.

Speaker 1 (11:15):
Like, because I think they make it seem like DEI
means it's unqualified people in positions, when the two to
the matter is that for the bottom line, diversity with
qualified people in those positions is great for any company,
and numbers reflect that, right, And so that's what's really
wild to me because it doesn't mean that you're not
qualified to be there.

Speaker 3 (11:34):
Absolutely all of that. The only thing that d I
really means is that you're going to be taking a
look at Yeah, that's all. You still have to meet
all the criteria for the job. It just means that
you're otherwise going to take a look at you know
what It's like, It's let's consider it like this. The
three of us are friends and we have a company,
and I say, Angela, who does your marketing and you're like, oh,

(11:57):
I know so and so so and so does my marketing,
who does your whatever? And you're like, oh, so and so,
so and so does my security. These are people who
you have relationships with. It is not it wouldn't be
uncommon for the person who does your marketing to be
a person of color, or for the person who does
your security to be a female. And now we continue
to work and expand on our own, you know, based

(12:19):
on our own networks. This is what naturally happens. What
des I is forcing companies to say is like, you
know what, Angela, I can't just rely on your recommendation
for a marketing person or your recommendation for a security person.
We are three women of color already in this in
this in in in this company. We think there would

(12:39):
be value to have other voices, maybe different religions, maybe
different genders, maybe different raisespectives, with different perspectives that we
think that would be a value. So instead of us
just you know, kicking it to you know, the one
anybody who we have on our rollodecks, We're going to
make a deliberate effort and reach out to as many
qualified marketing people, as many qualified security people as we can,

(13:02):
so that we can get a robust, you know, like
roster of individuals to look at so we can do
it the best way for you know, at the table,
that's all the DEI is saying. There is literally nothing
more than that. The only thing that inclusion does that's
a little bit more is it makes us always think
of other case in point, is this studio open on

(13:23):
Christmas Day on December twenty fifth? I think it is, Yeah, okay,
bad example, And I'm just like, but it wouldn't surprise
me if it was closed on Christmas Day, right, because
we live in the US and predominantly we are very
like Christian focused, like you know, around that focus. For

(13:43):
somebody who's Jewish, for somebody who's who's Muslim, for somebody
who's Buddhist, they have other holidays that they that they
don't get a day off.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (13:52):
So then you say, you know, as inclusion, you know,
as part of our commitment to inclusion, we know udis
you know, Buddhist holidays exists and Jewish holidays exists. Instead
of everybody just getting off on Christmas, everybody has a
floating holiday and whatever religion or whatever they want to
use it for they use it. If you know, if
it's for Hanukah, it's for if it's for Dwali, whatever

(14:15):
it is you use it for. That's inclusion. That's just
taking into considering into consideration. You know what, there are
other people besides.

Speaker 2 (14:23):
Everybody is exactly right and this.

Speaker 3 (14:25):
May be important to them. Let me take a look
at that, Marjorie.

Speaker 2 (14:28):
What got you into this particular specialty.

Speaker 3 (14:32):
I mean it kind of fell into my lap a
little bit. I when I was in law school, I
loved con law, constitutional law. I thought like all about
the civil rights movements and religious freedoms and all those
types of cases. I love those because I felt like
they touched everybody's like life in a way that was

(14:53):
really impactful and fundamental. And I could always get like,
really impassioned about it. But what really drives me in
this particular work is that I hate bullies. Yea, I
hate bullies. And because money makes the world go round,

(15:13):
and because money is what we use to feed our families,
to run our lifestyles, to pursue our dreams, our employers
are in a very unique position in our lives. They
hold a lot of power over us. And don't get
me wrong. Not every employer is bad, right, There are
great employers who they work with their employees. They're like,

(15:35):
you know what, you bring something to us, we bring
something to you, and they make it balanced and fair.
But the overwhelming majority is that people are disproportionately you know,
imbalanced with their employers. And a lot of people abuse that,
and they abuse it by making people do things that
they know that they should not be they should not
be doing. They abuse it by taking credit for other

(15:58):
people's work, by diminishing other people's work. You know. Again,
if we went back to the you know, the company,
the fake company that we were starting, maybe Angela's like,
you know what, my marketing person is also my cousin,
so we got to hire her or him or whomever,
and we're going to bring them in. And I said,
but maybe your cousin doesn't know what they're doing, so
we're going to probably not right, So now we're going

(16:21):
to use this other marketing company, make them do all
the work, pay them half the money, and my cousin
and there is the one who's going to be reaping
all the benefits. Right right, This is just normal human dynamic.

Speaker 1 (16:33):
And sometimes people feel like it just is what it is.
This is corporate America deal with it. And so the
question is, how do people know when it's an issue?
Because I have to imagine that it is. And I'm
sure we've all been in situations that we felt like
there's something wrong here. When is it when people come
to you and sometimes people don't know is this even

(16:55):
a discrimination case?

Speaker 4 (16:56):
And I just I had a personal just to piggyback
off of that an employ there was a speaking of
that power dynamic an employer of mine. This is in
the past, there was a person in power who hit
on me right, who made it very clear that they
wanted to date me.

Speaker 3 (17:13):
Right.

Speaker 4 (17:14):
I dismissed it, laughed it off, kept it moving.

Speaker 5 (17:17):
A colleague. He did the same thing to a colleague.

Speaker 4 (17:20):
She reported it because she felt unsafe and harassed. When
is it actual harassment? Because for me, I kind of
felt like, you know, let me just you know, brush
his joker off.

Speaker 5 (17:33):
So he trying to shoot his shot.

Speaker 4 (17:34):
He isn't a position of power, and I don't want
to jeopardize anything. So I was like, in my mind,
I was just like, you know, it is what it is.

Speaker 5 (17:41):
But she reported it and then did face some retaliation.

Speaker 3 (17:45):
So The answer to both of your questions. Number one
is you really have to trust your instincts and intuition.
There is something that I feel that everybody feels when
something's going on that just doesn't feel right. They may
not know what it is right. They may not be
able to call it. They may not be able to
say it's discrimination, it's sexual harassment or whatever. But the

(18:08):
moment that you feel that something is not right, you
should trust your instinct and watch it. That doesn't mean
as soon as you think something's wrong that you go
running too hr And here's the difference. You have the
autonomy right to decide what you are comfortable with and
what you are not okay. So when it comes to
discrimination and harassment, there are two parts that the law

(18:30):
looks at. It looks at objectively if it's harassing, and
then they look at subjectively if it's harassing. Right, let's
look at the subjective part. As women, we get hit
on a lot. And if you are comfortable standing your

(18:51):
ground and standing your nose and saying no and leaving
it at that, it may not offend you that somebody
even tried. Right, there are others who think this is
the workplace and it's completely inappropriate because of this power
dynamic for you to ever even approach me, right, and
that person and that person has the right in the

(19:12):
autonomy to do that. TOOM, what makes it actually harassment
is the lack of consent. The fact that she was
hit on and complained. That wouldn't have made it harassment,
because if he asked the question and she said no,
and he accepted her no, then it's then it's not harassment, right.

(19:33):
But it's the retaliation that came after she told them
to know that made this a wrong issue because she
should not be penalized right for saying her no.

Speaker 2 (19:43):
But it wasn't for saying no, it's for reporting it.

Speaker 4 (19:45):
Right, Yes, once it got reported and escalated, she felt
like there was retaliation when it came to just opportunities
and just like the tone, the way she.

Speaker 3 (19:54):
Was treated, absolutely absolutely and all of that is one
hundred percent illegal. She can she cannot be punished for
reporting it. She was, she cannot be she cannot even
be punished for reporting it legitimately. But getting it wrong.
Let's say he wasn't even really hitting on her and
she got it wrong completely complained to HR. They did

(20:17):
an investigation and he said, oh, I wasn't hitting on her,
and they found out whatever, he really wasn't hitting on her.
But then he's like, but oh, you're gonna complain to
me to HR, I got your number. That's still retaliation
so long as the person had a good faith belief
that what they were complaining about was legitimate, that it
was legitimately sexual harassment, legitimately discriminatory. Going back to your

(20:41):
question now, when you were talking about like, how do
I know? How do I know when it's the right
time to complain When it starts taking away things like
from your your money, your package, the kind of projects
you're being assigned to. You know, you're in your case,
like the slot that you get. You go from being

(21:03):
you know, right in the middle of the day, did
something at four o'clock in the morning, You're.

Speaker 2 (21:06):
Like, wait a second.

Speaker 3 (21:09):
You know, as soon as it starts to feel like
the way that you're being treated is not only along
the lines of race, gender or something like that, but
it also begins to impact the way you do your job,
how you show up for your job, how it impacts
your money you're paid, time off, your overall treatment and
everything like that. That's when it's time to really complain.

(21:32):
And I always encourage people take note. Take note. You
don't have to go to HR for each and every
single things. And there's so many things, even from a
technology perspective, that are really great. Like there's this app
called work Receipts right. So it's a free download app
that I recommend to all of my clients and perspective clients.
You download it on your phone, it's free, you use

(21:54):
it and you can log in everything that's going on
at work. So maybe you just think that something's going on,
but you're not really sure. You're like, oh, today they
didn't give me a lunch break. Oh today they took
a d they put me on suspension. Oh today they
did X, Y and Z.

Speaker 5 (22:08):
So.

Speaker 3 (22:08):
But now by the time that you go to HR,
you have a list of things with date and timestamp
of everything that happened. Then it's up to HR to
investigate to find out if it is what you think
that it is.

Speaker 1 (22:19):
Because you know, sometimes people also feel like, well HR
works for the company.

Speaker 3 (22:22):
Yes, but HR. You could go to HR. You can
go to a supervisor. But if you don't go to
somebody right and document and document it some way, then
there's no possible way that it's going to stop, right,
and not in New York City, but but in many
other places. If the if the company is not on notice,
specifically on notice that what's happening to you, then they're

(22:44):
not liable.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
Right because people are very hesitant, correct, But in New.

Speaker 3 (22:48):
York City, like if the if the person who's doing
the harassment is a supervisor, then the company's automatically liable.

Speaker 1 (22:55):
Now, Marjorie, I do want to switch gears a little
bit here because it's been so much going on in
the news, and I I just want to get from you.
You've dealt with so many different people and even us
thinking about everything, like with Diddy, because I know that
was something that you have a lot of information about.
But when we think about women who have been in
situations and men too, right and.

Speaker 2 (23:16):
Then people wait years decades.

Speaker 1 (23:19):
To come forward, and I always see people say, why
didn't they say something when this happened? Why didn't this
person say something right away? Why are all these people
coming out of the woodworks now? And they think it's
just like this person was trying to buy a network
or you know, they always have a reason why. I
just want to get from you, from people that you've
spoken to. Why is it that people wait sometimes so

(23:43):
long before they even come forward with something that might
have happened a long time ago. And then a lot
of times it's a snowball effect.

Speaker 3 (23:50):
Fear of retaliation, fear of not being believed, which is
actually a bigger fear than retaliation. You know how many
women have sat cross from me and say, who's gonna
believe me? I'm a single mom, And I was like,
wait a second, let's roll this back. Your word is enough.
But not everybody gets treated like their word is enough.

(24:14):
There are people who believe that unless they can get
two or three to back up what they're saying, that
their word is not enough. This is where I feel
like the Me Too movement really did help. It showed
us that our word is enough. And when you speak out,
then you get courage to speak out, and you get
courage to speak out because if I'm the only one

(24:35):
who's suffering and I say nothing, all three of us
could be suffering from the same person. But when we
start to talk about it, there's a shared strength that
comes into it, and now we can advance forward because
they may be able to ignore me, but if it's
three or four or fifty, Yeah, then it's harder to ignore.
So the fear of not being believed is so strong

(24:57):
it's palpable.

Speaker 2 (24:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (24:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (24:59):
And sometimes legally it's also say somebody say you sue
for harassment and you don't win, then people think that
means you were lying and it didn't happen, when a
lot of times it just means you couldn't necessarily prove
that legally.

Speaker 3 (25:13):
Right. And the thing is, and that's another thing too,
is that in most often in cases where there's sexual harassment,
it is always almost always a he said, she said,
she said, she said, right. It's always going to be
one person's word against the other. But that's what juries
are for, right, And the jury can decide. I believe
you and I don't believe you. The idea that you

(25:36):
need that you need additional proof than your word is
not true. It's helpful, don't get me wrong. I cannot
understate that if you have a recording, a text, or
anything that supports you in any way, it's gonna be helpful.
But I tell clients who sit across me all the time,
your word is enough evidence. You're going to be sworn

(26:00):
under oath, just like they're gonna be sworn under oath,
they're gonna say what happened in that room. You're gonna
say what's gonna happen in what happened in that room?
And the jury's gonna believe somebody.

Speaker 4 (26:10):
You know, I'm so glad you said that your word
is enough because in my mind I was like, if
it's not documented, how you have a witness, I would
never want to come forward because it's like you said
your word against another. But in the flip right on
another scenario, I have I know somebody who felt retaliated
against they were they had a workplace romance that ended

(26:31):
poorly and then he felt like the woman retaliated by
claiming that she was forced to do certain things because
he was in a position of power and it really
hurt him.

Speaker 5 (26:41):
And again it was his word against hers.

Speaker 4 (26:44):
And there was context, right, there's nuance, It wasn't they
were in relationship. So in those type of circumstances, you know,
how do I don't want to say how does? How
can that the person in power be protected?

Speaker 5 (26:57):
But what happens?

Speaker 3 (26:59):
As as with anything, if you want to protect your perspective,
you always want to document it in some way if
you want to if you want to protect your no document,
your no, if you want to protect their yes document. There, Yes,
it cuts both ways, like that work received app that
you know it's you know, it cuts both ways. I

(27:21):
say that because what's good for the goose is good
for the gander. Right, Overwhelmingly people do not make up,
you know, sexual harassments and discriminatory claims, and overwhelming that
is not the norm. But we cannot ignore that that exists,
right right, So that's why there has to be a
legal process. That's why there has to be a proof,
and that's why a jury gets to decide who's telling

(27:43):
the truth and who is not. There are attorneys who
will not take cases that is only blased on their
client's word, no matter how good they think that it is.
They just simply will not do it. And that's where
people get the messaging that their word is not enough.
Because the more I'm able to establish what you said
with something other than your word, my risk goes down.

(28:05):
If you told me he said this and he said that,
and you show me a text, I don't even have
to believe you. The jury doesn't even need to like you.
It's in a text.

Speaker 2 (28:11):
Yeah, right, no, exactly, you know, exactly.

Speaker 3 (28:15):
That's all really the proof they need. But now if
I go through this entire process and we get to
the jury, and now the jury doesn't like you, and
all I have is your word, that's a whole. That's
a high risk. That's high risk, high reward. It could
go either way. It could go either way.

Speaker 1 (28:28):
I want to ask you this too, because here's another
thing in the work that I do and seeing what
people have to say.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
Civil cases where people.

Speaker 1 (28:37):
Are, you know, trying to get a settlement for a
cent amount of money or get paid. People also tend
to look at that as this person's just trying to
get a payday, right, And so I want you to
break that down to because I feel like there's a
misconception about why people file civil cases.

Speaker 3 (28:53):
First, right, So not everything that is discriminatory or harassing
is criminal. Not everything that's discriminatory or harassing is criminal.
So criminal has one standard above a reasonable doubt, right
beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the standard for criminals. So

(29:13):
that's high. Right beyond a reasonable doubt is if we're
gonna do in percentages, let's say reason beyond a reasonable
doubt is probably like eighty five percent sure, right, civil
where you know, what you get is money, not not
jail or anything like that. That standard, that standard is

(29:38):
more likely than not forty nine to fifty one.

Speaker 2 (29:41):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (29:42):
So if I'm like, so, if you have to prove
your case seventy five eighty five versus forty forty nine
to fifty one, which one you're gonna go for? You're
gonna go for the forty nine to fifty one because
it's easier, particularly if it's a he said, she said
type of thing. So many times even that acts that
are harassing criminal prosecutors will decline to prosecute, or they

(30:05):
won't charge them at the top charge. They'll do it
at a lower charge, for all sorts of reasons. These
these positions are politically elected, They have their own stats,
you know, stats and stuff that they have to do.
There's all sorts of reasons why they don't they decide
not to prosecute. And if at every time that somebody,
you know, you know, somebody's ego was hurt and they

(30:27):
were turned down and they did something, you know, and
they did something and it was prosecuted each and every time,
then the courts would be overrun with that that sort
of thing, right, So on the civil side, it gives
you an opportunity for there to be accountability, but instead
of somebody else deciding for you whether or not that
person is going to be prosecuted, you are the one

(30:47):
who gets to decide how much money is enough money,
and if neither one of you can decide that, then
the jury decides if any money is worth it at all.
So that's why civil is an attractive is an attractive
alternative because you are the one who makes the decision,
not a prosecutor, and you're the one who gets to
say how much is enough, not enough, not not a

(31:08):
third party. Now, a lot of people will say the
other part of it with with the civil prosecution is
you have an opportunity to resolve it and nobody even
know about it. That's that's good for the person who's
been attacked and the person who who's allegedly did the attacking,
because the last thing the same way that the that
a lot of people that the same way that Diddy

(31:31):
is getting dragged to the mud for all of the allegations,
there are Diddy accusers who are equally being dragged through
the mundy. Yes for even being bringing you know, bringing.

Speaker 2 (31:39):
Up the accusation.

Speaker 3 (31:40):
So a lot of people decide said, you know what,
I don't want to deal with that. This is this
is something that impacted me. I'm in therapy, I can't
work anymore. I need money for my medical bills. I
need money to live. I'm gonna suit for this. It's
gonna be quiet and then it's all done. And there's
nothing wrong with that.

Speaker 1 (31:57):
I feel like people tend to look down on you
if you get a payment like a settlement, yeah, and
have something to.

Speaker 2 (32:02):
Say about that. And you know, I want to bring
this back to.

Speaker 1 (32:05):
Our theme for International Women's Day, give to gain and mentorship,
and I want to talk about women giving their knowledge
and support to one another and how that is. How
can we do that more right in the workplace and
things you've seen.

Speaker 3 (32:21):
No, absolutely, I think that we're doing it right now,
just actively and earnestly participating in these conversations and saying,
you know what the resources I have are available to you.
I don't get keep I don't get keep with what
I know. I don't get keep with the information that's
available to me. If you tell me so and so
has a problem of I'm like, okay, let's do it.

(32:43):
Let's let's I'm going to roll up my sleeves and
get in. That's the level. That's the level of collaboration
effort that that women are really you know, leaning into
all the way and it's and the momentum on this
is incredibly significant. The same way that I can say
this that of six hundred thousand black women have been
forced out of the workplace, is that the other millions

(33:06):
of black women in that same workplace are ushering their
sisters in and using all of their power, dynamics, information
connections to help them come right back into the market
marketplace again, because what we've realized is that collaboration is
better than competition, right.

Speaker 1 (33:22):
And you know, along those lines, even being able to
discuss salaries because I know that's another conversation in the
workplace when it comes to discrimination, and so I think
that's important too for us to be able to discuss
with each other what we're getting paid for things, So what.

Speaker 3 (33:39):
We're getting paid, what kind of packages that are you know,
that are available, what worked for us, what didn't work
for us. Because at the same time, it the mentality
I think before used to be. I have to keep
this close to the vest because if I don't, then
what I have is going to be attacked. What we've realized,
what we have is going to be attact regardless, right, there

(34:01):
is no protection of that. So the only way we're
gonna protect ourselves is if we're all on one accord
and we know that this is the standard, and we're
not accepting any less, then we force the hand. We
forced the hand on the other side to say, now
you can't mess with either you know, either three of
us because now we're all exchanging information.

Speaker 4 (34:20):
Wasn't there laws or policies that prevented employees from talking
about salaries? And wasn't that lifted a few years ago?

Speaker 3 (34:29):
Actually it's actually quite it's actually quite the opposite. Under
the NLRB, your your ability to talk about your salary
and workplace conditions is a right that you cannot that
can you cannot be terminated for, you cannot be disciplined for,
or anything of like. You have that right in any

(34:49):
workplace to discuss both the conditions of your workplace. And
that's not just like discrimination and harassment. I'm talking about safety,
you know, I'm talking about like and salary are all
completely protected if you are being if you are being
terminated or disciplined for these for these types of for

(35:12):
these types of discussions, you should definitely speak to an
attorney about possible retaliation because that is a right that
every every employee has in the workplace.

Speaker 2 (35:20):
Well, I appreciate this guy.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
I feel like this was a great empowering conversation for
people who are listening. We've had so many people call
in just to talk about things that have happened in
the workplace.

Speaker 2 (35:30):
What should I do?

Speaker 1 (35:32):
And felt like there's nothing that they could do, but
to know that these are the steps you could take.
And one thing I want to say that I got
from all of this is document, document, document.

Speaker 2 (35:40):
What is that app again? Receipts, work receipts, ye periods.
You know they bring the receipts exactly.

Speaker 3 (35:48):
I think that the inspiration. But no, but exactly document document. Listen.
Seventy percent of seventy percent of Americans with paycheck to paycheck.
Seventy percent means most people. Seventy percent of people are
one paycheck away from missing their rents, not being able
to put food on the table. Just so people are

(36:09):
desperate to keep their jobs, which is another reason why
I always tell my clients there are no friends at work,
and it's like no, I mean, it is fact because
at the end of the day, we could all be
we could all be cool.

Speaker 2 (36:19):
We can key key it up.

Speaker 3 (36:20):
As much as we want, but it's like, uh, you know,
somebody's getting fired or somebody's like everybody's protecting their own
because at the end of the day, my check is
not going to pay for yours, right, and my check
is not going to pay for yours. So there is
this idea of like protecting you know, protecting themselves and
protecting their own. Documenting is one of those ways.

Speaker 4 (36:38):
Yeah, one of my biggest takeaways is your word is enough.
So hopefully that will encourage people if anything is happening,
speak up, you know how you know, how can they
get in contact with you or maybe somebody a local
lawyer or attorney, Like what type of help of resources
are out there for people who only have their word right.

Speaker 3 (36:59):
Fortune. A majority of employment discrimination attorneys are contingency based,
which means they will take your case without you having
a paying money up front. Good to know, and most
of the time consultations are free. It costs you nothing
to call an attorney for a free consultation to figure
out say, is this a thing or is it not enough?

(37:21):
If you get an attorney that cares. Because for us,
particularly at Mesodor PLC, we are big with decline with dignity.
I may not take your case because I have six
attorneys at my firm. We can't take every case, right,
we have to pick and choose. But I'm not going
to just decline you and leave you high and dry.
You're gonna walk away with resources. You're gonna walk away

(37:43):
with more information on how to how to pursue this yourself.
You may even walk away with information on how to
speak to the next attorney about what it is that
you have going on. And if all attorneys do the
same thing, then people would be a lot would be
a lot better off it because most of the time,
what they're like, oh, I don't have a text, Oh sorry,
it can't help you. I said, really, this person just

(38:03):
open up to you and said that their body was touched, right,
and you just said you don't. You don't have any proof.
We're just gonna leave them high and dry. Then what's
the point. What's the point of being an attorney? Right? This
is why I don't gate keep because then then then
our positions mean nothing. What's the point of being a
black woman attorney if I.

Speaker 2 (38:21):
Gate keep right?

Speaker 3 (38:22):
Absolutely all my information, everything that's in here is available
to all of you and then some all our sisters, brothers,
you know, on all sides. When you think about policy too,
are there things that you would like to see happen? Oh? Yeah,
there's so many things I would love to see happen.
One thing that I would sure love to see happen
is after you do all the hard work and you

(38:43):
actually win the case and you get a jury verdict.
I would love it if they couldn't send it back
to the judge and say, judge, we think the jury
gave them too much. And the judge says, I think
you're right. We're just gonna slash it down. Remitted her.
So that's another thing that makes it very discouraging. You
can go through all of that. Yes, your word is enough,
you win. They believe you, they're on your side. They

(39:05):
give you exactly how much you need for you to
get your therapy and for you to be out of
work for some time, for you to get yourself together,
and then for the other side to say, you know what,
we're gonna prolong it even more. You know everyone does
that exactly in addition to the two years that it
took you to even get to a jury verdict. Now
we're gonna go to the judge and we're gonna do
a post trial motion and we're gonna say the judge,

(39:25):
we think that they gave them too much. And the
judge may say one person can undo what a jury
just did. And I don't think that when you have
a jury of twelve people who sit down and look
at your client in their eye, they see the tears
in their face, they hear the breath when they testify,
that their assessment of how much that person should should

(39:50):
get is gonna be diminished by another judge that's just
looking at a transcript. They don't know when she said yes,
if she was bawling, crying yes. They don't know whether
she could barely contain herself. They don't know. So that
is one thing that I would love to see changed,
is that remitted or would not be would not be

(40:12):
a pathway that defendants can use all the time, all
the time. But you don't really hear about it. You
always hear about the big verdict. People will tell you, oh,
didn't Tesla get one hundred million something verdict for race discrimination?
Most people don't know that that was slash.

Speaker 2 (40:28):
Yeah, they didn't have to pay it.

Speaker 3 (40:29):
It was slash. And then when they slash it, they
slash it to something so small. I've seen seven figure
awards go down to a couple a couple of tens
of thousands.

Speaker 1 (40:40):
That's wild and that's discouraging. Can you imagine how that
feels to somebody?

Speaker 5 (40:44):
Right?

Speaker 3 (40:44):
Exactly, And this is where, like you know, our continued
conversation regarding the EI is important. Who those judges are important,
the fact that you know, is it an elected judge
or is it an appointed judge for life? Pointed judges
for life. They come from a particular pedigree, right, the
best schools, the best, this the best best, best best.

(41:05):
And they may be a little bit removed I don't
want to say out of touch, right, but they may
be a little bit more removed from the average workers,
the average workers plight versus somebody who may be elected.

Speaker 2 (41:16):
They got to grind for their Yeah.

Speaker 3 (41:18):
You know, they have to grind for there, They have
to Exactly, they're they're more in sync with the people.
So it's you know, it's different, but you don't get
to pick and choose.

Speaker 1 (41:27):
This feels like a TV show, you know what I'm saying,
We have reasonable doubt, what's the what's the Marjorie Mezzadors,
just because I do feel like I could see all
of these different scenarios playing out and then see somebody
getting a verdict, and you know, I just I just
see it in my head.

Speaker 4 (41:44):
Right.

Speaker 1 (41:46):
But I also think watching shows like that is what
helps people feel like they have more information and knowledge too.

Speaker 3 (41:52):
Right, absolutely. And the other thing that people don't talk
about is what does it mean to be representing a
marginalized population? Why you yourself are a marginal population? And
the secondary trauma that comes from.

Speaker 2 (42:05):
That, Oh my gosh, I can't even imagine.

Speaker 3 (42:07):
Because then you're fighting multiple battles, right, I'm not only
fighting for you and your and your situation in the
justice system. I'm fighting my adversary to be taken seriously.
I may be fighting the judge to be taken seriously.
I may be doing all of these things simultaneously. So
this is why again, gate keeping benefits no.

Speaker 2 (42:27):
One, absolutely not.

Speaker 3 (42:29):
It benefits no one.

Speaker 1 (42:30):
I know, you have had to have had some heartbreaking moments.

Speaker 3 (42:34):
Absolutely, there are there are cases that I still have
nightmares about. Wow. There are people who are on the
opposite side of this work, who are management side, who
make it their business to punish those who bring up
cases of discrimination and sexual harassment. So they punish them
by using the process. They make sure that the litigation

(42:55):
process is the most invasive, uncomfortable, like raw, gut wrenching thing.
And that's how they make a name for themselves, and
that's how they make a name for their companies, right,
And this is why companies will hire them, because they'll
know that somebody will think twice about bringing a sexual
harassment claim because they know that their attorney is gonna
gut is gonna try to gut them at the root,

(43:16):
regardless of whether or not it's true. And that to
me is so disgusting because I you know, you work
with somebody, When you go through something with somebody, like
there's an affinity there. Sometimes the client comes to me
and they're telling me things that they don't even tell
their spouse exactly exactly. They tell you things that they
don't tell their spouses, their friends, their mothers. Sometimes none

(43:39):
of those people even know it's coming out until you're
getting ready to file a public case. And that's why
deciding to file a public case is such a big, big,
big decision.

Speaker 1 (43:48):
Yeah, people act like it's not just to even understand.
And like you said earlier when we were discussing why
people may wait, it is also at a time when
you may feel safe enough to wrong enough, you know,
just in a space where you're like okay, because it's
a big deal.

Speaker 2 (44:05):
It is like it can be life changing.

Speaker 4 (44:08):
And I hear a lot of survivors saying they don't
want to relive that, Like once they're out of the situation,
they want to move forward where they want to move forward.
They definitely don't want to go to trial and talk
about it. Like we saw what happened with Cassieven she
was like eight nine months.

Speaker 5 (44:22):
Pregnant and had to relive all of that.

Speaker 4 (44:24):
So there are a lot of different reasons why people
don't you know, speak up at that time.

Speaker 3 (44:28):
Right, Not only that, it's just like we don't even
need to take it that far. You could be a
regular person and you saw you filed the lawsuit. You're
out on a date and the person googled you and
to find your lawsuit.

Speaker 5 (44:40):
Oh that's a good point, you know.

Speaker 2 (44:43):
And now friends go on days I'd be looking up
all I said, what's his name?

Speaker 3 (44:45):
Exactly exactly, And now they have like information and like this.
A lot of this stuff can be damning. Yeah, it
can be damning. It can be right. And the law
is evolving every requiring you to put more detailed, more
facts in these pleadings, in these lawsuits. It used to

(45:07):
be you could do a short and simple statement of
the facts, so and so it's working here. Blah blah blah.
They were asked out, they declined, they were retaliate against that.
You could use the very bare minimum. Now they're asking you, no,
we need more detail, we need specificity. So then now
attorneys are throwing everything in there. And a lot of
this stuff is intimate. Yeah, it is intimate. And even

(45:30):
if it's something as small and I'm saying small on
a relative scale, right, as a forced kiss, Right, who
wants the first introduction that you have with the person
is to know that their boss forcibly kissed them. Right,
shouldn't you get to decide when that comes out and

(45:51):
how that comes out?

Speaker 4 (45:53):
Why are there's so many requirements for those extra intimate details.

Speaker 3 (45:57):
Because the law is saying that the defendant needs to
be reasonably unnotice on what it is that they're being
accused about. They really need to know. They have to
have an understanding. If I'm being sued for sexual harassment,
what did I do that was sexually harassing? They want
a full list, and they want everything. And when your
complaint is not detailed, the presumption is it's made up.

Speaker 2 (46:22):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (46:22):
But when your complaint is more detailed time days. You guys,
remember that Cassie complaint, Yeah that she filed again, Well,
how many pages was that that she was.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
Telling all kind of stuff that I felt so oh right, yeah.

Speaker 4 (46:33):
Because we were like, I felt bad she had to
disclose all of those details. But you're saying she had
to in order to make her case.

Speaker 3 (46:39):
What I'm saying to you is the fact that her
pleadings were so detailed it becomes very hard to ignore. Yeah, right,
So the remember, the other side is always going to
be like, oh, she's just looking for money. You know,
she had a failed career and that's why she's coming out.
And you know they're always throwing these things when you're like,
but page seventy five says and this, and then what

(47:01):
what happens? People start fact checking. They're like, she was
at that party, and he was there too, and I
do remember when his car blew up, and I do remember.
And then because of all those details, then her word
gets starts to get a little bit more exactly, it
gets a little heavier. This is why attorneys, This is

(47:23):
why attorneys do it. Did she have to go to
those to that's painstaking detail in order for it not
to be dismissed because there wasn't enough detail? Maybe not,
you know, I'm not gonna you know, Monday night quarterback? Right?
Maybe not? But did it help? Absolutely? Absolutely. Somebody's like,
even if she was lying, she was lying about all

(47:45):
whatever to her page.

Speaker 2 (47:46):
She was giving her own exactly why exactly.

Speaker 5 (47:50):
She put herself in a light that was not too
flattering herself.

Speaker 3 (47:54):
And what do we always say, authenticity translates, truth translate.
You won't know what them American public will accept as
being okay and not being okay, but just be you,
because one thing that we won't tolerate is that hypocrisy
or lying or whatever. But if you're like, yeah, I
did that and I did that too, but he definitely
did this, and when this has happened, that gives more credibility.

(48:16):
It gives more credibility to say that it was X,
Y and Z.

Speaker 1 (48:20):
What about the Adult Survivors Act When when that, I
want to know what your thoughts were on that and
what kind of workloads you had during that time.

Speaker 3 (48:29):
So during the time of the Adult Survivors Act, workloads
for all plaintive side attorneys definitely went up because what
it did is it reopened the statute of limitations on
old claims and revived them for a short window of time.
So anything from basically the beginning of time all the
way through, so long as it was filed within this

(48:51):
window and met this specific criteria, and I'm not going
to bore you with all the with all the details,
then you could at least bring the claim right. Something
like the ASA is so invaluable because it recognizes that
people don't come forward because they're afraid, because they're afraid

(49:11):
of retaliation, they're afraid of not being believed, and because
they're afraid that the people who did this to them
have a way of hurting them again. But since me
too in particular, and me too wasn't the only time
there was like this reckoning, right, but me too, in
maybe like our most recent history in particular, started happening.

(49:32):
We realized for those of us who didn't already know
how commonplace it is having conversations. I do this work,
and I found out things about aunts and cousins, and
I was like, but you know, why wouldn't you ever?
People don't talk about it because they are afraid of

(49:53):
not being believed. So what this is doing is says, listen,
we understand that it's difficult. We are reopening it for
this period of time so that you can hold individuals
accountable that perhaps you couldn't have. We. I remember having
clients come to me with letters from there from people
who assaulted them, apologizing waiting after the Statute of limitations.

Speaker 2 (50:15):
Because they knew they were safe.

Speaker 3 (50:16):
That they were safe, and they're just walking around with
the with the person who assault them's letter like and
it would be like in their in their purse pocket.
It goes everywhere they go and they're like, what can
I do about this? Well, during the ASA, you could
do something about it, right, Unfortunately, now it's closed, it's sunseted.

(50:38):
It doesn't you know it, you know, and it doesn't
look like they're around. They're going to do around too.

Speaker 2 (50:45):
But that was a crazy time, but it wasn't.

Speaker 3 (50:49):
It was a crazy time. But the thing is is that, yeah,
people should be afraid, and yeah, I think twice.

Speaker 2 (50:55):
You never know exactly that you got away with something.

Speaker 1 (50:58):
Don't do it because I always hear people saying, oh,
it's the time period, Oh everybody was like that. Oh,
And I hate that when people say it's just what
people did, it's just how we acted. It was just
what the workplace was like during that time. And certain
things are if you're a stand up individual or never appropriate.

Speaker 4 (51:16):
And you know, another thing I really don't like is
when you hear people saying, well, you can't believe women.
A lot of them are lying and they're going after
the money.

Speaker 3 (51:26):
Believe.

Speaker 4 (51:27):
Do you have statistics that that tell how many cases
are actually not true or proven not true versus you know,
is there.

Speaker 2 (51:37):
Like because that's not true.

Speaker 1 (51:39):
I don't mean it's not true sometimes exactly, but people
coming forward and saying I lied, right, Yeah, But.

Speaker 5 (51:44):
Isn't it just like the mast majority are true.

Speaker 3 (51:49):
Are legitimate overwhelmingly we're talking about less than ten percent,
so less than ten percent, ten percent. I don't like
to throw out numbers on out there that I'm not
like sure on, so I can't be like it's eight
or it's two. But I know that it's less than
ten percent.

Speaker 1 (52:05):
And I tell you what, there's way more people that
don't never come forward than people who have come forward
or people who you.

Speaker 2 (52:11):
Know it is not true. I guarantee you that number
is multitudes.

Speaker 1 (52:15):
Exponentially more than people who have actually even come forward
to tell their story.

Speaker 3 (52:19):
They say that seventy five percent of individuals do not
come forward about sexual harassment in the workplace, specifically sexual
five percent. So that means that means no matter how
much sexual harassment that HR departments know about, just know
that there's actually three times more.

Speaker 5 (52:36):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (52:37):
All right, well, I appreciate you. This was a whole
power for us. But it does feel like we got
some amazing valuable information. Hopefully people who are listening. If
there's something that you've been contemplating, or some first steps
you know you need to take, this is your sign
to go ahead and make those first steps. And you know,
I appreciate you for sharing all of this invaluable information

(52:59):
with us.

Speaker 3 (53:00):
Thank you, Thank you for having me. Thank you ladies
for shredding a light on this.

Speaker 2 (53:03):
And you're going to continue to be a resource for
us on way up.

Speaker 3 (53:06):
Absolutely so we thing that you need.

Speaker 2 (53:08):
We are grateful for this. Thank you so much, Thank
you