May 11, 2023 • 30 mins
Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the 13 count indictment against Republican Representative George Santos. Domenique Camacho Moran, a partner at Farrell Fritz, discusses Goldman Sachs settlement of a class action lawsuit over underpaying and underpromoting women. June Grasso hosts
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm gonna fight my battle. I'm gonna deliver.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I'm gonna fight the witch hud. I'm gonna take care
of Clary my name, and I look forward to doing that.
Republican Congressman George Santos came out swinging after pleading not
guilty to a thirteen count federal indictment for what the
US attorney described as an audacious scheme. Santos is accused
of defrauding his donors, using political contributions to line his
(00:25):
own pockets, claiming unemployment benefits unlawfully, and lying to Congress.
Many of the allegations have already been revealed as Santos's
fabricated life story came to light, in which he lied
about nearly everything from his family background to his education
and work experience. Yet Santos seemed to be surprised at
(00:47):
the indictment. It's a witch hut because it makes no
sense that in four months, four months, five months, I'm indicted.
My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, Apart and
McCarter and English, just how serious are these charges against Santos?
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment charging representative George Santos of
New York with thirteen counts, including counts of money laundering,
stealing public money, wire fraud, and making false statements to Congress.
These are very serious charges that carry with them long
jail sentences, and when you take together all the allegations
(01:26):
that are in this twenty page indictment, they paint a
pretty damning portrait of someone who utilized various deceptions and
schemes to help them get elected to Congress and to
line his own pockets.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
The indictment comes less than five months after the Eastern
District of New York began their investigation, and Santo said,
it's a witch hunt because it makes no sense that
in four months, four months, five months, I'm indicted. How
fast is that?
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Well, that actually is pretty fast for prosecutors to put
a case like this together. Often these cases can take
more than a year as they go through complicated financial
records to put this type of financial fraud or political
corruption case together. But here they did it in five months,
which suggests to me that the evidence was fairly clear
that prosecutors were able to put together a case that
(02:16):
they believed was going to get them a conviction in
a relatively short time, primarily going through bank records and
financial statements, although it's also clear, based upon the allegations
in the indictment that they also interviewed several victims of
this scheme and they have some inside information not only
based upon the bank records, but also upon testimony of
(02:37):
witnesses who we can expect to be central to the
government's case at trial.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
So let's go through the indictment tell us about the
first alleged scheme and allegations of wire fraud and money laundering.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
This indictment is very detailed and include seven counts of
wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, two counts of
making false statements to the House of Representative, and one
count of best to public funds. The wirefraud of the
money laundering actually overlapped the various schemes that are charged
in the indictment, and basically this indictment comes down to
three schemes alleged by prosecutors. The first scheme alleges that
(03:14):
mister Santos was involved in a fraudulent political contribution scheme.
Prosecutors said mister Santos and an unnamed Queen's based political
consultant induced donors to give money to a limited liability
company he controlled. According to the indictment, he then used
the money for personal expenses, such as buying designer goods
and to payoff personal debts. The allegations in the complaint
(03:37):
don't identify by name the companies, the people, the investment firm,
or the contributors involved. Prosecutors never named victims or companies
that are alleged to be victims by name in indictments,
so they referred to as company number one, person number one,
contributor number one, et cetera. But as this case continues,
prosecutors will reveal who these individuals are, who these companies
(03:59):
are that will come out in discovery, and some in
the media have already figured out who these are based
upon the generalized descriptions in the indictment. So it's clear
that there is a lot going on here in this
first scheme, and prosecutors seem to have a lot of
evidence based on the allegations outlined in the indictment.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
The unemployment fraud claim is new and surprising. He applied
for unemployment insurance even though he was making one hundred
and twenty thousand dollars in annual salary.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Yeah, this is a new allegation that had not yet
come to light, despite a lot of media reports on
many statements that, according to reporters, were faults that were
made during the election and prior to the election. This
is a new scheme where in the indictment he's charged
with unemployment insurance fraud. Federal prosecutors say that in June
(04:47):
of twenty twenty, in the early months of the COVID
nineteen pandemic, mister Santos applied for government assistance in New
York even though at the time he was employed by
a Florida based investment firm, which appears to be a
company called Arbor City Capital, and he drew an annual
salary of one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. This is
one of those allegations that seem to be pretty clear cut.
(05:08):
It's something that prosecutors can fairly easily document because presumably
they have records of mister Santos making this application for
unemployment benefits. At the same time, they will have to
prove that he was employed by Harbor City Capital and
drawing the annual salary. That's the case. That's largely built
on records, and we can presume that prosecutors have gone
(05:29):
through those records and believe that this is a clear
cut case that they won't have much difficulty proving a trial.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
And yet Santos told a reporter outside the courthouse that
this was inaccurate information, and I don't understand where the
government is getting their information from. Well, the government is
getting their information from documents, right.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Well, that does seem to be what this is based on,
and it does answer the question why this indictment came
about in only five months. It is largely based on
financial records. It seems that prosecutors have gone through these bankqwreeks,
have gone through these applications that were made to government agencies,
and they put this together in a fairly solid way
so that they could bring this case quickly. Whenever prosecutors
(06:10):
bring any case, particularly cases involving political corruption, they always
want to proceed cautiously. They never want to pull the
trigger too early because they know that these cases are
going to get a lot of publicity. They know these
cases are going to be vigorously defended, and so they
don't want to move ahead until they believe they have
all the evidence necessary in order to bring these charges.
(06:32):
The fact that prosecutors moved so quickly here suggests that
they believe they have significant financial and documentary evidence that
they will be able to use to prove their case,
and that the defense will not be able to attack
because the records are what they are, and to the
extent the records conflict with one another, is going to
be very typical for the defense to attack them.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
And Santos is one of nearly three dozen Republicans sponsoring
legislation clamping down on the abuse of unemployment insurance, the
same type of fraud that Santos himself is now alleged
to have committed. So that's a bit of irony. Now,
the third scheme that Santos is accused of committing, lying
on congressional financial disclosure forms, will also be based on records.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
Yeah. The third scheme that's outlined in the indictment said
that mister Santos misled the House of Representatives about his
financial circumstances on disclosure statements required for federal candidates. Prosecutors
essentially accused him of overstating during his unsuccessful twenty twenty
campaign one source of income while failing to disclose the
salary from an investment firm that he worked at at
(07:40):
the same time. So he's basically accused of falsely reporting
his income in one case and overstating it in another. Again,
that is a case where prosecutors should be able to
show financial records in order to prove their case, and
you would think that this would be a fairly straightforward
case for prosecutors.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
The congressman's lawyer, Joe Murray, told reporters that he wants
to meet with prosecutors and quote, share what we've learned
and what we have. We have information that I think
they would be interested to see. Is that a likely scenario?
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Well, I thought it was interesting that mister Santos in
court was very deferential, very soft spoken, but when he
left the court room, he stood out on the courthouse steps.
I was really rather defiant. He said that he would
use this as an opportunity to prove his innocence. He
called the investigation a witch hunt. He said, I'm going
to fight this battle, I'm going to deliver, And basically
(08:33):
he pitched this as an opportunity that he'd been waiting
for to clear his name so he could move forward.
Because remember, not only is he refusing to resign from
a seat in Congress, but he's actively running for re
election at this point, So he is pitching this as
an opportunity to clear his name and trying to suggest
that prosecutors are falsely going after him on some kind
(08:53):
of witch hunt, although he's given no indication as to
why he would be singled out for this unfair treatment. Interestingly,
his lawyer was much more circumspect in terms of where
the case stands right now, and as you mentioned, he
talked about meeting with prosecutors sharing information with them. That's
kind of the standard playbook of the defense lawyer in
a circumstance like this, to meet with prosecutors to try
(09:15):
to flesh out the government's case a little more to
the extend, prosecutors will share that information. At this point,
they do have to provide discovery, so they do have
to really give the defense here an opportunity to see
not only what the charges are, but how the government's
going to prove those charges. They've got to provide the documents,
the bank records, statements by witnesses. But at the same time,
(09:35):
the defense has an opportunity to share with prosecutors what
it believes are some of the weaknesses in the government's case.
Usually this kind of back and forth goes on before
an indictment. Once it gets to this stage, prosecutors are
going to move forward with this case. It's exceedingly rare
that a defense lerner can ever go in there and
convince prosecutors to drop a case, and particularly a case
(09:56):
like this where there appears to be so much evidence
in prosecutes. I have put together three separate schemes, all
of which are standalone cases that they could bring really
without bringing the other cases. But here when they put
them all together, it does pain the picture of a
defendant who, according to prosecutors, would lie, would deceive, and
(10:18):
did all of this in order to win a seat
in Congress and also make money for himself at the
expense of taxpayers.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
It's always possible, But does it seem like a case
where a plea deal could be reached.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Well, a plea is always possible, particularly if the defendant
ultimately realizes that a conviction a trial is highly likely.
Prosecutors always give defendants an opportunity to plead to something
that is going to be more favorable than the outcome
if they had gone to trial and get convicted of
all counts. Now, at the end of the day, it's
always up to the judge as to what the sentence
(10:53):
will be, so prosecutors can never promise a particular sentence.
But generally speaking, if a defendant pleads guilty, they're going
to get a slightly better deal than if they go
to trial. Here, the charges are so serious that I
would never expect prosecutors to put anything on the table
that is not going to involve some significant jail time
that leaves the defendant in a difficult situation. Do they
(11:14):
roll the dice, Do they try to win a trial
and walk away with no jail time at all, or
do they risk a trial where they would face even
more jail time than if they take a plea deal.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Bob, what could his defense be? Does anything come to mind?
I didn't know. I didn't understand.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
There's a couple things that defense lawyer will deal and
look into this case. First of all, he will review
the evidence, so look at the documents and see whether
they are as clear cut as prosecutors claim, to see
whether there's language in there that he may be able
to exploit to suggest that this wrongdoing was not wilful.
There may have been mistakes made, but the mistakes were
not intentional, because prosecutors have to prove that all of
(11:53):
these crimes were done knowingly and wilfully. So that's one
strategy defense lawyers will use. Another is whether or not
somebody else may have been involved in submitting these falsified records.
There have been talk of a treasurer who was involved
in the Santos campaign. It's possible that the defense will
try to shift some of the blame onto others who
were not charged in this case and suggest that while
(12:14):
false documents were submitted to banks or possibly to the
House of Representatives, that it was done without mister Santos's
knowledge or complicity. So that's another area that a defense
lawyer will take a look at and try to use
as a possible defense here. Remember, the burden is always
on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense doesn't have to put on any case at all.
(12:36):
It bears no burden to prove its innocence, but they
can try to poke holes in the government's case to
at least raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of
some jurors as to whether or not the government has
met its burdens. So that also could be a strategy
we could see employed if this case ever gets to trial.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
If it goes to trial, could he defend himself without
taking the stand or is this the kind of case
where he really have to take the stand to establish
his defense, even though of course a defendant always has
the legal right not to testify.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
Often the strategy is to try to convince durers that
prosecutors have not met their burden of proof, to show
that the evidence that the government has produced does not
conclusively show that the defendant willfully and knowingly violated the law.
The difficulty here is that there's three separate schemes, and
so they have to convince jurors that, in three different occasions,
(13:34):
in three different schemes involving three different crimes, that all
of them were cases where the government has failed to
prove their case. That's going to be exceedingly difficult to
do unless mister Santos takes the stand in his own defense.
But that comes with its own list of perils, because
prosecutors have the opportunity to cross examine him and to
(13:54):
ask him lots of difficult questions that he will have
to try to look jurors in the eye and convince
them that he's telling the truth.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
I'll bet prosecutors would consider it a gift if they
could cross examine Santos. Oh, we'll have to see what happens.
How long before the case might go to trial.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Well, defense is entitled under federal law to a speedy trial.
That means is the defense wants this trial to go
within seventy days, they can force the government to try
the case that quickly. Usually the defense wants more time
to prepare their case, and judges will always give the
defendants more time because they don't want to have a
trial go forward and then have a court of appeals
(14:33):
find that the defense was not given adequate time to prepare. So,
depending upon the volume of these financial records, what the
evidence looks like, how much the defense has to go
through in order to prepare for trial, I think we
would not expect to see this case go to trial
before a year and perhaps longer.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Prosecutors said that Santo's face is as many as twenty
years in prison if convicted of the most serious charges,
but his likely sentence if he's convicted would be much
shorter than that, wouldn't it.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Yeah, So the way it works is that each of
these separate charges have a statutory maximum. So, for example,
wire fraud carries a maximum of twenty years in prison
unlawful monetary transactions. The money laundering carries a range of
a few years to decades in prison. Effect of public
money is a maximum sense of one year in prison.
(15:23):
But the practical reality is that if a defendant pleads guilty,
or of a defendant is convicted a trial, all of these
charges merge together, and then the federal sentencing guidelines really
control here, and that will wind up with a sentence
that is much less than these statutory maximums. So we're
not going to see a prison sentence of forty or
fifty years. Even if mister Santos is convicted a trial,
(15:46):
it would likely be something much lower than that, maybe
in the eight to ten year range if he goes
to trial and loses, and something slightly less than that
if he decides to take a plea deal. That's just
an estimate because it really depends on lots of factors,
how much money is involved, other aggravating factors that can
push up the sentencing guidelines more. But typically these are
(16:06):
cases that are not ten twenty years. It's something between
five and ten years in most of these political corruption cases.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
So Santos, as you mentioned, said he doesn't plan to
resign from Congress and that he is going to run
for reelection next year. I know it's rare for someone
to be kicked out of Congress, and it certainly won't
happen before a verdict in the case. But if there's
a guilty verdict, will he be kicked out of Congress?
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Well, it's interesting that no law prevents mister Santos from
continuing to serve in Congress even after this bombshell indictment.
That is something that is ultimately up to the House
of Representatives as to whether or not they want to
expel a member of the House. The history here is
that only twenty members since the beginning of the country
(16:51):
have actually been expelled from Congress. Five of those were
House members, and a number of those were done during
the Confederacy as a result of law or siding with
the Confederacy during the Civil War. Article one, section five
of the Constitution requires a two thirds vote to expel
a member, So it's going to take more than just
(17:12):
Republicans or more than just Democrats to remove them. It's
going to take a bipartisan vote to remove them from Congress. Historically,
what's happened is that a member is removed from any
committees they may be on once they're indicted. Now, in
this case, mister Sanchez has already been removed from committees
due to the false statements and the exaggerations that he
(17:33):
made during his campaign, so they can't remove them from that.
Usually what happens is once they're convicted, they either resign
or the House of Representatives will move to expel them.
Usually they resign, but there have been many members of
Congress who have been indicted who have continued to remain
in Congress while they fight those charges, and I think
(17:53):
that's what we're going to expect to see here.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
It will be interesting to see how the case develops
considering all the evidence that prosecutors have outlined in the indictment.
Santos will be back at the courthouse on June thirtieth
for another hearing and perhaps we'll learn more then. Thanks
so much for your insights, Bob. That's Robert Mints of
maccarter and English Goldman Sachs is shelling out two hundred
(18:17):
and fifteen million dollars to put an end to one
of Wall Street's biggest gender discrimination cases, a class action
where about twenty eight hundred female associates and vice presidents
accused the finance giant of systematically underpaying and under promoting women.
The settlement came just a few weeks ahead of a
trial that would have provided a window into the fabric
(18:39):
of Goldman's workplace and a rare public forum for testimony
about inequity inside the financial industry, where all but one
of the six biggest US banks have only ever been
run by men. It's been more than a decade of
litigation in one of the highest profile lawsuits over paid
disparity on Wall Street, where women have long complain that
(19:01):
unfair treatment can derail careers. Goldman denied wrongdoing and agreeing
to settle, it did agree to engage an independent expert
to conduct additional analysis on how it evaluates performance and
its process for promotion. Joining me is Dominique Camacho Moran,
head of the labor and employment practice at Faroh Fritz.
(19:22):
So tell us about this class action lawsuit that's been
going on since twenty ten.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
So interestingly, in twenty ten the lawsuit was filed, but
the action actually commenced before that when there was a
charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. So this
case has been around for a very long time. The
initial litigation began with a complaint. When it was filed
in twenty ten, it was filed as a class action,
(19:51):
and so as a result, there was an initial phase
of discovery and court decisions regarding whether the complaint should
proceed on on behalf of the one plaintiff who filed
the litigation or on behalf of all female employees who
were similarly situated. So as a result, it took longer
in that initial stage. Combine that with the pandemic and
(20:14):
cases that were not going to trial were looking at
a very lengthy window of discovery and preparation for.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
A trial date and explain what the allegations are in
the lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
So there were essentially three different kinds of allegations that
women were not evaluated on their performance fairly, that they
were not paid fairly, and that they were not promoted
in a fair way. And so all three issues are
similar but a little bit different. Women were paid less
(20:48):
allegedly than their male counterparts. Women were evaluated more harshly
allegedly than their male counterparts, and they were not promoted
for the same reasons as their male caait parts.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
The trial was scheduled for next month in New York,
so it would have been a public forum for testimony
about any quality inside the financial industry. The two sides
were racing to settle before trial. I can see why
the banks would want to settle before trial, but why
did the plaintiffs want to settle before trial?
Speaker 3 (21:21):
The plaintiff claim was not easy. When you look at
a claim of pay disparity or some sort of promotion discrimination,
the plaintiff has to establish that the reason why they
were paid less, the reason why they were not promoted
was because of their gender. That typically is not an
easy thing to establish because there are often many reasons,
(21:45):
and it's hard to establish that two employees are identical.
So not easy for the plaintiffs to go forward. It's
hard to make the claim that there's a pattern or
practice that Goldman intentionally was described dominating and intentionally paying
women less. The other thing is in a big organization,
(22:06):
the decision makers are likely numerous, and so the plaintiff
also has to establish that all of those decision makers
were engaged in some sort of systematic discrimination. That's a
hard thing for the plaintiffs to prove, and so to
avoid the risk that they don't meet the threshold, a
settlement was likely in their best interests.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
And what do you think about the amount of the settlement.
It's a big number, but the average payout may only
be about forty seven thousand dollars for each plaintiff after
deducting legal fees and costs.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
So according to news reports, there's about twenty eight hundred
women in the class. I think, based on the time
that has lapsed, the number is a number that will
allow meaningful dollars to go to each one of those
class members. Again, I think the challenges on a pattern
and practice case, which is what this was. It is
(23:03):
difficult for any one of those plaintiffs to establish that
the reason they were paid X and not hy was
solely based on their gender. The more important impact, though
than the dollar number, is the other components of the settlement.
Goldman has agreed that they will hire an expert to
help them analyze their pay practices, to go through and
(23:26):
analyze and to the extent necessary improve their performance review
process to look at, analyze, and make recommendations regarding their
promotion practice. Those are valuable and key and meaningful for
those that still work in the financial services industry.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
So for years Goldman and its peers have pledged to
diversify their ranks, but only twenty nine percent of Goldman's
current partners and managing directors are women. That may be
an improvement, but it's nowhere near equity.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
One of the really difficult things when you're looking at
diversifying employees at a variety of levels in an organization
is it takes time to build the people that are qualified,
and so it's hard to say that in any one
moment we have the group of people ready to go
who meet our diversity goals. It is, though, important that
(24:25):
we are looking at what is every individual organization's path
to promotion and helping organizations and employers learn to articulate
what is the path to promotion will ultimately yield better diversity.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
So what do you think this settlement stands forward?
Speaker 3 (24:43):
I think it is a reminder for every employer that
we need to be thoughtful and intentional about pay, promotion
and performance decisions. Too often in organizations, people that are
well liked to get very strong performance reviews, not that
they're not great performers, but it's critical that we are
evaluating everyone on the same criteria. So this decision should
(25:07):
be a reminder to every organization we need to establish
intentional practices when it comes to pay, promotion and performance.
I do think New York has taken steps towards making
sure that employers are intentional by passing the Pay Transparency Law.
That law is already enforced in New York City, it
(25:28):
will be enforced in New York State. That allows every
applicant for employment to know what is the range of pay.
That should allow the applicant and employees to have better
information about whether their employer is paying them fairly.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Mandatory arbitration agreements are all over the place, certainly in
this industry. Are you seeing an increasing wave of litigation
in this area rather than arbitration?
Speaker 3 (25:55):
So interesting that that issue sort of has a wave,
And so over the course of my there have been
moments where private arbitration was very popular and moments where
it's not. Generally speaking, private arbitration benefits all of the
parties who don't want their claims to become a cause
celeb They want to address the issues that have harmed them,
(26:18):
and they are much less interested in creating new law
or any sort of lasting conversation or narrative around the issue.
I am at the moment, arbitration is back in vogue.
Lots of people would like to do private arbitration. Today,
it is more of a choice because most organizations wait
(26:39):
until there is some sort of claim before having an
agreement to privately arbitrate. Again, that is a consequence of
New York State's sexual harassment law. In the aftermath of
the last Me Too movement, there was a move to
make arbitration more difficult. If you agree at the beginning
of employment to they at the end of employment, you
(27:01):
can agree that if we have a dispute, we'll go
to arbitration. It's quicker, it's less expensive, and it's private.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
I know you represent employers, but usually the complaint from
plaintiff's attorneys is that plaintiffs don't fare as well in
arbitrations as they would before a jury.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
I don't think there are studies that would say that
that is the case. I certainly understand that could be
a perception, but for all the parties the speed with
which issues get resolved, and arbitrators are subject to doing
and following the law. And while their decisions are not
appealable just because they got it wrong, an arbitrator that
(27:43):
gets it really wrong is subject to review. And so
for plaintiffs they are within the scope of they should
bear the same and they should be better served by
the speed with which their issues are resolved.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
You mentioned the Meat too movement. How is the Meat
two movement influenced this area?
Speaker 3 (28:03):
In the last five years, we have seen a push
with new legislation that benefits women in the workplace, and
we're seeing improvement. It's not the kind of improvement everybody
would like to see overnight, but the pay disparity is
smaller today than it was five years ago. And in
the aftermath of Me Too, we saw changes to the
sexual harassment law that gave employees more power when it
(28:26):
came to arbitration. It gave employees more power when it
came to confidentiality agreements. We also have seen in the
wake of that movement this move on pay transparency and
pay equity. Pay transparency is designed to address pay inequity
and so that will allow us another step. We also
(28:46):
saw a change in the law that precludes employers in
New York City from asking about salary history. That too,
was designed to address pay inequity. So the me Too
movement was the start of another wave of strong legislation
designed to address the issues that women face in the workplace.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
And what are you advising companies to do in this area?
Speaker 3 (29:11):
So Goldman is an opportunity for every organization to step
back to evaluate pay practices, and I ask employers to
do a self audit regularly. That might not be every month,
but certainly on an annual or a biannual basis. We
want them to look at job classifications, what they're paying
(29:33):
people and make sure there's no disparity or pattern that
means any one group of people is being paid less
than another. The second thing is training of supervisors, managers,
and executives. That's the key to avoiding promotion and performance discrimination.
We need to educate those supervisors and executives on how
(29:56):
to be consistent and intentional in what they are evaluating.
One of the things that we sometimes forget is promotions
oftentimes are based on someone's prior performance. Just because someone
has been a great performer, doesn't mean they're a great manager.
So we need to make sure we're doing the training
and giving those new managers the tools to ensure they
(30:19):
are engaging in intentional practices when it comes to pay,
performance and promotion.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Thanks so much for being on the Bloomberg Law Show.
That's Dominique Camacho Moran, a partner Farah Fritz, and that's
it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
you can always get the latest legal news by listening
to our Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso and you're
listening to Bloomberg
I'm gonna fight my battle. I'm gonna deliver.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I'm gonna fight the witch hud. I'm gonna take care
of Clary my name, and I look forward to doing that.
Republican Congressman George Santos came out swinging after pleading not
guilty to a thirteen count federal indictment for what the
US attorney described as an audacious scheme. Santos is accused
of defrauding his donors, using political contributions to line his
(00:25):
own pockets, claiming unemployment benefits unlawfully, and lying to Congress.
Many of the allegations have already been revealed as Santos's
fabricated life story came to light, in which he lied
about nearly everything from his family background to his education
and work experience. Yet Santos seemed to be surprised at
(00:47):
the indictment. It's a witch hut because it makes no
sense that in four months, four months, five months, I'm indicted.
My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, Apart and
McCarter and English, just how serious are these charges against Santos?
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment charging representative George Santos of
New York with thirteen counts, including counts of money laundering,
stealing public money, wire fraud, and making false statements to Congress.
These are very serious charges that carry with them long
jail sentences, and when you take together all the allegations
(01:26):
that are in this twenty page indictment, they paint a
pretty damning portrait of someone who utilized various deceptions and
schemes to help them get elected to Congress and to
line his own pockets.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
The indictment comes less than five months after the Eastern
District of New York began their investigation, and Santo said,
it's a witch hunt because it makes no sense that
in four months, four months, five months, I'm indicted. How
fast is that?
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Well, that actually is pretty fast for prosecutors to put
a case like this together. Often these cases can take
more than a year as they go through complicated financial
records to put this type of financial fraud or political
corruption case together. But here they did it in five months,
which suggests to me that the evidence was fairly clear
that prosecutors were able to put together a case that
(02:16):
they believed was going to get them a conviction in
a relatively short time, primarily going through bank records and
financial statements, although it's also clear, based upon the allegations
in the indictment that they also interviewed several victims of
this scheme and they have some inside information not only
based upon the bank records, but also upon testimony of
(02:37):
witnesses who we can expect to be central to the
government's case at trial.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
So let's go through the indictment tell us about the
first alleged scheme and allegations of wire fraud and money laundering.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
This indictment is very detailed and include seven counts of
wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, two counts of
making false statements to the House of Representative, and one
count of best to public funds. The wirefraud of the
money laundering actually overlapped the various schemes that are charged
in the indictment, and basically this indictment comes down to
three schemes alleged by prosecutors. The first scheme alleges that
(03:14):
mister Santos was involved in a fraudulent political contribution scheme.
Prosecutors said mister Santos and an unnamed Queen's based political
consultant induced donors to give money to a limited liability
company he controlled. According to the indictment, he then used
the money for personal expenses, such as buying designer goods
and to payoff personal debts. The allegations in the complaint
(03:37):
don't identify by name the companies, the people, the investment firm,
or the contributors involved. Prosecutors never named victims or companies
that are alleged to be victims by name in indictments,
so they referred to as company number one, person number one,
contributor number one, et cetera. But as this case continues,
prosecutors will reveal who these individuals are, who these companies
(03:59):
are that will come out in discovery, and some in
the media have already figured out who these are based
upon the generalized descriptions in the indictment. So it's clear
that there is a lot going on here in this
first scheme, and prosecutors seem to have a lot of
evidence based on the allegations outlined in the indictment.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
The unemployment fraud claim is new and surprising. He applied
for unemployment insurance even though he was making one hundred
and twenty thousand dollars in annual salary.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Yeah, this is a new allegation that had not yet
come to light, despite a lot of media reports on
many statements that, according to reporters, were faults that were
made during the election and prior to the election. This
is a new scheme where in the indictment he's charged
with unemployment insurance fraud. Federal prosecutors say that in June
(04:47):
of twenty twenty, in the early months of the COVID
nineteen pandemic, mister Santos applied for government assistance in New
York even though at the time he was employed by
a Florida based investment firm, which appears to be a
company called Arbor City Capital, and he drew an annual
salary of one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. This is
one of those allegations that seem to be pretty clear cut.
(05:08):
It's something that prosecutors can fairly easily document because presumably
they have records of mister Santos making this application for
unemployment benefits. At the same time, they will have to
prove that he was employed by Harbor City Capital and
drawing the annual salary. That's the case. That's largely built
on records, and we can presume that prosecutors have gone
(05:29):
through those records and believe that this is a clear
cut case that they won't have much difficulty proving a trial.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
And yet Santos told a reporter outside the courthouse that
this was inaccurate information, and I don't understand where the
government is getting their information from. Well, the government is
getting their information from documents, right.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Well, that does seem to be what this is based on,
and it does answer the question why this indictment came
about in only five months. It is largely based on
financial records. It seems that prosecutors have gone through these bankqwreeks,
have gone through these applications that were made to government agencies,
and they put this together in a fairly solid way
so that they could bring this case quickly. Whenever prosecutors
(06:10):
bring any case, particularly cases involving political corruption, they always
want to proceed cautiously. They never want to pull the
trigger too early because they know that these cases are
going to get a lot of publicity. They know these
cases are going to be vigorously defended, and so they
don't want to move ahead until they believe they have
all the evidence necessary in order to bring these charges.
(06:32):
The fact that prosecutors moved so quickly here suggests that
they believe they have significant financial and documentary evidence that
they will be able to use to prove their case,
and that the defense will not be able to attack
because the records are what they are, and to the
extent the records conflict with one another, is going to
be very typical for the defense to attack them.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
And Santos is one of nearly three dozen Republicans sponsoring
legislation clamping down on the abuse of unemployment insurance, the
same type of fraud that Santos himself is now alleged
to have committed. So that's a bit of irony. Now,
the third scheme that Santos is accused of committing, lying
on congressional financial disclosure forms, will also be based on records.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
Yeah. The third scheme that's outlined in the indictment said
that mister Santos misled the House of Representatives about his
financial circumstances on disclosure statements required for federal candidates. Prosecutors
essentially accused him of overstating during his unsuccessful twenty twenty
campaign one source of income while failing to disclose the
salary from an investment firm that he worked at at
(07:40):
the same time. So he's basically accused of falsely reporting
his income in one case and overstating it in another. Again,
that is a case where prosecutors should be able to
show financial records in order to prove their case, and
you would think that this would be a fairly straightforward
case for prosecutors.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
The congressman's lawyer, Joe Murray, told reporters that he wants
to meet with prosecutors and quote, share what we've learned
and what we have. We have information that I think
they would be interested to see. Is that a likely scenario?
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Well, I thought it was interesting that mister Santos in
court was very deferential, very soft spoken, but when he
left the court room, he stood out on the courthouse steps.
I was really rather defiant. He said that he would
use this as an opportunity to prove his innocence. He
called the investigation a witch hunt. He said, I'm going
to fight this battle, I'm going to deliver, And basically
(08:33):
he pitched this as an opportunity that he'd been waiting
for to clear his name so he could move forward.
Because remember, not only is he refusing to resign from
a seat in Congress, but he's actively running for re
election at this point, So he is pitching this as
an opportunity to clear his name and trying to suggest
that prosecutors are falsely going after him on some kind
(08:53):
of witch hunt, although he's given no indication as to
why he would be singled out for this unfair treatment. Interestingly,
his lawyer was much more circumspect in terms of where
the case stands right now, and as you mentioned, he
talked about meeting with prosecutors sharing information with them. That's
kind of the standard playbook of the defense lawyer in
a circumstance like this, to meet with prosecutors to try
(09:15):
to flesh out the government's case a little more to
the extend, prosecutors will share that information. At this point,
they do have to provide discovery, so they do have
to really give the defense here an opportunity to see
not only what the charges are, but how the government's
going to prove those charges. They've got to provide the documents,
the bank records, statements by witnesses. But at the same time,
(09:35):
the defense has an opportunity to share with prosecutors what
it believes are some of the weaknesses in the government's case.
Usually this kind of back and forth goes on before
an indictment. Once it gets to this stage, prosecutors are
going to move forward with this case. It's exceedingly rare
that a defense lerner can ever go in there and
convince prosecutors to drop a case, and particularly a case
(09:56):
like this where there appears to be so much evidence
in prosecutes. I have put together three separate schemes, all
of which are standalone cases that they could bring really
without bringing the other cases. But here when they put
them all together, it does pain the picture of a
defendant who, according to prosecutors, would lie, would deceive, and
(10:18):
did all of this in order to win a seat
in Congress and also make money for himself at the
expense of taxpayers.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
It's always possible, But does it seem like a case
where a plea deal could be reached.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Well, a plea is always possible, particularly if the defendant
ultimately realizes that a conviction a trial is highly likely.
Prosecutors always give defendants an opportunity to plead to something
that is going to be more favorable than the outcome
if they had gone to trial and get convicted of
all counts. Now, at the end of the day, it's
always up to the judge as to what the sentence
(10:53):
will be, so prosecutors can never promise a particular sentence.
But generally speaking, if a defendant pleads guilty, they're going
to get a slightly better deal than if they go
to trial. Here, the charges are so serious that I
would never expect prosecutors to put anything on the table
that is not going to involve some significant jail time
that leaves the defendant in a difficult situation. Do they
(11:14):
roll the dice, Do they try to win a trial
and walk away with no jail time at all, or
do they risk a trial where they would face even
more jail time than if they take a plea deal.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Bob, what could his defense be? Does anything come to mind?
I didn't know. I didn't understand.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
There's a couple things that defense lawyer will deal and
look into this case. First of all, he will review
the evidence, so look at the documents and see whether
they are as clear cut as prosecutors claim, to see
whether there's language in there that he may be able
to exploit to suggest that this wrongdoing was not wilful.
There may have been mistakes made, but the mistakes were
not intentional, because prosecutors have to prove that all of
(11:53):
these crimes were done knowingly and wilfully. So that's one
strategy defense lawyers will use. Another is whether or not
somebody else may have been involved in submitting these falsified records.
There have been talk of a treasurer who was involved
in the Santos campaign. It's possible that the defense will
try to shift some of the blame onto others who
were not charged in this case and suggest that while
(12:14):
false documents were submitted to banks or possibly to the
House of Representatives, that it was done without mister Santos's
knowledge or complicity. So that's another area that a defense
lawyer will take a look at and try to use
as a possible defense here. Remember, the burden is always
on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense doesn't have to put on any case at all.
(12:36):
It bears no burden to prove its innocence, but they
can try to poke holes in the government's case to
at least raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of
some jurors as to whether or not the government has
met its burdens. So that also could be a strategy
we could see employed if this case ever gets to trial.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
If it goes to trial, could he defend himself without
taking the stand or is this the kind of case
where he really have to take the stand to establish
his defense, even though of course a defendant always has
the legal right not to testify.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
Often the strategy is to try to convince durers that
prosecutors have not met their burden of proof, to show
that the evidence that the government has produced does not
conclusively show that the defendant willfully and knowingly violated the law.
The difficulty here is that there's three separate schemes, and
so they have to convince jurors that, in three different occasions,
(13:34):
in three different schemes involving three different crimes, that all
of them were cases where the government has failed to
prove their case. That's going to be exceedingly difficult to
do unless mister Santos takes the stand in his own defense.
But that comes with its own list of perils, because
prosecutors have the opportunity to cross examine him and to
(13:54):
ask him lots of difficult questions that he will have
to try to look jurors in the eye and convince
them that he's telling the truth.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
I'll bet prosecutors would consider it a gift if they
could cross examine Santos. Oh, we'll have to see what happens.
How long before the case might go to trial.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Well, defense is entitled under federal law to a speedy trial.
That means is the defense wants this trial to go
within seventy days, they can force the government to try
the case that quickly. Usually the defense wants more time
to prepare their case, and judges will always give the
defendants more time because they don't want to have a
trial go forward and then have a court of appeals
(14:33):
find that the defense was not given adequate time to prepare. So,
depending upon the volume of these financial records, what the
evidence looks like, how much the defense has to go
through in order to prepare for trial, I think we
would not expect to see this case go to trial
before a year and perhaps longer.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Prosecutors said that Santo's face is as many as twenty
years in prison if convicted of the most serious charges,
but his likely sentence if he's convicted would be much
shorter than that, wouldn't it.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Yeah, So the way it works is that each of
these separate charges have a statutory maximum. So, for example,
wire fraud carries a maximum of twenty years in prison
unlawful monetary transactions. The money laundering carries a range of
a few years to decades in prison. Effect of public
money is a maximum sense of one year in prison.
(15:23):
But the practical reality is that if a defendant pleads guilty,
or of a defendant is convicted a trial, all of these
charges merge together, and then the federal sentencing guidelines really
control here, and that will wind up with a sentence
that is much less than these statutory maximums. So we're
not going to see a prison sentence of forty or
fifty years. Even if mister Santos is convicted a trial,
(15:46):
it would likely be something much lower than that, maybe
in the eight to ten year range if he goes
to trial and loses, and something slightly less than that
if he decides to take a plea deal. That's just
an estimate because it really depends on lots of factors,
how much money is involved, other aggravating factors that can
push up the sentencing guidelines more. But typically these are
(16:06):
cases that are not ten twenty years. It's something between
five and ten years in most of these political corruption cases.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
So Santos, as you mentioned, said he doesn't plan to
resign from Congress and that he is going to run
for reelection next year. I know it's rare for someone
to be kicked out of Congress, and it certainly won't
happen before a verdict in the case. But if there's
a guilty verdict, will he be kicked out of Congress?
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Well, it's interesting that no law prevents mister Santos from
continuing to serve in Congress even after this bombshell indictment.
That is something that is ultimately up to the House
of Representatives as to whether or not they want to
expel a member of the House. The history here is
that only twenty members since the beginning of the country
(16:51):
have actually been expelled from Congress. Five of those were
House members, and a number of those were done during
the Confederacy as a result of law or siding with
the Confederacy during the Civil War. Article one, section five
of the Constitution requires a two thirds vote to expel
a member, So it's going to take more than just
(17:12):
Republicans or more than just Democrats to remove them. It's
going to take a bipartisan vote to remove them from Congress. Historically,
what's happened is that a member is removed from any
committees they may be on once they're indicted. Now, in
this case, mister Sanchez has already been removed from committees
due to the false statements and the exaggerations that he
(17:33):
made during his campaign, so they can't remove them from that.
Usually what happens is once they're convicted, they either resign
or the House of Representatives will move to expel them.
Usually they resign, but there have been many members of
Congress who have been indicted who have continued to remain
in Congress while they fight those charges, and I think
(17:53):
that's what we're going to expect to see here.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
It will be interesting to see how the case develops
considering all the evidence that prosecutors have outlined in the indictment.
Santos will be back at the courthouse on June thirtieth
for another hearing and perhaps we'll learn more then. Thanks
so much for your insights, Bob. That's Robert Mints of
maccarter and English Goldman Sachs is shelling out two hundred
(18:17):
and fifteen million dollars to put an end to one
of Wall Street's biggest gender discrimination cases, a class action
where about twenty eight hundred female associates and vice presidents
accused the finance giant of systematically underpaying and under promoting women.
The settlement came just a few weeks ahead of a
trial that would have provided a window into the fabric
(18:39):
of Goldman's workplace and a rare public forum for testimony
about inequity inside the financial industry, where all but one
of the six biggest US banks have only ever been
run by men. It's been more than a decade of
litigation in one of the highest profile lawsuits over paid
disparity on Wall Street, where women have long complain that
(19:01):
unfair treatment can derail careers. Goldman denied wrongdoing and agreeing
to settle, it did agree to engage an independent expert
to conduct additional analysis on how it evaluates performance and
its process for promotion. Joining me is Dominique Camacho Moran,
head of the labor and employment practice at Faroh Fritz.
(19:22):
So tell us about this class action lawsuit that's been
going on since twenty ten.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
So interestingly, in twenty ten the lawsuit was filed, but
the action actually commenced before that when there was a
charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. So this
case has been around for a very long time. The
initial litigation began with a complaint. When it was filed
in twenty ten, it was filed as a class action,
(19:51):
and so as a result, there was an initial phase
of discovery and court decisions regarding whether the complaint should
proceed on on behalf of the one plaintiff who filed
the litigation or on behalf of all female employees who
were similarly situated. So as a result, it took longer
in that initial stage. Combine that with the pandemic and
(20:14):
cases that were not going to trial were looking at
a very lengthy window of discovery and preparation for.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
A trial date and explain what the allegations are in
the lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
So there were essentially three different kinds of allegations that
women were not evaluated on their performance fairly, that they
were not paid fairly, and that they were not promoted
in a fair way. And so all three issues are
similar but a little bit different. Women were paid less
(20:48):
allegedly than their male counterparts. Women were evaluated more harshly
allegedly than their male counterparts, and they were not promoted
for the same reasons as their male caait parts.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
The trial was scheduled for next month in New York,
so it would have been a public forum for testimony
about any quality inside the financial industry. The two sides
were racing to settle before trial. I can see why
the banks would want to settle before trial, but why
did the plaintiffs want to settle before trial?
Speaker 3 (21:21):
The plaintiff claim was not easy. When you look at
a claim of pay disparity or some sort of promotion discrimination,
the plaintiff has to establish that the reason why they
were paid less, the reason why they were not promoted
was because of their gender. That typically is not an
easy thing to establish because there are often many reasons,
(21:45):
and it's hard to establish that two employees are identical.
So not easy for the plaintiffs to go forward. It's
hard to make the claim that there's a pattern or
practice that Goldman intentionally was described dominating and intentionally paying
women less. The other thing is in a big organization,
(22:06):
the decision makers are likely numerous, and so the plaintiff
also has to establish that all of those decision makers
were engaged in some sort of systematic discrimination. That's a
hard thing for the plaintiffs to prove, and so to
avoid the risk that they don't meet the threshold, a
settlement was likely in their best interests.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
And what do you think about the amount of the settlement.
It's a big number, but the average payout may only
be about forty seven thousand dollars for each plaintiff after
deducting legal fees and costs.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
So according to news reports, there's about twenty eight hundred
women in the class. I think, based on the time
that has lapsed, the number is a number that will
allow meaningful dollars to go to each one of those
class members. Again, I think the challenges on a pattern
and practice case, which is what this was. It is
(23:03):
difficult for any one of those plaintiffs to establish that
the reason they were paid X and not hy was
solely based on their gender. The more important impact, though
than the dollar number, is the other components of the settlement.
Goldman has agreed that they will hire an expert to
help them analyze their pay practices, to go through and
(23:26):
analyze and to the extent necessary improve their performance review
process to look at, analyze, and make recommendations regarding their
promotion practice. Those are valuable and key and meaningful for
those that still work in the financial services industry.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
So for years Goldman and its peers have pledged to
diversify their ranks, but only twenty nine percent of Goldman's
current partners and managing directors are women. That may be
an improvement, but it's nowhere near equity.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
One of the really difficult things when you're looking at
diversifying employees at a variety of levels in an organization
is it takes time to build the people that are qualified,
and so it's hard to say that in any one
moment we have the group of people ready to go
who meet our diversity goals. It is, though, important that
(24:25):
we are looking at what is every individual organization's path
to promotion and helping organizations and employers learn to articulate
what is the path to promotion will ultimately yield better diversity.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
So what do you think this settlement stands forward?
Speaker 3 (24:43):
I think it is a reminder for every employer that
we need to be thoughtful and intentional about pay, promotion
and performance decisions. Too often in organizations, people that are
well liked to get very strong performance reviews, not that
they're not great performers, but it's critical that we are
evaluating everyone on the same criteria. So this decision should
(25:07):
be a reminder to every organization we need to establish
intentional practices when it comes to pay, promotion and performance.
I do think New York has taken steps towards making
sure that employers are intentional by passing the Pay Transparency Law.
That law is already enforced in New York City, it
(25:28):
will be enforced in New York State. That allows every
applicant for employment to know what is the range of pay.
That should allow the applicant and employees to have better
information about whether their employer is paying them fairly.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Mandatory arbitration agreements are all over the place, certainly in
this industry. Are you seeing an increasing wave of litigation
in this area rather than arbitration?
Speaker 3 (25:55):
So interesting that that issue sort of has a wave,
And so over the course of my there have been
moments where private arbitration was very popular and moments where
it's not. Generally speaking, private arbitration benefits all of the
parties who don't want their claims to become a cause
celeb They want to address the issues that have harmed them,
(26:18):
and they are much less interested in creating new law
or any sort of lasting conversation or narrative around the issue.
I am at the moment, arbitration is back in vogue.
Lots of people would like to do private arbitration. Today,
it is more of a choice because most organizations wait
(26:39):
until there is some sort of claim before having an
agreement to privately arbitrate. Again, that is a consequence of
New York State's sexual harassment law. In the aftermath of
the last Me Too movement, there was a move to
make arbitration more difficult. If you agree at the beginning
of employment to they at the end of employment, you
(27:01):
can agree that if we have a dispute, we'll go
to arbitration. It's quicker, it's less expensive, and it's private.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
I know you represent employers, but usually the complaint from
plaintiff's attorneys is that plaintiffs don't fare as well in
arbitrations as they would before a jury.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
I don't think there are studies that would say that
that is the case. I certainly understand that could be
a perception, but for all the parties the speed with
which issues get resolved, and arbitrators are subject to doing
and following the law. And while their decisions are not
appealable just because they got it wrong, an arbitrator that
(27:43):
gets it really wrong is subject to review. And so
for plaintiffs they are within the scope of they should
bear the same and they should be better served by
the speed with which their issues are resolved.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
You mentioned the Meat too movement. How is the Meat
two movement influenced this area?
Speaker 3 (28:03):
In the last five years, we have seen a push
with new legislation that benefits women in the workplace, and
we're seeing improvement. It's not the kind of improvement everybody
would like to see overnight, but the pay disparity is
smaller today than it was five years ago. And in
the aftermath of Me Too, we saw changes to the
sexual harassment law that gave employees more power when it
(28:26):
came to arbitration. It gave employees more power when it
came to confidentiality agreements. We also have seen in the
wake of that movement this move on pay transparency and
pay equity. Pay transparency is designed to address pay inequity
and so that will allow us another step. We also
(28:46):
saw a change in the law that precludes employers in
New York City from asking about salary history. That too,
was designed to address pay inequity. So the me Too
movement was the start of another wave of strong legislation
designed to address the issues that women face in the workplace.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
And what are you advising companies to do in this area?
Speaker 3 (29:11):
So Goldman is an opportunity for every organization to step
back to evaluate pay practices, and I ask employers to
do a self audit regularly. That might not be every month,
but certainly on an annual or a biannual basis. We
want them to look at job classifications, what they're paying
(29:33):
people and make sure there's no disparity or pattern that
means any one group of people is being paid less
than another. The second thing is training of supervisors, managers,
and executives. That's the key to avoiding promotion and performance discrimination.
We need to educate those supervisors and executives on how
(29:56):
to be consistent and intentional in what they are evaluating.
One of the things that we sometimes forget is promotions
oftentimes are based on someone's prior performance. Just because someone
has been a great performer, doesn't mean they're a great manager.
So we need to make sure we're doing the training
and giving those new managers the tools to ensure they
(30:19):
are engaging in intentional practices when it comes to pay,
performance and promotion.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Thanks so much for being on the Bloomberg Law Show.
That's Dominique Camacho Moran, a partner Farah Fritz, and that's
it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
you can always get the latest legal news by listening
to our Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso and you're
listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com