Paula Dean Fired By Food Network Over Racial Slur

and I also believe that you have been caught claiming that " paula dean has not been exonerated" is a meaningful statement when Paula Dean has never been convicted and thus could not possible have been exonerated even under your arguement of how the system exonerates.

as per usual you are playing fast and loose with words because you believe that some idiot somewhere will be swayed by your BS.

No, I said the ruling does not vindicate Paula Deen.

You're playing fast and loose with words...

does anyone want to talk about the Lawsuit being dropped? About the plaintiff walking away with nothing, not even an apology?

Isn't she still fired and her empire gone?

The lawsuit wasn't dropped, it was apparently settled between the parties.

We don't know what the plaintiff got, and it's likely to remain confidential. But, if she settled, you can be sure she probably got an amount she was happy with. The sexual harassment claims were fairly strong, and Deen's brother admitted to engaging in such behavior.

And Deen has said she will now review all policies in her restaurants to make sure that everything is appropriate.

she did not get money or a public appology, we know that.

She lost a lot of her contracts and endorsements, so her earnings are certainly diminished. It remains to be seen what she'll be able to re-gain.

She could have avoided all of this by paying the woman who brought the lawsuit $1,5 million not to file it--that's what the woman wanted. It would have been considerably less costly for Deen to have paid her that amount, rather than have all of this made public, as a result of the lawsuit.

You know no such thing.

The racial discrimination charges were dismissed because Jackson didn't have the legal standing to make the claim.

The sexual harassment claims were not dismissed, they were dropped by mutual agreement--that's legal speak meaning they reached a settlement between the parties, and money was involved. You'll just never know how much money. Because the case was settled, the entire lawsuit is now dismissed.

Who should apologize to whom? Deen's brother admitted the sexual harassment in his depositions. Paula will publicly acknowledge no wrong-doing, and her main fault was allowing her brother to behave like a pig toward women in the restaurant workplace, but she's agreed to a settlement with Jackson because the damage would be worse if this continued to trial with even more negative publicity for her--and her new legal team likely advised her of that, and advised her to settle to end the matter. Jackson has no reason to apologize. She didn't do anything wrong in filing her lawsuit.

And now Jackson is saying nice things about Paula...she's giving Paula cover by saying she wasn't really aware of what was going on in her restaurants.

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-paula-deen-accuser-statement-20130823,0,1509652.story

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-paula-deen-accuser-statement-20130823,0,1509652.story

That simply means neither side has to pay the other side's legal costs or legal fees. It does not refer to the actual terms of the settlement, which are likely to remain confidential.

The lawsuit was settled, by mutual agreement, and it definitely would involve a monetary settlement with Jackson. And judging by the nice things Jackson is now saying about Deen, I'm sure she got an amount she's very happy with.

documentation of my claim that Dean intended to build a Martha Stewart type empire

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-paula-deen-20130824,0,7563071.story

http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2013-08-23/lawyers-file-proposed-settlement-paula-deen-case

I am betting that there was zero financial transfer, the at the end plantiff lawyers were happy to get away with nothing, considering their unprofessional behavior. Was the judge ever going to let them financially prosper from their sleaze? The case had been gutted, may as well walk away, and to hell with the plaintiff.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. And that's not unusual for you, particularly on legal matters.

The plaintiff's lawyer's behavior has nothing to do with the validity or the strength of the plaintiff's charges in her lawsuit, nor is the plaintiff responsible for the professional conduct of her lawyer. None of that has anything to do with any kind of settlement. A plaintiff can still get an extremely hefty settlement. the settlement depends on how much the defendant is willing to pay out to stop it from going to trial and a verdict. Any sanctions for unprofessional conduct are made against the lawyer, not the lawyer's client.

The case was not "gutted" the racial discrimination charges were dismissed. But the sexual harassment was what had affected Jackson directly--and Deen's brother admitted to doing it. So Jackson would have won that at trial, and Deen had to pay a settlement large enough to make it worthwhile for Jackson not to go to trial.

Jackson wanted $1.5 million not to file this lawsuit in the first place. I suspect she got at least that much now to settle it, because Deen really doesn't want any more negative publicity, and if the sexual harassment charges had gone to trial, it would have been all over the media that Paula supported porn in the workplace, and tolerated demeaning behavior toward women in the workplace, etc. Paula gave Jackson whatever she wanted to end this and get it over with. And, in exchange, Paula likely got a confidentiality agreement so that Jackson can't discuss the settlement, but it probably prohibits Jackson from publicly discussing the case, and the charges of sexual harassment, at all. So I don't think we're likely to see Jackson blabbing to the media about the specifics of the case, or the settlement.

And that's why Jackson is now a happy camper who is saying nice things about Paula and giving her cover by blaming it all on Bubba and saying that Paula really didn't know what was going on in her restaurants. Right, sure. Paula knows what her brother is like, and he just cost her a load of money because of his boorish behavior in the workplace.

You are very naive if you don't think Lisa Jackson isn't enjoying a very big payday from this settlement. She won. She got Paula to pay her a settlement without even having to go through the trial, and waiting for a verdict, to get it. A settlement is a win for the plaintiff.

But then, you didn't even realize the case had been settled, so your naivety shouldn't come as a surprise.

Dean is no longer seaking sanctions agaist consul for the plaintiff, which may well be all that plaintiff got for dropping the suit. I am thinking that plaintiff herself had libility for defamation, which she is now out from under. Dean has top notch lawyers, and plaintiff was losing badly, walking away with no money but no liabilty might have looked like a win at the end. Maybe Dean letting planintiff off of the hook is what she is so gracious about.

DEEN"S BROTHER ADMITTED TO DOING WHAT JACKSON ACCUSED HIM OF.

The plaintiff is in no way responsible for her lawyer's behavior. So you might as well drop that line of reasoning--it doesn't make sense.

The plaintiff could have won on the sexual harassment claims even without the services of a lawyer--the defendant admitted to the charges. How you manage to twist this into "plaintiff was losing badly" is quite a feat of distortion and illogical thought.

The plaintiff didn't defame Paula Deen. I have no idea where you're getting that from. No one has accused Jackson of alleging things in her suit that were not true.

It was Jackson who got Deen off the hook by agreeing to the settlement, and Deen had to give her enough money to make that worth her while. It was Deen who could not afford all the bad publicity that would have come from a trial--it would have completely finished her off. She had to pay Jackson a hefty amount to end this now. It was Deen who needed this over ASAP. And to do that, she'd have to meet Jackson's terms, in terms of a financial amount.

You just don't get it. A settlement is a win for the plaintiff--and it's a sure thing, without having to go through a trial and waiting for a verdict. Jackson was never on the hook. It's Deen who has been hemorrhaging money because of the negative fall-out from this suit, and that's why she had to pay Jackson off and end it. She probably should have done that in the first place to keep the suit from ever being filed. Jackson won this one--that's why she can afford to be gracious to Paula now.

$Millions worth a thousand words. Old Asian saying.
Many millions worth mansion and fancy cars - and words of forgiveness.

settlement is for defendent unless plaintiff is guilty of misconduct, as they were here. in this case we should not assume that dropping the case got plaintiff anything but promises that she would not be sued.

The plaintiff is not guilty of misconduct.

The plaintiff is not responsible for her lawyer's behavior.

A settlement is a win for the plaintiff. It's a payoff by the defendant to avoid a trial and a judgment after trial.

There are no grounds for suing the plaintiff.

You generally don't know what you are talking about when it comes to legal issues and legal cases, but your comments about this one are particularly absurd.

You really shouldn't comment on things you clearly don't understand. You only wind up sounding like a jerk.

Jackson won this one.

Trust me when I say hawk doesn't know much of anything. When I challenge him to cut and paste from any of my post on issues he claims I was in error has never been provided, and I have over 86,000 posts on a2k.

He's all hat and no cattle.

the sexual harassment part of the suit was always a stretch because she worked for Dean for so long and did very well for herself while with Dean. I think we will see that the sexual harassment claim had the same problem as her racial discrimination claim....the complete inability to show any personal damages.