After $84K Farenthold settlement, Congress makes lawmakers foot sexual harassment bills

[TexasTowelie]

WASHINGTON – Less than a year after Corpus Christi Republican Blake Farenthold left Congress behind with an $84,000 settlement for sexual harassment, the House and Senate have agreed to make lawmakers pay their own misconduct judgments.

The legislation, which the House and Senate each passed unanimously on Thursday, caps a year of acrimonious debate over how to handle sexual harassment claims on Capitol Hill.

Under the terms of a bipartisan deal reached this week, members of the House and Senate would assume financial liability for settlements and judgments stemming from sexual harassment complaints. Historically, taxpayers have picked up the tab.

The issue came to a head last April when Farenthold, a four-term congressman, resigned amid an Ethics Committee investigation into allegations of improper conduct by at least three former staffers. That followed revelations that Congress had already covered an $84,000 settlement reached in a 2014 harassment suit brought by Lauren Greene, his former communications director.

Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/After-84K-Farenthold-settlement-Congress-makes-13464524.php

Cross-posted in the Texas Group.

[SunSeeker]

1. I'm actually shocked this was unanimous. There must be a catch.

Are they creating some sort of error and omissions coverage on the side? And who foots the congressman's legal bills, which can be many times more than, say, a paltry $84,000 settlement or judgment.

[Scarsdale]

2. Exactly. These self important

representatives ALWAYS cover themselves some way. In a civilian job they would be fired, no pension or benefits. In government they continue to get all their benefits. In Farenthold's favor though, harassing women IS the only way he could interact with females. He is a strange looking little gap toothed guy.

[Bob Loblaw]

3. Surely in some circles

his nickname had to be Flounder. "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."

[Scarsdale]

4. He has done exactly that

so far! Ever seen the photo of him in his "ducky p j's"? Roly poly little man with all the attractiveness of tRump.

[Bob Loblaw]

7. Yeah, that's pretty disturbing

[jberryhill]

5. Hey. There are rules here

You forgot to include the mandatory Blake Farenthold pic...

[TexasTowelie]

8. I think that I've posted that photo enough

that the court will grant me some leniency. Besides, I'd have to include a "GRAPHICS WARNING" in the title of the thread.

[ProudLib72]

9. No! Not the obligatory duckies in lard pajama pic!

As soon as Farenthold was mentioned, this picture came to mind. You have to wonder how much embarrassment it has caused that woman

[dalton99a]

10. +1

[dsc]

6. I understand why this type of law passed

but the fact is they are the employees of the tax payer and thus the tax payers should also be on the hook here. I listened to a report that stated the Congress members would pay back the money which would still be payed out by the tax payers. That is fine. But making the victim have to wait for the Congress members to cough up the money is not cool.

[jberryhill]

11. I'd want to see all of the facts and arguments either way

I agree that the point missed here is that these types of claims are generally pursued against the employer organization, and not the employee specifically. That's what insurance is for. Likewise, your point about the individual member not having the resources to pay the claim is a good one.

OTOH, it's not as if Congress as a body gets to choose its employees in the first place. Any ordinary employer can keep an eye on what its employees are up to, and can get rid of ones who seem prone to being a problem. Congress can't exactly do that.