![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Aug. 17th, 2009
Via The Consumerist:
After it broke last week that Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa was claiming it was the fault of the victim and her two toddlers that she was raped in their parking garage, the hotel has decided to withdraw the claim. They also apologized for the rape in a general sort of way—but not for subpoenaing her friends and professional acquaintances who otherwise would not have known about the crime.
Marriott has yet to:
1. Settle the case.
2. Issue a real apology, especially for violating Jane Doe's privacy by subpoenaing her acquaintances. (Edit: Trying to, anyways, the subpoena's have not yet been issued.)
3. Do something meaningful about their safety policies (not necessarily saying those policies are insufficient, but if such policies exist and are sufficient, communicating that might be a good idea).
A comment: Organizations make a habit of running PR documents by legal, but they really should also make a habit of running legal documents by PR. At least one commenter at the Consumerist post suggested that Marriott's in-house counsel was not responsible, that it was their insurance company's lawyers. But that doesn't change matters, businesses will be held responsible for those they allow to argue on their behalf.
Don't know if this will be the extent of their actions. It's certainly not enough to convince me that I shouldn't avoid them.
ETA: The AP has a more detailed writeup. Includes some interesting bits:
The defense claim was made before attorneys finished taking the victim's deposition, Derrico [introduced as "Marriott lawyer", so working for Marriott, not the specific hotel or some insurance company?] said, "so as not to waive a potential defense." He said that Marriott officials asked his law firm to withdraw the claim in July, but that his associate had not done so because his mother died. [?!]
They also get a legal perspective:
Defenses that blame the victim to some extent are not uncommon, as insurance companies try to minimize their losses. But Jim Nugent, chairman of the litigation section of the Connecticut Bar Association, said doing so in this case would be odd, given the especially horrific nature of a rape witnessed by the victim's children.
"It's just not going to sit well with a jury," Nugent said. "How in the world could this poor woman contribute to that?"
So maybe they planned to introduce that argument and then withdraw it before having to present it to a jury. That fits with the proposal (or is "threat" a better word?) to use subpoenas to remove the victim's anonymity. Maybe a judge wouldn't approve those, either, but make things traumatizing enough for the woman and maybe she'll just drop the lawsuit. Given that perspective, I'd hope that the legal team was simply incompetent.
After it broke last week that Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa was claiming it was the fault of the victim and her two toddlers that she was raped in their parking garage, the hotel has decided to withdraw the claim. They also apologized for the rape in a general sort of way—but not for subpoenaing her friends and professional acquaintances who otherwise would not have known about the crime.
Marriott has yet to:
1. Settle the case.
2. Issue a real apology, especially for violating Jane Doe's privacy by subpoenaing her acquaintances. (Edit: Trying to, anyways, the subpoena's have not yet been issued.)
3. Do something meaningful about their safety policies (not necessarily saying those policies are insufficient, but if such policies exist and are sufficient, communicating that might be a good idea).
A comment: Organizations make a habit of running PR documents by legal, but they really should also make a habit of running legal documents by PR. At least one commenter at the Consumerist post suggested that Marriott's in-house counsel was not responsible, that it was their insurance company's lawyers. But that doesn't change matters, businesses will be held responsible for those they allow to argue on their behalf.
Don't know if this will be the extent of their actions. It's certainly not enough to convince me that I shouldn't avoid them.
ETA: The AP has a more detailed writeup. Includes some interesting bits:
The defense claim was made before attorneys finished taking the victim's deposition, Derrico [introduced as "Marriott lawyer", so working for Marriott, not the specific hotel or some insurance company?] said, "so as not to waive a potential defense." He said that Marriott officials asked his law firm to withdraw the claim in July, but that his associate had not done so because his mother died. [?!]
They also get a legal perspective:
Defenses that blame the victim to some extent are not uncommon, as insurance companies try to minimize their losses. But Jim Nugent, chairman of the litigation section of the Connecticut Bar Association, said doing so in this case would be odd, given the especially horrific nature of a rape witnessed by the victim's children.
"It's just not going to sit well with a jury," Nugent said. "How in the world could this poor woman contribute to that?"
So maybe they planned to introduce that argument and then withdraw it before having to present it to a jury. That fits with the proposal (or is "threat" a better word?) to use subpoenas to remove the victim's anonymity. Maybe a judge wouldn't approve those, either, but make things traumatizing enough for the woman and maybe she'll just drop the lawsuit. Given that perspective, I'd hope that the legal team was simply incompetent.
