A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Hidden Settlements Hinder Justice in Workplace Harassment Claims

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

For someone who has been victimized by sexual harassment, there are numerous considerations when it comes to bringing a lawsuit. Although the #MeToo movement has brought attention to the issues and support for harassment victims, there is still an understandable reluctance to go public and let the world know the story.

Many victims simply want to settle their cases privately and move on. However, there are some important downfalls to these quiet settlements.

The Power of #MeToo is the Visibility

One of the main purposes of the #MeToo movement – which we wrote about in detail in a recent white paper – is the fact that visibility brings victims together to gain strength.

The problem with a closed-door settlement in a workplace sexual harassment claim is that it avoids anyone responsible being held accountable in the court of public opinion. Further, the amount the victim receives is likely to be less in private settlements than it is in courtroom litigation.

Why Do Victims Settle?

The most common reason why workplace sexual harassment victims settle their claims is that their employment contracts have arbitration clauses. They are contractually obligated to not go public with their claims.

A New Horizon

Recently, the country’s Attorneys General have written a unified letter to congressional leaders to change the culture around mandatory arbitration for sexual harassment cases, as reported in the Huffington Post.

“The attorneys general want Congress to end the practice of forcing sexual harassment cases into mandatory arbitration,” the article continues, “secret private courtrooms outside the public justice system… ‘Ending mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims would help to put a stop to the culture of silence that protects perpetrators at the cost of their victims,’ the letter says.”

The Recorder also reports a number of California plaintiffs’ lawyers are urging lawmakers to ban mandatory arbitration clauses and gag orders for workplace harassment claims.

The article quotes employment law specialist Cliff Palefsky as saying “One good public verdict will do more to deter sexual harassment than 100 arbitrations.

It is important for more victims of workplace sexual harassment to have the courage to make their voices heard. This will ensure true justice and a strong deterrent against further violations in the workplace.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.