Well, I haven’t checked my blog email for a while, but we did get a note from a representative of American Apparrel regarding my previous blog post, which I am publishing unedited (except for ####ing out some identifying information).
I will follow with a response.
from Ryan #### <####@americanapparel.net>
date Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:05 PM
subject Dov Charney
The reason the arbitration hearing’s outcome was predetermined was because the plaintiff gave an unsolicited confession that the accusations were fault and her attorney admitted that the charges were ‘bogus.’ American Apparel agreed to a proposed settlement only to avoid further legal fees which the case would have occurred had it went to trial. The settlement hinged on press release not because American Apparel attempted to mislead the public but because we refused a settlement that did not include public vindication.
Regardless of your opinion on the arbitration process, the company was a victim of malicious and false prosecution. I would be happy to show you the court documents in Mary Nelson V American Apparel where she was fined $7,500 by the court for falsifying evidence. It is your right to publish as you wish, but in this case, your facts are mistaken and defamatory.
Truth be told, I don’t care about Dov Charney, Mary Nelson, or the legion of sexual harassment charges that have dogged the former.
I thought that I made that clear in my first post, but perhaps I did not.
My issue was about the arbitration system and it’s gleeful and knowing participation of that arbitration system in an abuse of the legal process.
If someone went into a court of law under these circumstances, where the court case was merely to confirm an existing agreement, there would likely be very well deserved judicial sanctions all around.
There are a number of potential ways to handle this which do not involve a judicial process, a sworn affidavit, a joint news conference, some combination of the two, etc.
However, to use arbitration solely for the purpose of creating a press release is an indication that the arbitration process is hopelessly corrupt.
The supporters of arbitration suggest that it is like the courts, only, “streamlined”. This case shows that it is not.
It shows that arbitration is an ethical vacuum.