From Publishers Weekly:
At a 20-minute initial conference, lawyers for Demos Parneros portrayed the fired CEO as a respected executive who is now “unhirable” after being wrongly dismissed for alleged sexual harassment. Lawyers for Barnes & Noble said they have “a different view of the facts.”
. . . .
In the brief opening conference, [Judge] Koeltl asked attorneys for each side if they’d be willing to at least confer about a settlement with the help of a magistrate judge. And while neither side sounded optimistic about a deal (Parneros’ attorney Anne L. Clark told the court that settlement discussions had been broached at one point but “didn’t get far”) neither side offered “an unequivocal no,” Koeltl observed, prompting him to say he would refer the parties to U.S. Magistrate judge Gabriel Gorenstein for a settlement conference. The signed scheduling order gives the parties until December 3 to notify the court “if such a referral would be useful for purposes of a settlement.”
Koeltl also suggested the two sides consider waiving the jury waiver clause in Parneros’s employment contract, and proceed with a jury. The litigation is currently proceeding as a non-jury case.
. . . .
In today’s 20-minute hearing, Clark portrayed Parneros as a respected, once heavily recruited executive who is now “unhirable” after being wrongly dismissed for alleged sexual harassment. Clark reiterated Parneros’s claim that he did not sexually harass anyone, and said that an incident with an executive assistant cited as the basis for his firing had been “resolved” in-house prior to his dismissal. Parneros, Clark said, also denies being abusive toward other members of the Barnes & Noble’s executive team.
Link to the rest at Publishers Weekly
I hope it get to a stage where B&N employees have to testify about the events at the meeting with the British bookseller.
So, what type of corn? Extra butter, a little salt, cheese or kettle corn? 😉
“Clark reiterated Parneros’s claim that he did not sexually harass anyone, and said that an incident with an executive assistant cited as the basis for his firing had been “resolved” in-house prior to his dismissal.”
Resolved in house hmm? Spell that out for us if you would please. (I do note that the claims weren’t found to be a fabrication or falsehood – but that it was ‘resolved’.)
Jury trail guys, you air your dirty laundry and I’ll go pop some corn.