In this context, the phrase "potential remedies" doesn't mean chicken soup or Vick's Vapo-rub. It means suing someone (or threatening to sue someone) in the hopes of obtaining cold, hard cash.
It's a stunning turn of events, given that Sterger initially wanted nothing to do with the story (in August), and more recently she simply wanted the matter to go away. It's not going to go away, if she has instructed (or authorized) her lawyer to seek out "potential remedies" on her behalf.
If "potential remedies" are going to be pursued, the pursuit will need to commence fairly quickly. The statute of limitations for sexual harassment claims typically is only two years, and this conduct happened in 2008. If the last alleged act happened before October 21, 2008, she needs to do pursue her remedies today.
A stunning turn of events? Where/when did Sterger or her representatives ever say in any way that they just wanted "the matter to go away"? Phil Reese is on record as saying that they "don't want a quick resolution, but the proper resolution." (And PFT had a hard time understanding that point as well)
"Given that Sterger initially wanted nothing to do with the story (in August)"? Who says she wanted nothing to do with the story in August? Why, because she didn't issue a public statement? The public isn't owed one. Actually, in EEOC proceedings - the accused is not even entitled to know the identity of the accuser.
As to 'potential remedies,' the statute of limitations for sexual harassment claims typically is only two years - for civil lawsuits. The statute of limitations to file a charge with the EEOC is within 180 days from the day the harassment took place (300 days in some states - we're not lawyers).
If the alleged sexual discrimination took place in October of 2008 - Sterger couldn't file an EEOC claim today anyway. The only legal remedies one could possibly see here would be cash settlement (either from the NFL or directly from Brett Favre), apology, and / or Brett's dismissal from the NFL.
Why do harassment cases often end in a cash settlement instead of a trial? Imprimis, both the accused and the accuser in a sexual harassment case often want to avoid a public trial because the facts may embarrass both parties. Secondly, the assailant may want to avoid a potentially large monetary judgement - money judgments have ranged up to several million dollars. And, finally, many defense attorneys point out to their clients that it is much easier to lose a civil case than it is to lose a criminal case due to the level of proof required.
As a victim - you have to pursue any potential remedies that may exist.
Follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Subscribe, or Return to BobsBlitz.com.