Lawyers for Former Washington Football Team Employees Reject NFL Position, Saying Clients Want Investigation ‘Results’ Released

[ad_1]

The lawyers of some elders Washington football team the employees rejected the reasoning of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell for not making public the investigation into the organization, saying in a letter that their clients wanted anonymity but also a written report.

Goodell had said at a press conference at league meetings on Tuesday that they had not released a written report on the nearly-year-long investigation into the organization and owner Dan Snyder because some respondents wanted anonymity and therefore no public reporting.

In a two-page letter to Goodell, Lisa Banks and Debra Katz said their clients – they represent 40 women who made allegations of sexual harassment while working for Washington – only wanted protection. They wanted the results to be published.

The letter read: “While many of those who came forward feared reprisals from Dan Snyder, and therefore requested that their names be kept private, they never considered all their efforts and the efforts of Beth Wilkinson and her team would not come up with any written report of findings, and no actual liability for Dan Snyder or the WFT. If they had known, they would not have participated.

Beth Wilkinson provided an oral report to the NFL of her findings. During the investigation, 150 people were interviewed. The NFL fined Washington $ 10 million for its toxic work culture; Snyder said at the time that he would step down from the day-to-day operations of the franchise in favor of his wife, Tanya.

Banks and Katz wrote that Goodell “twisted the wishes of our clients, and possibly those of other women and men who came forward, to justify your decision to bury what we know to be a damning report.”

They once again urged Goodell to release the results. They said that once that happens, the public will be able to determine whether the action taken against the WFT was appropriate.

They wrote: “Your continued refusal to produce the findings of the investigation, ignoring repeated appeals from those who put themselves in danger to participate in this investigation, strongly suggests that they are not the ones you are determined to protect. “

[ad_2]

Source Link