Thursday, October 04, 2007
Bloomberg Lied About Suit
The press is starting to follow up on the Bloomberg gender discrimination lawsuit and pin Mayor Moneybags down on some of the discrepancies in his story:
Now maybe this is just smoke and there's nothing to the story.
But if so, why did Bloomberg not acknowledge last week that he talked to high-level Bloomberg L.P. managers about the coming gender discrimination lawsuit when he was asked by the press whether he knew anything about the lawsuit or had talked to anyone at Bloomberg L.P. about it?
I dunno, call me cynical, but didn't Moneybags acknowledge today that he lied to the press about the lawsuit?
And if he felt the need to lie about it once, will or (or has he) felt the need to lie about it at other times?
I hope the press keeps following this story and holds Bloomberg to the fire over it.
We need to get to the bottom of Bloomberg's role in the alleged gender and job discrimination problems at Bloomberg L.P.
Even if it will ruin the '08 election for David Broder, Patrick Healy, Jonathan Capehart and other Bloomberg cronies in the press.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg acknowledged today that he discussed allegations in a federal lawsuit that his company mistreated pregnant women with the company’s management, seemingly contradicting a statement he made when the suit was filed last week that he knew “nothing whatsoever” about it.
“Well I didn’t know that they were going to sue them but clearly it was last week or so,” he said at a news conference in the South Bronx when asked when he learned about the allegations. “About that time I was told that there ‘was an allegation — we think there’s no substance to it whatsoever and the company will vigorously defend it.’ And that’s that.”
...
It remained unclear exactly when and what he learned about the allegations and his aides declined to elaborate. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit one week ago today accusing the company of engaging in a pattern of discrimination against women when they announced they were pregnant and returned from maternity leave.
Asked what he knew about the lawsuit that day, the mayor responded: “Nothing whatsoever. You’ll have to talk to Bloomberg L.P. I haven’t worked there, as you know, in an awful long time.'’
Asked that day if he was informed in any way of any aspect of the case, Judith Czelusniak, a spokeswoman for Bloomberg L.P., replied, “No.”
Ms. Czelusniak said today that she did not believe the mayor’s comments today contradicted their responses last week. “It doesn’t at all,” she said. “He learned about it when everyone else learned about it.”
The mayor’s response, however, does seem to suggest that he learned of the allegation before the lawsuit was filed.
The E.E.O.C. lawsuit is the latest in a string of job-discrimination complaints made against the company since the mid 1990s.
Now maybe this is just smoke and there's nothing to the story.
But if so, why did Bloomberg not acknowledge last week that he talked to high-level Bloomberg L.P. managers about the coming gender discrimination lawsuit when he was asked by the press whether he knew anything about the lawsuit or had talked to anyone at Bloomberg L.P. about it?
I dunno, call me cynical, but didn't Moneybags acknowledge today that he lied to the press about the lawsuit?
And if he felt the need to lie about it once, will or (or has he) felt the need to lie about it at other times?
I hope the press keeps following this story and holds Bloomberg to the fire over it.
We need to get to the bottom of Bloomberg's role in the alleged gender and job discrimination problems at Bloomberg L.P.
Even if it will ruin the '08 election for David Broder, Patrick Healy, Jonathan Capehart and other Bloomberg cronies in the press.
