Summary Trump Campaign Bullied Workers Who Said They Were Harassed — ProPublica www.propublica.org
3,800 words - html page - View html page
One Line
The Trump campaign employed aggressive legal strategies to silence and intimidate workers who accused it of harassment or discrimination.
Slides
Slide Presentation (7 slides)
Key Points
- The Trump campaign used aggressive legal tactics, including filing countersuit claims for $1.5 million, to intimidate and harass women who accused the campaign of workplace harassment, discrimination, or violations of nondisclosure agreements
- At least four women of color involved in the 2016 Trump campaign operation have been embroiled in legal fights with the campaign, subjected to scorched-earth tactics, and persisted in their cases despite the campaign's efforts to crush them
- The campaign used a combination of swift denials, onerous NDAs, and a phalanx of Trump-savvy outside lawyers to try to suppress any whiff of scandal that could be unflattering or compromising to the candidate
- The campaign spent millions of dollars on legal efforts to fight these cases, using donor money in ways that experts say push the limits of laws forbidding the use of campaign contributions for legal matters unrelated to running for office
- A federal judge's order may force the campaign to publicly disclose new details about staffers who lodged similar accusations of discrimination and harassment during the 2016 and 2020 presidential runs
Summaries
18 word summary
Trump campaign used aggressive legal tactics to silence and intimidate workers who accused it of harassment or discrimination.
51 word summary
The Trump campaign has a history of using aggressive legal tactics to silence and intimidate workers who accuse it of harassment or discrimination. At least four women of color have been embroiled in legal fights, including Jessica Denson, who was hit with a $1.5 million counterclaim after suing for workplace harassment.
125 word summary
The Trump campaign has a history of using aggressive legal tactics to silence and intimidate its own workers who have accused the campaign of harassment, discrimination, or violations of nondisclosure agreements. At least four women of color have been embroiled in legal fights with the campaign, including Jessica Denson, who was hit with a $1.5 million counterclaim after suing for workplace harassment. The campaign also targeted Alva Johnson, Omarosa Manigault Newman, and Arlene "AJ" Delgado with lawsuits and aggressive discovery tactics. Trump himself was regularly updated on these cases and sought to escalate disputes. Despite the campaign's efforts to keep these cases confidential, a recent court order may force new details about staffers' complaints into the public eye as Trump embarks on another presidential run.
382 word summary
The Trump campaign has a history of using aggressive legal tactics to silence and intimidate its own workers who have accused the campaign of harassment, discrimination, or violations of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). At least four women of color who were involved in the 2016 Trump campaign operation have been embroiled in legal fights with the campaign.
In one case, the campaign immediately filed a $1.5 million counterclaim against Jessica Denson, who sued the campaign for workplace harassment, won a $52,229 judgment, and froze her bank account, nearly forcing her into bankruptcy. The campaign also subjected her to aggressive questioning and monitoring of her social media.
Another case involves Alva Johnson, a former Trump campaign field operations director, who alleged pay disparities, a hostile workplace, and that Trump engaged in sexually predatory conduct. The campaign hired a high-profile attorney to handle the case, and a Trump-appointed judge ultimately threw out Johnson's case, calling the kissing allegation a "political attack."
The campaign also relied on a prominent attorney in an NDA case it brought against former White House official Omarosa Manigault Newman, a Black former contestant on "The Apprentice" who wrote a tell-all book about Trump. The campaign demanded $1.5 million from Newman for violating the secrecy agreement, but an arbitration judge ultimately ruled in her favor.
Another case involves Arlene "AJ" Delgado, who sued the 2016 campaign and three senior officials for discrimination after she became pregnant by her supervisor, Jason Miller, the campaign's chief spokesperson at the time. Ten days after Delgado delivered her baby, the Trump campaign filed a $1.5 million claim against her for NDA violations.
The campaign's legal tactics have included aggressive discovery, subpoenaing personal records, and repeatedly seeking to force the women into confidential arbitration. Trump himself was regularly updated on the women's cases, and in at least one instance, he wanted to escalate the dispute by filing a federal defamation lawsuit against a former employee.
Despite the campaign's efforts to keep these cases confidential, a recent federal court order may force new details about staffers' harassment and discrimination complaints into the public eye. As Trump embarks on another presidential run, the public may finally get a glimpse into the campaign's culture of suppression and the toll it has taken on the women who dared to challenge it.
611 word summary
The Trump Campaign's Relentless Attacks on Its Own Workers
The Trump campaign has a history of using aggressive tactics to silence and intimidate its own workers who have accused the campaign of harassment, discrimination, or violations of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). These legal battles have largely played out behind the scenes, with the campaign deploying a battery of lawyers to crush the cases through scorched-earth litigation tactics.
At least four women of color who were involved in the 2016 Trump campaign operation have been embroiled in legal fights with the campaign. The campaign has persistently pursued these cases, even after losing consistently in court, in an apparent effort to exhaust the women's resources and deter others from coming forward.
One such case involves Jessica Denson, who sued the Trump campaign for workplace harassment. The campaign immediately filed a $1.5 million counterclaim against her, won a $52,229 judgment, and froze her bank account, nearly forcing her into bankruptcy. The campaign's lawyers also subjected her to aggressive questioning and monitoring of her social media. Another case involves Alva Johnson, a former Trump campaign field operations director, who alleged pay disparities, a hostile workplace, and that Trump engaged in sexually predatory conduct. The campaign hired a high-profile attorney to handle the case, and a Trump-appointed judge ultimately threw out Johnson's case, calling the kissing allegation a "political attack."
The campaign also relied on a prominent attorney in an NDA case it brought against former White House official Omarosa Manigault Newman, a Black former contestant on "The Apprentice" who wrote a tell-all book about Trump. The campaign demanded $1.5 million from Newman for violating the secrecy agreement, but an arbitration judge ultimately ruled in her favor.
Another case involves Arlene "AJ" Delgado, who sued the 2016 campaign and three senior officials for discrimination after she became pregnant by her supervisor, Jason Miller, the campaign's chief spokesperson at the time. Ten days after Delgado delivered her baby, the Trump campaign filed a $1.5 million claim against her for NDA violations.
The campaign's legal tactics in these cases have included aggressive discovery, such as subpoenaing personal records, as well as repeatedly seeking to force the women into confidential arbitration. Trump himself was regularly updated on the women's cases, and in at least one instance, he wanted to escalate the dispute by filing a federal defamation lawsuit against a former employee.
The campaign's use of donor money to fight these lawsuits is legal, but experts say Trump has pushed the limits of laws that forbid using campaign contributions for legal matters unrelated to running for office. The campaign has spent millions on these efforts, with bills for all of Trump's many legal challenges topping $100 million.
The campaign's strategy appears to be to drag out the cases and make them as painful and expensive as possible for the opponents, in the hopes that they will go away. This approach has had a devastating impact on the women involved, who have been subjected to relentless pressure, financial hardship, and in some cases, threats to their safety and well-being.
Despite the campaign's efforts to keep these cases confidential, a recent federal court order may force new details about staffers' harassment and discrimination complaints into the public eye. The revelations about the campaign's treatment of its own workers add to the growing body of evidence that Trump and his allies have used aggressive and unethical tactics to silence and intimidate those who dare to speak out against them.
As Trump embarks on another presidential run, the public may finally get a glimpse into the campaign's culture of suppression and the toll it has taken on the women who dared to challenge it.
936 word summary
The Trump Campaign's Relentless Attacks on Its Own Workers
The Trump campaign has a history of using aggressive tactics to silence and intimidate its own workers who have accused the campaign of harassment, discrimination, or violations of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). These battles have largely played out behind the scenes, with the campaign deploying a battery of lawyers to crush the cases through scorched-earth litigation tactics.
At least four women of color who were involved in the 2016 Trump campaign operation have been embroiled in legal fights with the campaign. The campaign has persistently pursued these cases, even after losing consistently in court, in an apparent effort to exhaust the women's resources and deter others from coming forward.
One such case involves Jessica Denson, who sued the Trump campaign for workplace harassment nearly eight years ago. Immediately, the campaign filed a $1.5 million counterclaim against her, won a $52,229 judgment, and froze her bank account, nearly forcing her into bankruptcy. The campaign's lawyers also monitored her social media, deposed her mother, and subjected her to aggressive questioning about her whereabouts and mental health records. Denson's legal fight continues, but the process has been "unbearable," she said, crippling her ability to work.
Another case involves Alva Johnson, a former Trump campaign field operations director from Alabama, who alleged pay disparities, a hostile workplace, and that Trump engaged in sexually predatory conduct by kissing her without permission during a 2016 campaign event. The campaign hired high-profile attorney Charles Harder to handle the case, and Harder produced a video that he argued showed the kiss was not forced. A Trump-appointed judge ultimately threw out Johnson's case in 2019, calling the kissing allegation a "political attack." Johnson said she chose not to refile a complaint focused only on alleged pay disparities because she was frightened for herself and her family as Trump supporters rallied to the president's defense.
The campaign also relied on Harder in an NDA case it brought against former White House official Omarosa Manigault Newman, a Black former contestant on "The Apprentice" who wrote a 2018 tell-all book describing Trump as a racist. The campaign demanded $1.5 million from Newman for violating the secrecy agreement, but an arbitration judge ultimately ruled in her favor and ordered the campaign to pay $1.3 million to her lawyers.
Another case involves Arlene "AJ" Delgado, who sued the 2016 campaign and three senior officials for discrimination after she became pregnant by her supervisor, Jason Miller, the campaign's chief spokesperson at the time. Ten days after Delgado delivered her baby, the Trump campaign filed a $1.5 million claim against her for NDA violations, alleging her main offense was a series of angry tweets about Miller and Trump's decision to promote him to White House communications director.
The campaign's legal tactics in these cases have included aggressive discovery, such as subpoenaing bank statements, news media contacts, and communications with potential employers, as well as demanding access to mental health and medical records. The campaign has also repeatedly sought to force the women into confidential arbitration, where their cases would be shielded from public view.
Trump himself was regularly updated on the women's cases, and in at least one instance, he wanted to escalate the dispute by filing a federal defamation lawsuit against a former employee, but his lawyers persuaded him it was best handled through confidential arbitration. The campaign's lawyers also urged Trump to settle the ongoing legacy lawsuits from 2016 before the 2020 election, but he declined.
The campaign's use of donor money to fight these lawsuits is legal, but experts say Trump has pushed the limits of laws that forbid using campaign contributions for legal matters that have nothing to do with running for office. The campaign has spent millions on these efforts, with bills for all of Trump's many legal challenges topping $100 million.
The campaign's strategy in these cases appears to be to drag them out and make them as painful and expensive as possible for the opponents, in the hopes that they will go away. This approach has been described as a "scorched-earth" tactic, and it has had a devastating impact on the women involved, who have been subjected to relentless pressure, financial hardship, and in some cases, threats to their safety and well-being.
Despite the campaign's efforts to keep these cases out of the public eye, a recent federal court order may force new details about staffers' harassment and discrimination complaints into the light. A judge has ordered the campaign to produce by May 31 a list of all such complaints made during Trump's 2016 and 2020 presidential runs, allegations that the campaign had initially tried to keep confidential through rigorously enforced NDAs.
The campaign's treatment of its own workers stands in stark contrast to Trump's frequent assertions that his right to free speech has been violated. As one former staffer, Jessica Denson, put it, "I came to the campaign as someone who cared deeply about human rights, First Amendment, individual liberty; I thought I was working on a campaign that supported those values. Then I saw the opposite of what this country stands for, going after perceived critics and trying to destroy them."
The revelations about the campaign's treatment of its own workers add to the growing body of evidence that Trump and his allies have used aggressive and unethical tactics to silence and intimidate those who dare to speak out against them. As Trump embarks on another presidential run, the public may finally get a glimpse into the campaign's culture of suppression and the toll it has taken on the women who dared to challenge it.