TMZ: "We're told there have been no settlements since the contract was signed"
So that whole part of the story, and contract, are negated. Yes, the contract spelled out penalties for settlements, but there would need to be settlements the company didn't know about (or weren't leaked to TMZ) for this to be considered "fired illegally."
IOW, maybe reblogging TMZ clickbait isn't such a good idea? I'll leave it to the lawyers to take it from here.
They can make a pretty clear case that Weinstein's bad for business, regardless of him fulfilling the provisions of the contract that force him to reimburse the company for any lawsuits on his behalf.
Also, as @6 pointed out - there's no current lawsuit against Weinstein resulting from the Times article.
So that whole part of the story, and contract, are negated. Yes, the contract spelled out penalties for settlements, but there would need to be settlements the company didn't know about (or weren't leaked to TMZ) for this to be considered "fired illegally."
IOW, maybe reblogging TMZ clickbait isn't such a good idea? I'll leave it to the lawyers to take it from here.
Also, as @6 pointed out - there's no current lawsuit against Weinstein resulting from the Times article.