Epstein Secrets

a source by presenting them directly to current and/or former employees or to others. To do so would be to further their libelous=20 agenda, as Mr Waldman has emphasized. In this regard,o cur=ent or former employees about this in the process of carrying out and concluding your investigation. EFTA_R1_0

III <mailt On Feb 27, 2018, at 1:58 PM, Cynthia Jewett wrote: aiv> Thank you. From: Sent: Tuesday, Februar 27 201= 1:55 PM To: C nthia Jewet Adam Waldman >; Naimah Saa=iq =t; Cc: Lawrence Krauss mailto Subject: Fwd: Private an on i enua , in response to our meeting.<=span> =div style="margin:0in

er's response to a notice of charge of discriminatio= filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was absolutely privileged. In Miller v. Servicemaster by R=es, 174 Ariz. at 520, 851 P.2d 240, 243 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1993), the court recognized the existence of a conditional privilege for employees to

t Date: Tuesday, Febr To: Adam Waldman Cc: Naimah Saari' <mailto mailto Subject: FW: Private and =onfidential, in response to our meeting. Mr. Waldman, Your client, Lawrence =rauss, copied me on his February 23rd email communication to the =ffice of Equity and Inclusion. I am writing to convey the

er's =esponse to a notice of charge of discrimination filed with the Equal =mployment Opportunity Commission was absolutely privileged. =n Miller =. Servicemaster by Rees, 174 Ariz. at 520, 851 P.2d =40, 243 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1993), the court recognized the existence of a =onditional privilege for employees to

ch a source by presenting them directly to current and/or former employees or to others. To do so would be to further their libelous =agenda, as Mr Waldman has emphasized. In this regard,=I would appreciate seeing copies of the correspondence you might send to curr=nt or former employees about this in t

s response to a notice of charge of discrimination=20 filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was absolutely privileged. In Miller v= Servicemaster by Rees, 174= Ariz. at 520, 851 P.2d 240, 243 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1993), the court recognized the existence of a conditional privilege for employees to