A couple of interesting things:

"During negotiations for any contract, ESPN raised no specific concerns about any past conduct or performance." (#9 from Reynolds' complaint)

Weren't there allegations of previous problems between HR and female co-workers? That said, the language in this doesn't say that there were not past incidents, just that ESPN did not include them in contract negotiations or put language in writing recognizing any previous incidents.

Items 14 and 15 are interesting - apparently ESPN hasn't been compliant with either Harold Reynolds's lawyer or the Connecticut Dept of Labor in providing a personnel file on Reynolds. This seems a bit strange to me if it's true, especially the part about not allowing "an employee of the Connecticut Department of Labor onto its premises."

The possibility of bureaucratic stalling aside, when corporations (like ESPN and Google) have basically created microcosms for their employees, where living and working are all essentially taken care of by the corporation, does the corporation take on additional liability, both to its employees and to the state? I don't know if that question makes complete sense.

Also, the suit does allow that Harold did hug an intern, and the fact that she did not complain for three weeks doesn't really mean a whole lot, in my opinion. That said, ESPN has been extremely tolerant of bad behavior by its celebrities in the past, and while it obviously doesn't condone his actions, it does make his immediate firing suspect. It will be interesting to see how ESPN responds to this.