Northwestern’s motion to dismiss the wrongful termination lawsuit brought by former coach Pat Fitzgerald was denied today, Fitz seeking $130MM.

Donate To GopherHole
GopherGrit said:
Apologies, I haven't followed closely enough to know what you're talking about. I'll have to look more into it.

I don't see why they could've done it then, getting away scot-free, but then later did it and lost (having to settle is a loss in my book, as opposed to being able to fire for cause with no lawsuit that had enough merits to force a settlement)
Click to expand...
I can't speak for GopherRock but I'll say this:

They were in far worse legal position after getting the report and deciding not to fire him, then later changing their mind.

Northwestern caught a lot of PR flack and never explained changing their mind much (beyond saying they should have punished him more), how they would explain changing their mind to a jury would potentially be a big mountain to climb.
 
Last edited:



GopherGrit said:
Apologies, I haven't followed closely enough to know what you're talking about. I'll have to look more into it.

I don't see why they could've done it then, getting away scot-free, but then later did it and lost (having to settle is a loss in my book, as opposed to being able to fire for cause with no lawsuit that had enough merits to force a settlement)
Click to expand...
IIRC the first time that the public learned about anything about this business was when Fitz was put on involuntary leave for two weeks in summer 2023, which was then followed by the NU paper printing all the lurid details that the investigation found out.

Most of us thought that the suspension was so that the GC and/or HR office could get their paperwork in order to fire him for cause. Turns out the suspension WAS the initial punishment. The president of the university learned of this two days later and directly ordered Fitz fired.

That is why NU is in a very bad negotiating position WRT a settlement.
 

Ewert86PC said:
Zero dollars was their objective in the dismissal. They realistically thought it was possible. They messed it up.
Click to expand...
I don’t think 0 was realistic

I think the whole thing was to pay less than the buyout
 


Some guy said:
Tough for me it would be over the buyout considering they never accused him of wrongdoing and could’ve fired him for the buyout at any moment
Click to expand...
But they didn’t.

They should have because I’ll bet they paid over the buyout.
 

WoodburyTim said:
But they didn’t.

They should have because I’ll bet they paid over the buyout.
Click to expand...
Why would they have paid over the buyout?
They never accused him of wrongdoing and could dismiss him at any moment for the full buyout.
What is out there that would cause him to get more than his full contract?

I suppose I could see a scenario where the settlement was full buyout plus legal fees. I can’t really see how they would’ve paid more than the full contract though. What reason would there be?
 


Ewert86PC said:
Realistic is in the eye of the be(er)holder.
Click to expand...
True
Generally I think to fire someone with a contract that includes a buyout for zero dollars is pretty tough and requires a pretty clear cut issue to be there
 



Some guy said:
Why would they have paid over the buyout?
They never accused him of wrongdoing and could dismiss him at any moment for the full buyout.
What is out there that would cause him to get more than his full contract?

I suppose I could see a scenario where the settlement was full buyout plus legal fees. I can’t really see how they would’ve paid more than the full contract though. What reason would there be?
Click to expand...
Wrongful termination suits aren’t just about making the wrongfully terminated person financially whole. He hasn’t been paid in 2 years and the public firing probably has cost him more than a couple of lucrative opportunities and probably will do so for the foreseeable future.

Also, every school with a coach they don’t want would fire them and roll the dice on a lawsuit knowing that the worst case scenario is paying them the buyout that they should have paid in the first place.
 

WoodburyTim said:
Wrongful termination suits aren’t just about making the wrongfully terminated person financially whole. He hasn’t been paid in 2 years and the public firing probably has cost him more than a couple of lucrative opportunities and probably will do so for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
Fitzgerald admitted what they accused him of in the settlement. He issued a statement publicly acknowledging exactly what northwestern alleged.
WoodburyTim said:
Also, every school with a coach they don’t want would fire them and roll the dice on a lawsuit knowing that the worst case scenario is paying them the buyout that they should have paid in the first place.
Click to expand...
No, they wouldn’t. Because not every school has a coach who later publicly admits hazing occurred in his program exactly as the university alleges.
 

GopherRock said:
IIRC the first time that the public learned about anything about this business was when Fitz was put on involuntary leave for two weeks in summer 2023, which was then followed by the NU paper printing all the lurid details that the investigation found out.

Most of us thought that the suspension was so that the GC and/or HR office could get their paperwork in order to fire him for cause. Turns out the suspension WAS the initial punishment. The president of the university learned of this two days later and directly ordered Fitz fired.

That is why NU is in a very bad negotiating position WRT a settlement.
Click to expand...
Bold part seems to be the critical detail. Two days later .. than what? Later than the student paper expose? I'll do some digging, thanks for the info!
 

Fitz did not admit that he knew about the hazing. He only admitted it happened.

I assume (though I don't know! I could be wrong) that the core allegation leading to the firing with cause was that he covered up the hazing. Please correct me if I'm wrong
 



Some guy said:
Fitzgerald admitted what they accused him of in the settlement. He issued a statement publicly acknowledging exactly what northwestern alleged.

No, they wouldn’t. Because not every school has a coach who later publicly admits hazing occurred in his program exactly as the university alleges.
Click to expand...
I guess I am confused about what you are arguing. That Fitzgerald was in the wrong? Perhaps, I don’t really know.

But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t wrongfully terminated. I was just talking about why they could have settled for more than the buyout.
 

Some guy said:
True
Generally I think to fire someone with a contract that includes a buyout for zero dollars is pretty tough and requires a pretty clear cut issue to be there
Click to expand...
Wait, wait, wait... are you saying a University's oversight board should be realistic? 😆 There is nothing about this situation that has been handled in reality. 😉
 

Some guy said:
Why would they have paid over the buyout?
They never accused him of wrongdoing and could dismiss him at any moment for the full buyout.
What is out there that would cause him to get more than his full contract?

I suppose I could see a scenario where the settlement was full buyout plus legal fees. I can’t really see how they would’ve paid more than the full contract though. What reason would there be?
Click to expand...
Pain and suffering, lost wages, reputational damage. Plenty of reasons. NU has now come out and said Fitz has no knowledge of what was going on.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Pain and suffering, lost wages, reputational damage. Plenty of reasons. NU has now come out and said Fitz has no knowledge of what was going on.
Click to expand...
Fitz not knowing is not good. Shows he didn’t have control of a multi-million dollar business. That should have been the ‘cause’ for firing. But as many others have pointed out, this whole thing has been mishandled.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Pain and suffering, lost wages, reputational damage. Plenty of reasons. NU has now come out and said Fitz has no knowledge of what was going on.
Click to expand...
They never did say he knew what was going on?
Him not knowing what was going on was their justification for firing him?
 

WoodburyTim said:
I guess I am confused about what you are arguing. That Fitzgerald was in the wrong? Perhaps, I don’t really know.

But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t wrongfully terminated. I was just talking about why they could have settled for more than the buyout.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing anything other than it’s not a slam dunk he got more than his buyout
I bet her got slightly less than his buyout but no one will ever know
 

Some guy said:
I’m not arguing anything other than it’s not a slam dunk he got more than his buyout
I bet her got slightly less than his buyout but no one will ever know
Click to expand...
And I don’t know if he got more. Just from my experience I think that might be the case. But I don’t know either way either.
 



WoodburyTim said:
And I don’t know if he got more. Just from my experience I think that might be the case. But I don’t know either way either.
Click to expand...
The thing that makes me think it’s less than buyout is the thing they said was

“There is as hazing and the coach should’ve know”

And after the settlement Fitzgerald said “there was hazing but I didn’t know about it”

And the only thing that would make Fitzgerald get paid more than the buyout is false accusations against him
 

In a statement released Thursday, Northwestern said Fitzgerald did not condone or direct any of the alleged hazing.

"While the litigation brought to light highly inappropriate conduct in the football program and the harm it caused, the evidence uncovered during extensive discovery did not establish that any player reported hazing to Coach Fitzgerald or that Coach Fitzgerald condoned or directed any hazing," the statement read. "Moreover, when presented with the details of the conduct, he was incredibly upset and saddened by the negative impact this conduct had on players within the program."
 

GopherGrit said:
In a statement released Thursday, Northwestern said Fitzgerald did not condone or direct any of the alleged hazing.

"While the litigation brought to light highly inappropriate conduct in the football program and the harm it caused, the evidence uncovered during extensive discovery did not establish that any player reported hazing to Coach Fitzgerald or that Coach Fitzgerald condoned or directed any hazing," the statement read. "Moreover, when presented with the details of the conduct, he was incredibly upset and saddened by the negative impact this conduct had on players within the program."
Click to expand...
Waiting for Some Guy's response...
 

Some guy said:
The thing that makes me think it’s less than buyout is the thing they said was

“There is as hazing and the coach should’ve know”

And after the settlement Fitzgerald said “there was hazing but I didn’t know about it”

And the only thing that would make Fitzgerald get paid more than the buyout is false accusations against him
Click to expand...
And you could be right, but even if he did exactly what they said, the issue is still more about whether that justified the actions NW took.

Institutional control is important, but it is a tough case to make legally that a coach or supervisor should be aware of everything in their organization.
 

WoodburyTim said:
And you could be right, but even if he did exactly what they said, the issue is still more about whether that justified the actions NW took.
Click to expand...
But if it wasn’t justified wouldn’t the penalty be simply the full buyout? They could pay the full buyout to get rid of him at any time
WoodburyTim said:
Institutional control is important, but it is a tough case to make legally that a coach or supervisor should be aware of everything in their organization.
Click to expand...
^agree
 

I would argue if they paid the full buyout that the university still lost. They would’ve had millions and millions of dollars in legal fees.

I hope he got a ton based on how the university handled it.
 

gopherbadgerman said:
I would argue if they paid the full buyout that the university still lost. They would’ve had millions and millions of dollars in legal fees.

I hope he got a ton based on how the university handled it.
Click to expand...
Fitz likewise would have had a similar bill to pay his lawyers, the only certain winners in all of this. If the parties agreed on a settlement consisting of the full buyout plus the agreed upon released statements that were presented, each lost monetarily.
 

Some guy said:
But if it wasn’t justified wouldn’t the penalty be simply the full buyout? They could pay the full buyout to get rid of him at any time

^agree
Click to expand...
Has anyone seen the actual contract? A lazy Google search turned up nothing for me. The devil in all of this would be in those details. Did the contract authorize NW to fire Fitz for any reason or no reason at all provided he was paid the specified buyout? But didn't NW fire him for cause? Can NW absolve itself from liability for breach of contract and wrongful termination by later availing itself of the buyout provisions?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom