All Things EOAA, Investigation, Suspension, Overturned Etc. Thread: UPDATED 1 Thread

Donate To GopherHole
If their intend is to change the system and get monetary compensation, what will happen if the U offer to settle out of court? Will the players still push ahead with the lawsuit(s)?

The Duke University LaCrosse players accused of rape I believe ended up settling out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.

Off-topic in regards to Tracy Claeys, does he have any grounds to sue for unjust termination?
 

Tracy, in my opinion, does not as long as rhe contract provisions were met. I can stipulate that I have not read the contract, but most employment contracts have buy out provisions and firing for cause provisions. The buy out provisions can in most contracts be implemented for any reason at the whim of the person or position in supervision (in this case the AD) and without cause. Firing for cause usually requires a level of proof, eliminates any requirement for pay out and could end in a law suit. Claeys was paid his rights are almost certainly over.

Likely the only possible action he could possibly have would be if he felt that the University had said something as he went out the door that slandered him. But that would very likely be a civil suit not an employment action.

I'm not an attorney but have had several emploment contracts and have gone over these provisions in negotiations.
 

Thanks.

Should Tracy Claeys should have hired an agent when he signed his contract, or did he?
 

nsmike said:
They need to exhaust their appeals process at the U. Appealing to the Provost, is the last step before going to the courts, they have 5 days from last Friday to appeal. I don't know if they count calendar days or business days but the clock is ticking.
Click to expand...

Ah I didn't know they had another step to go at the school, yeah agreed they need to finish the process at the U first.
 

scools12 said:
It's about what Hutton said on the podcast. The woman had already admitted the first two were consensual. Hutton reaffirmed that admission. Nothing else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Was on the podcast but not as you characterize. Pretty sure Hutton's point was this admission came after the investigation was final and was new information at the hearing. Seems to track that way looking at the breakdown of the violations by individual as well.
 


ncgo4 said:
Tracy, in my opinion, does not as long as rhe contract provisions were met. I can stipulate that I have not read the contract, but most employment contracts have buy out provisions and firing for cause provisions. The buy out provisions can in most contracts be implemented for any reason at the whim of the person or position in supervision (in this case the AD) and without cause. Firing for cause usually requires a level of proof, eliminates any requirement for pay out and could end in a law suit. Claeys was paid his rights are almost certainly over.

Likely the only possible action he could possibly have would be if he felt that the University had said something as he went out the door that slandered him. But that would very likely be a civil suit not an employment action.

I'm not an attorney but have had several emploment contracts and have gone over these provisions in negotiations.
Click to expand...

Normally there is a release involved that the employee would need to sign to receive a payout. I assume that type of language was part of the original contract.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Was on the podcast but not as you characterize. Pretty sure Hutton's point was this admission came after the investigation was final and was new information at the hearing. Seems to track that way looking at the breakdown of the violations by individual as well.
Click to expand...

Buford, Hardin, T Johnson and D Johnson are still facing expulsion pending any further appeals so I guess we will have to disagree on how Hutton presented this admission during the podcast.
 

scools12 said:
Buford, Hardin, T Johnson and D Johnson are still facing expulsion pending any further appeals so I guess we will have to disagree on how Hutton presented this admission during the podcast.
Click to expand...

There were multiple cited violations.

Fair enough on the podcast interpretation, but it was before the hearing outcomes, and there were multiple other Code violations cited that could result in expulsion as well.
 




BleedGopher said:
STrib Editorial Board: Gophers football scandal should prompt a university review

http://www.startribune.com/gophers-football-scandal-should-prompt-a-university-review/413224593/

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Funny how the smallest amount of due process can affect opinions. Singing a different song now than a month ago. There should be a full public apology to the players exonerated (again) from the Strib. Front page like the rest of the lynch mob defamatory articles.

http://www.startribune.com/claeys-firing-is-just-a-start-in-changing-course-at-u/409711355/
 

BleedGopher said:
STrib Editorial Board: Gophers football scandal should prompt a university review

http://www.startribune.com/gophers-football-scandal-should-prompt-a-university-review/413224593/

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

This editorial is spot on...I've saying for months that the issues with how the U set up this process are broad and affect all students. There certainly is a valid and important purpose to these types of policies if administered properly and with fairness.

I've pointed out a few changes that would dramatically improve the administering of the policy without having to change much of the current policy.

1. Real due process. Accused should have the ability to present a defense before a decision is rendered. Would probably have changed the recommendation on several of the acused in this situation.

2. Using the preponderance threshold, the appeal panel should require a unanimous vote to uphold University decisions for discipline. Would set a standard and high threshold for the EOAA and investigation to overcome upon appeal.

3. Any appeal panel should be required to have at least one non-university affiliated member.
 

I'm impressed. No made-up or improperly stated statistics and an admission that the process is wildly amateurish and biased, and the due process provided is inadequate for the gravity of damages assigned to those students found guilty. Next, getting rid of affirmative consent.

As said all along, once (most) liberals sit down and actually look at what the 2011 mandates have wrought they change their tune. The ideologues will never "get it"because they have blood in their eyes and it is their religion and the ends will always justify the means.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I'm impressed. No made-up or improperly stated statistics and an admission that the process is wildly amateurish and biased, and the due process provided is inadequate for the gravity of damages assigned to those students found guilty. Next, getting rid of affirmative consent.

As said all along, once (most) liberals sit down and actually look at what the 2011 mandates have wrought they change their tune. The ideologues will never "get it"because they have blood in their eyes and it is their religion and the ends will always justify the means.
Click to expand...

Eh, just because the schools are required to take some action, doesn't make it someone else's fault if they're entirely ****ed up how they do it.

Some of these schools have systems where the accused doesn't even get to address the folks who make the judgment. That's not Title IX, that's a straight up bonkers administration.... nothing about TItle IX requires that level of insanity.
 



I wouldn't say the U having a marginally better process than some others is in any way an excuse. It's a **** show all around. Schools like Stanford seem to have a better process in place, for example. The coming changes in the federal mandates will challenge each school to reevaluate how they want to proceed and treat all students.
 


If the players (at least four that were exonerated) launch a defamation lawsuit, are the local rags going to be sued too? That is a big IF mind you.
 

hungan1 said:
If the players (at least four that were exonerated) launch a defamation lawsuit, are the local rags going to be suit too? That is a big IF mind you.
Click to expand...

No chance.

The defamation hill is a steep one to climb, you'd never get there with the local news organizations. They're legitimately reporting news about local sports / university /etc. Even if the university is dorked up that's not defamation as a far as the local news groups go.

There's a straight up exception for news organizations reporting on such matters.
 

KSTP and the Pioneer Press, the two "hang 'em all" media outlets, waiting for them to do a story about the media "rush to judgement.

Not really waiting for it, because it's never going to happen. Shipley and Powers should be singled out in any story. KSTP? They would first replay everything from 9/2 forward before they get to the actual media culpability.

Negating the usefulness of any self examination. That's what they've done all along.
 

A thorough review is needed because somewhere along the way the process spiraled out of control, unfairly damaging the reputations of at least four of the players. Twice, legal authorities determined there was insufficient evidence to charge any of the 10 student-athletes with a crime. Yet the names and faces were made public. Then a confidential, lengthy and luridly detailed report by the university leaked out. Graphic and unconfirmed allegations quickly raced across social media, establishing a narrative that the 10 men had been involved in hours of debauchery with a young woman too inebriated to give consent. News of the report snuffed out an attempt at solidarity by teammates who intended to boycott a bowl game over what they saw as lack of due process.

Four of the accused, the panel found, were not active participants. But their names will be forever linked to the incident and — in an era in which employers and others routinely do online searches — they likely will be forced over and over again to proclaim their innocence.

This case also points to a growing national problem that stems from the best of intentions — a concerted effort to curb sexual violence and harassment on campuses across the country. Since 2011, colleges and universities have been under increasing federal pressure to act aggressively on claims of sexual violence. The U.S. Office of Civil Rights launched investigations into hundreds of schools for what it considered a failure to comply with its guidance on such issues.

Among the federal directives: Use the “preponderance of evidence” standard common in civil proceedings to determine whether a violation has occurred. That is typically the lightest evidentiary standard, described by one lawyer as “50 percent and a feather.” It may be adequate for less grave offenses, but for allegations as serious as rape and other instances of sexual violence, when the stakes are higher all around, school officials should be given discretion to use the higher standard of “clear and convincing” evidence.

 

The boycott was warranted. Apologies by many need to be made to the players. Lawsuits for defamation need to be brought against the U and Kaler. Lawsuits against Title IX need to be brought as well.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
The boycott was warranted. Apologies by many need to be made to the players. Lawsuits for defamation need to be brought against the U and Kaler. Lawsuits against Title IX need to be brought as well.
Click to expand...

100% agreed on all counts.

I am a U of M employee, and you would not believe the vicious rebuke I got from female co-workers when I was unwillingly pulled into a discussion back in January (post legal acquittal, pre-EOAA hearing) and I suggested that, while it was a serious situation, it was not as widespread nor as serious as certain segments of the population would have you believe. In their minds, all 10 ("actually it was more like 20-25 lining up waiting to rape her - haven't you read the report?!?!?") were clearly guilty - no due process needed. The only reason they were legally cleared was obviously that men don't get prosecuted for rape. I'm sure that these female co-workers of mine were among the first lining up to apologize to the exonerated players. I'm certain that they still think all are guilty regardless of the "process"'s outcome.
 

dpodoll68 said:
100% agreed on all counts.

I am a U of M employee, and you would not believe the vicious rebuke I got from female co-workers when I was unwillingly pulled into a discussion back in January (post legal acquittal, pre-EOAA hearing) and I suggested that, while it was a serious situation, it was not as widespread nor as serious as certain segments of the population would have you believe. In their minds, all 10 ("actually it was more like 20-25 lining up waiting to rape her - haven't you read the report?!?!?") were clearly guilty - no due process needed. The only reason they were legally cleared was obviously that men don't get prosecuted for rape. I'm sure that these female co-workers of mine were among the first lining up to apologize to the exonerated players. I'm certain that they still think all are guilty regardless of the "process"'s outcome.
Click to expand...

Interesting take on this Dpo. Thanks for sharing your situation.
 

e.bigelow said:
Interesting take on this Dpo. Thanks for sharing your situation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've elected to not have any discussions about this with females other than my wife. It's unfortunate that some of us (me) don't feel comfortable expressing our true feelings about the process.
 

zman said:
Yeah, I've elected to not have any discussions about this with females other than my wife. It's unfortunate that some of us (me) don't feel comfortable expressing our true feelings about the process.
Click to expand...

At a super bowl party a very nice lady I had just met, learning I was a Gopher fan, asked me what I thought about this. Heck, even I had the good sense to stay clear of that question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
At a super bowl party a very nice lady I had just met, learning I was a Gopher fan, asked me what I thought about this. Heck, even I had the good sense to stay clear of that question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I hope you got laid.
 

Possible Claeys/Coyle scenario

I want to start off by making it clear that, like very one else posting on here, I don't know exactly what has happened. That clearly stated, I have read and listened to what I have found accessible and think I might have a realistic take on what went down. I'm not saying this is highly likely, just plausible

After the September incident Claeys and Coyle hear from the Mpls PD there was an incident. TC gets what info he can from the player and C and C (not music factory) decide the original suspensions make sense while the MPD investigation is going on. The female involved then seeks the RO vs the players.

MPD decides on no charges as does the HC attorney's office. Female agrees to amend RO and says she wants it all to go away. At this point C and C make a mutual decision to reinstate the players thinking the storm has blown over

This is whe the EOAA gets involved. coyle has TC strongly encourage the players involved or associated to fully cooperate with the EOAA (possibly expecting similar results to what HCA and MPD came up with?). TC then gets a call from Coach Frost who, as a professional courtesy, tells TC the EOAA has been trying to get one of his players to give a statement. C and C realize the breadth of the EOAAs scope and realize they have a major issue in their hands.

The EOAA releases their recommendations for expulsion and suspension. Both C and C go into COA (cover our ***) mode and agree with the recommendations. After some reflection, TC realizes his 1 shot to be a P5 head coach might be slipping away. The players get pissed off about teammates being suspended from the Holiday Bowl. Some of their reasons are right and some wrong. TC, in major CYA mode, tells the team he knew nothing about the suspensions. TC sends out the well known tweet which portrays him as having no part in the players being suspended from the bowl.

The boycott is decided upon by the players. TC tells the players he might get fired if they follow through with the boycott. TC is more less screwed either way. He has now played both sides of the fence. Not because he is an awful person but because he got put in a terrible spot he wast prepared to handle. And he has no agent to fall back on for advice as most HC would.

After the bowl game Coule and Kaler are very upset with TC because they think he blatantly lied about how things happened. This leads to Coyle taking some unnecessary jabs at TC and the program in the Presser to announce TC being let go. Coyle cited another person who was in the room when C and C mutually agreed to go along with EOAA recommendations and to suspend the players from the bowl game. TC never directly answers what his exact involvement was even after the fact. Because of this, Coyle says afterwards TC knew what I knew all along. This is the recommendation from Kaler and/or University counsel. Basically saying TC was involved the whole time without being specific enough it could be used against the athletic department.

I know j missed some things. A little of this is conjecture and some is based off what people with some knowledge of the situation believe or know happened. At the end of the day, very few people know the whole truth. This is the best I have been able to put the puzzle together. I have tried to stay neutral the whole time and objectively gather info. Everyone involved screwed up somewhere along the way for sure. I think everyone can agree to that much anyway.
 

So little is known you could go almost anywhere with the theories.

Having said that there is only one really logical conclusion:

 

This dead horse we are kicking, is decomposing at this point.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

zman said:
Yeah, I've elected to not have any discussions about this with females other than my wife. It's unfortunate that some of us (me) don't feel comfortable expressing our true feelings about the process.
Click to expand...

My wife and I discussed it as well. She is firmly behind the players.

She is probably an outlier though because she is an attorney like me. She can look at a situation and separate the emotional aspects from facts, or lack thereof. Plus a rotten process will stand out to any attorney.
 

dpodoll68 said:
100% agreed on all counts.

I am a U of M employee, and you would not believe the vicious rebuke I got from female co-workers when I was unwillingly pulled into a discussion back in January (post legal acquittal, pre-EOAA hearing) and I suggested that, while it was a serious situation, it was not as widespread nor as serious as certain segments of the population would have you believe. In their minds, all 10 ("actually it was more like 20-25 lining up waiting to rape her - haven't you read the report?!?!?") were clearly guilty - no due process needed. The only reason they were legally cleared was obviously that men don't get prosecuted for rape. I'm sure that these female co-workers of mine were among the first lining up to apologize to the exonerated players. I'm certain that they still think all are guilty regardless of the "process"'s outcome.
Click to expand...

Not surprising. I have a female friend who works in communications at the U. She is normally a smart person. Not in this case.

She said things like, "start believing women" and other garbage propaganda. After explaining all the flaws to her she was completely unable to accept any of what I had to say.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom