|
Post by timholycross on Sept 27, 2019 15:31:34 GMT -5
There has been at least three HR issues regarding BG that I have read. The latest incident was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back regarding his head coaching position at Holy Cross. The first incident in many institution being enough to ask you to find other employment. His coaching success, personality and the fact that the issue was a relative that anecdotally has been mentioned as the issue saved him. Incident #2 with Cooper certainly compromised his ability to recruit players to H.C. Incident #3 should have been handled at half time by both parties without public display. Emotional display in public regarding an employment issue will certainly get you out the door in most situations. BG has many friends, allies, as well as detractors in the coaching community during his 34 years. At 60+, reality sets in regarding finding a new position in any field, less more one as competitive as D1 basketball. Unless you have an outstanding record in your last several years of constantly reaching an elite status in record and the NCAA tournament, your possibilities of finding a similar position are limited, even without the HR baggage. There are probably issues relating to recruiting that the Cooper incident has now caused the ability to recruit the level of talent necessary to succeed in a D1 program. As a parent or AAU coach, many would not want to have their daughter or player placed in an atmosphere where the coach is similar to Bobby Knight. Muffin McGraw, Kim Mulkey and Tara VanDeVeer are successful with a relatively quiet public demeanor. At some point for everyone in their career, the boss will make a determination that it is time to go in a new direction. This can be healthy for both parties, based on the dynamics and economics of the organization. In retrospect, the optimal time for BG career wise would have been to reach the 600 victory mark, network behind the scene for a new position either at HC, in the coaching community or a league or NCAA organization. He certainly had the bonafidies. Get the position then announce he was retiring as HC Head Coach. Would have been a win win for both parties. Reading the tea leaves, with the HR incidents, age, lack of recent success and now legal entanglements, the possibilities of finding a position in coaching are limited to having a good friend find a job for you with a lot of caveats regarding behavior and liabilities. Please note that ad hominem attacks do not add to an argument for support of either party. Maybe I've read the facts incorrectly, and I apologize if I have: but it seems like in incident #3 the suspension came after an investigation, unlike incident #2, the Cooper case, where the suspension was during the investigation. That suspension came on 1/31/2019...Seems like they could have dragged it out 4 of 5 more weeks, the season would have ended, announce he's not being rehired and this mess is to some degree avoided.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Sept 27, 2019 16:01:48 GMT -5
And what would have happen to team dynamics at that point, completely sacrifice the rest of the season? Or if all three assistants decided to leave at that point who would be handling the team, certainly not one person and again the season would be totally sacrificed to retain the head coach for four more weeks, who based on his record probably was not going to get a renewal.
Team dynamics should always be the priority whether it is a player causing dysfunction or a coach. When the dynamics is complicated with an apparent HR issue, the decision is most likely removed from the athletic department to a third party. I have seen organizations move more quickly than what has occurred at HC in resolving the organization impediment.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 27, 2019 19:09:52 GMT -5
Perhaps PP could enlighten us as to the potential consequences HC would risk under title IX and their own policies if they did not suspend BG. The asshats probably felt boxed in and at least avoided being charged with being racist or misogynist by taking the action they did. Perhaps FADNP was wise enough to plan on letting the season and BG's "legendary" career end as graciously as possible but that wisdom left when NP left and FIADBS took over. Phreek's lengthy reply was strangled at the Primary DNS server and lost in the ether. When Phreek stops fulminating, he will try and re-compose it, probably later today. Trying again....... 1.) I do not know whether the assistant coach's complaint was a Title IX complaint, or a employee harassment complaint, or both. I quickly read the college's policies and procedures for investigating and adjudicating both categories, and the processes seem similar. That said, an individual making a Title IX complaint has recourse to a Federal investigation. See: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html2.) From reading Gibbons' complaint, it appears, as part of the investigation, he was allowed to present 'his side of the story'. Whether he presented witnesses with statements favorable to him, I can't tell. His complaint references a comment supposedly made by Nate Pine, but it does not appear that Pine himself offered that comment to the investigator(s). Pine's supposed comment was limited to what he supposedly observed on a game video of the HC bench. Pine was not a witness to any behavior, good or bad, in the locker room, coaches suite, or practice court. In any event, Pine was on his way out the door. 3.) From charges that a cabal had been out to get him for months, if not years, it would seem no other coach or member of the athletic department with requisite knowledge of the situation and circumstances, offered statements favorable to him. 4.) Gibbons complaint states that the college should have afforded him the opportunity to review the investigative findings and the recommendations emanating from those findings before any 'penalty' was imposed. I found no provision in the HC procedures allowing such. 5.) The college can consider previous, related complaints against an employee in the course of the investigation and adjudication. This would have brought in Cooper and the other unidentified player who had complained, and who was a player contemporaneous with Cooper. If this unidentified player is not the incident one mentioned by Crucis, then there are (at least) three players who complained. The college retains the investigation files on all complaints against an employee for as long as the employee is employed at the college. Of note, Cooper's complaint named a current member of the athletic department as a defendant, alleging that this individual had witnessed Gibbons' questionable behavior. 6.) Gibbons' complaint presents his suspension as being based solely on a single incident, and that incident is understandably described in terms favorable to him. There is a hint, not so much in his complaint, but in the descriptions of the cabal, that there were other incidents. __________________________ My perspective. Nate Pine would not give Gibbons the contract extension that Gibbons sought. Gibbons felt he was entitled to such, given his long tenure; he had no intention of retiring. Pine's refusal possibly unleashed emotions that should have been bottled up. He may have been a disgruntled, if not embittered, coach this past year, --even before the incident
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Sept 27, 2019 20:06:04 GMT -5
The time period for incident #1 occurred before Cooper and her class enrolled at HC which began in the 2011 season. The incident happen before 2010. PP you are correct there are at least 3 players that complained. I have no knowledge of how many had an issue in incident #1.
My interactions with BG had always been cordial. This past January after a men’s game and before the suspension I did notice a change in demeanor when I made a comment in passing and he either miss understood me and did not fully understand that I was giving him a comment and was criticizing the official from a previous game that HC lost. His reply to me was very snarky, as I tried to clarify my statement he walked away without fully understanding the complement to him and the criticism of the ref team. The following week he was suspended. Obviously which I did not know, the incident #3 had occurred and a change was underway.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Sept 27, 2019 22:55:42 GMT -5
Phreek has done a nice job of summarizing things here - what gets me to this day (Phreeks perspective) is BG's attitude of entitlement of another contract extension. If he really felt this way, he really had lost touch with reality.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 28, 2019 5:57:13 GMT -5
Phreek has done a nice job of summarizing things here - what gets me to this day (Phreeks perspective) is BG's attitude of entitlement of another contract extension. If he really felt this way, he really had lost touch with reality. In re-composing the post lost in the ether, I neglected to add that Gibbons, in his complaint, basically asserts that Pine was pushing him out the door to save money; i.e., HC wanted a new coach who could be paid less. This part of his complaint seems to be tied to Pine not giving him the contract extension he was seeking.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Sept 28, 2019 6:35:58 GMT -5
Not sure exactly how you would have expected this to happen.
“3.) From charges that a cabal had been out to get him for months, if not years, it would seem no other coach or member of the athletic department with requisite knowledge of the situation and circumstances, offered statements favorable to him.”
Maybe just a quick statement from a fellow HC coach? “I see that my current employer has an ongoing dispute with my former colleague, Coach Gibbons. I just want to go on record as saying Mr. Gibbons is right in many of his allegations and my employer is run by a bunch of buffoons. I look forward to my next contract negotiation with these flaming idiots.”
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Sept 28, 2019 8:01:04 GMT -5
He. wasn't. getting. the. job. done. Simple. No. contract. extension.
The rest is noise.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Sept 28, 2019 8:01:29 GMT -5
Phreek's lengthy reply was strangled at the Primary DNS server and lost in the ether. When Phreek stops fulminating, he will try and re-compose it, probably later today. Trying again....... 1.) I do not know whether the assistant coach's complaint was a Title IX complaint, or a employee harassment complaint, or both. I quickly read the college's policies and procedures for investigating and adjudicating both categories, and the processes seem similar. That said, an individual making a Title IX complaint has recourse to a Federal investigation. See: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html2.) From reading Gibbons' complaint, it appears, as part of the investigation, he was allowed to present 'his side of the story'. Whether he presented witnesses with statements favorable to him, I can't tell. His complaint references a comment supposedly made by Nate Pine, but it does not appear that Pine himself offered that comment to the investigator(s). Pine's supposed comment was limited to what he supposedly observed on a game video of the HC bench. Pine was not a witness to any behavior, good or bad, in the locker room, coaches suite, or practice court. In any event, Pine was on his way out the door. 3.) From charges that a cabal had been out to get him for months, if not years, it would seem no other coach or member of the athletic department with requisite knowledge of the situation and circumstances, offered statements favorable to him. 4.) Gibbons complaint states that the college should have afforded him the opportunity to review the investigative findings and the recommendations emanating from those findings before any 'penalty' was imposed. I found no provision in the HC procedures allowing such. 5.) The college can consider previous, related complaints against an employee in the course of the investigation and adjudication. This would have brought in Cooper and the other unidentified player who had complained, and who was a player contemporaneous with Cooper. If this unidentified player is not the incident one mentioned by Crucis, then there are (at least) three players who complained. The college retains the investigation files on all complaints against an employee for as long as the employee is employed at the college. Of note, Cooper's complaint named a current member of the athletic department as a defendant, alleging that this individual had witnessed Gibbons' questionable behavior. 6.) Gibbons' complaint presents his suspension as being based solely on a single incident, and that incident is understandably described in terms favorable to him. There is a hint, not so much in his complaint, but in the descriptions of the cabal, that there were other incidents. __________________________ My perspective. Nate Pine would not give Gibbons the contract extension that Gibbons sought. Gibbons felt he was entitled to such, given his long tenure; he had no intention of retiring. Pine's refusal possibly unleashed emotions that should have been bottled up. He may have been a disgruntled, if not embittered, coach this past year, --even before the incident Are you condoning assistant coaches going behind their bosses back? Are you condoning insubordination from assistants who report to the head coach? This story should have resulted in the assistant in question being fired. One question that I would like answered from HC personnel....if firing Gibbons was performance-based why wasn't his whole staff let go? Most of them had been there for a few years. Were they not part of the disappointing results?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Sept 28, 2019 8:47:53 GMT -5
Sadly, the answer to your last question is simple one. When he was not in charge, twice recently, the team's record was better than when he was there.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Sept 28, 2019 9:55:12 GMT -5
And what would have happen to team dynamics at that point, completely sacrifice the rest of the season? Or if all three assistants decided to leave at that point who would be handling the team, certainly not one person and again the season would be totally sacrificed to retain the head coach for four more weeks, who based on his record probably was not going to get a renewal. Team dynamics should always be the priority whether it is a player causing dysfunction or a coach. When the dynamics is complicated with an apparent HR issue, the decision is most likely removed from the athletic department to a third party. I have seen organizations move more quickly than what has occurred at HC in resolving the organization impediment. But in a roundabout way, you've made my point. If the matter was serious enough, why was he allowed to coach for nearly two months afterwards? Didn't he incident happen before exams? Compare that to Cooper, Cooper was not on the team any more, and yet at the time he voluntarily stepped down. Now, if you or someone else tells me that the team atmosphere during that time (from the time of the confrontation until 1/31/2019) was a complete mess, that changes my position considerably. Whatever one thinks of the suspension situation, it's ironic that 95% of us agree that without it happening Gibbons goes quietly; if he sued it would have been dismissed by now.
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Sept 28, 2019 10:02:53 GMT -5
Would it change your position if you knew that BG voluntarily left the team so "they" did not "take him off the job".
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Sept 28, 2019 10:08:50 GMT -5
Not really, but I rewrote it according to your comment because your statement is factual and mine was not.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Sept 28, 2019 12:48:49 GMT -5
During the Cooper incident, BG voluntarily placed himself under suspension. Doing his absence the team under AM performed well and won 7 of the first 9 games during the 2013-2014 season. www.goholycross.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=33100&SPID=157229&SPSID=917396&q_season=2013&spids=&conf_school_id=Based on the team record at the start of the season, and this may be cynical, BG saw that the team was performing very well under Ann Mc’s leadership and decided that it would be best to un suspend himself and return to coaching. At this time FADDR had left HC and Nate Pine had yet to take over as AD. The team ended up with a PL league record of 10-8. RGS previously noted that under her leadership and style, the team in fact performed better. BG is in many ways a 20 century basketball coach regarding style, demeanor, recruiting and techniques. General observation he did not evolve as other coaches were able to do. Geno seems to have changed, he also has a very strong support staff, with coaches in place for a very long time. BG’s staff has been in a constant state of turnover. Ann Mc being the only constant for more than 5 years. His style and coaching philosophy led to either coaches leaving or hiring young coaches with little experience, so no one pushed back when they disagreed with his decisions. Do you honestly think if Chris Dailey or Shea Ralph made a change while Geno was out on the floor, he would come back and yank the player? I really don’t think so. Maybe at the next time out, which could be 30 seconds later, but Geno would have said to Chris why and come to an agreement. She holds him in check when he gets beyond his ski’s. BG has not had an assistant probably since Kelly Greenberg who had that type of relationship that would be blunt to him regarding a possible erroneous move based on current in game strategy.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 28, 2019 21:48:40 GMT -5
Regarding entitlement, I am glad AM has a one year deal as an interim head coach. At HC's level I am wary of too many guaranteed coaching contracts. "Prove it" deals outside of FB and MBB strike me as providing the best balance between protecting HC, providing incentives and rewarding performance.
If a M or W hockey or Lacrosse or baseball or WBB or any other coach starts winning championships and wants a longer term deal, we will have kept powder dry to compete for that coach's continued service.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Sept 28, 2019 22:10:43 GMT -5
He. wasn't. getting. the. job. done. Simple. No. contract. extension. The rest is noise. Totally agree. The problem with this situation, like so many others under the current administration, is that the noise is all unnecessary and created from within. We need new leadership badly. This is just one of the more recent examples of why.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Sept 28, 2019 22:16:12 GMT -5
Regarding entitlement, I am glad AM has a one year deal as an interim head coach. At HC's level I am wary of too many guaranteed coaching contracts. "Prove it" deals outside of FB and MBB strike me as providing the best balance between protecting HC, providing incentives and rewarding performance. If a M or W hockey or Lacrosse or baseball or WBB or any other coach starts winning championships and wants a longer term deal, we will have kept powder dry to compete for that coach's continued service. Generally agree but it does put us behind the 8-ball when it comes to recruiting.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 29, 2019 7:58:52 GMT -5
Trying again....... 1.) I do not know whether the assistant coach's complaint was a Title IX complaint, or a employee harassment complaint, or both. I quickly read the college's policies and procedures for investigating and adjudicating both categories, and the processes seem similar. That said, an individual making a Title IX complaint has recourse to a Federal investigation. See: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html2.) From reading Gibbons' complaint, it appears, as part of the investigation, he was allowed to present 'his side of the story'. Whether he presented witnesses with statements favorable to him, I can't tell. His complaint references a comment supposedly made by Nate Pine, but it does not appear that Pine himself offered that comment to the investigator(s). Pine's supposed comment was limited to what he supposedly observed on a game video of the HC bench. Pine was not a witness to any behavior, good or bad, in the locker room, coaches suite, or practice court. In any event, Pine was on his way out the door. 3.) From charges that a cabal had been out to get him for months, if not years, it would seem no other coach or member of the athletic department with requisite knowledge of the situation and circumstances, offered statements favorable to him. 4.) Gibbons complaint states that the college should have afforded him the opportunity to review the investigative findings and the recommendations emanating from those findings before any 'penalty' was imposed. I found no provision in the HC procedures allowing such. 5.) The college can consider previous, related complaints against an employee in the course of the investigation and adjudication. This would have brought in Cooper and the other unidentified player who had complained, and who was a player contemporaneous with Cooper. If this unidentified player is not the incident one mentioned by Crucis, then there are (at least) three players who complained. The college retains the investigation files on all complaints against an employee for as long as the employee is employed at the college. Of note, Cooper's complaint named a current member of the athletic department as a defendant, alleging that this individual had witnessed Gibbons' questionable behavior. 6.) Gibbons' complaint presents his suspension as being based solely on a single incident, and that incident is understandably described in terms favorable to him. There is a hint, not so much in his complaint, but in the descriptions of the cabal, that there were other incidents. __________________________ My perspective. Nate Pine would not give Gibbons the contract extension that Gibbons sought. Gibbons felt he was entitled to such, given his long tenure; he had no intention of retiring. Pine's refusal possibly unleashed emotions that should have been bottled up. He may have been a disgruntled, if not embittered, coach this past year, --even before the incident Are you condoning assistant coaches going behind their bosses back? Are you condoning insubordination from assistants who report to the head coach? This story should have resulted in the assistant in question being fired. One question that I would like answered from HC personnel....if firing Gibbons was performance-based why wasn't his whole staff let go? Most of them had been there for a few years. Were they not part of the disappointing results? After Cooper, Gibbons, was almost certainly was on a short leash, as well he should have been. There were at least three separate complaints against him. Cooper alleged he throttled her on the sideline during a timeout. During a game at UConn, he grabbed Cole near the base of her neck and yelled at her. If you were an employer, how many times would you let this type of behavior on the part of one of your employees continue? Gibbons, at least in recent years when he wasn't winning so much, was a high-emotion coach. Given his personality, and if he is on a short leash, Nate Pine is monitoring his behavior, and probably asking others on the staff, including coaches, to monitor it as well. Thus, the 'cabal'. About the same time as Cooper, several players lodged complaints against the head coach of women's basketball at Georgetown. During fall practice, the players alleged verbal abuse, about his directing obscenities at them. Some players defended the coach, saying that players should expect such verbal abuse at the college level. Georgetown took all of about two weeks to investigate and fire him.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Sept 29, 2019 10:13:02 GMT -5
Are you condoning assistant coaches going behind their bosses back? Are you condoning insubordination from assistants who report to the head coach? This story should have resulted in the assistant in question being fired. One question that I would like answered from HC personnel....if firing Gibbons was performance-based why wasn't his whole staff let go? Most of them had been there for a few years. Were they not part of the disappointing results? After Cooper, Gibbons, was almost certainly was on a short leash, as well he should have been. There were at least three separate complaints against him. Cooper alleged he throttled her on the sideline during a timeout. During a game at UConn, he grabbed Cole near the base of her neck and yelled at her. If you were an employer, how many times would you let this type of behavior on the part of one of your employees continue? Gibbons, at least in recent years when he wasn't winning so much, was a high-emotion coach. Given his personality, and if he is on a short leash, Nate Pine is monitoring his behavior, and probably asking others on the staff, including coaches, to monitor it as well. Thus, the 'cabal'. About the same time as Cooper, several players lodged complaints against the head coach of women's basketball at Georgetown. During fall practice, the players alleged verbal abuse, about his directing obscenities at them. Some players defended the coach, saying that players should expect such verbal abuse at the college level. Georgetown took all of about two weeks to investigate and fire him. If you ever see a documentary about a Harvard women's basketball player called No Look Pass; you'll be scratching your head that Kathy Delaney Smith is still the coach of the Crimson. Just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by HC13 on Sept 29, 2019 10:15:04 GMT -5
Are you condoning assistant coaches going behind their bosses back? Are you condoning insubordination from assistants who report to the head coach? This story should have resulted in the assistant in question being fired. One question that I would like answered from HC personnel....if firing Gibbons was performance-based why wasn't his whole staff let go? Most of them had been there for a few years. Were they not part of the disappointing results? After Cooper, Gibbons, was almost certainly was on a short leash, as well he should have been. There were at least three separate complaints against him. Cooper alleged he throttled her on the sideline during a timeout. During a game at UConn, he grabbed Cole near the base of her neck and yelled at her. If you were an employer, how many times would you let this type of behavior on the part of one of your employees continue? Gibbons, at least in recent years when he wasn't winning so much, was a high-emotion coach. Given his personality, and if he is on a short leash, Nate Pine is monitoring his behavior, and probably asking others on the staff, including coaches, to monitor it as well. Thus, the 'cabal'. About the same time as Cooper, several players lodged complaints against the head coach of women's basketball at Georgetown. During fall practice, the players alleged verbal abuse, about his directing obscenities at them. Some players defended the coach, saying that players should expect such verbal abuse at the college level. Georgetown took all of about two weeks to investigate and fire him. I have generally stayed out of this conversation, but come, come PP. Your characterizations of events seem to get more & more bizarre each time you recite them. What next, he hit Cooper with a baseball bat & attempted to strangle Cole? The suit claimed that BG hit Cooper during a January 2012 game against Brown, leaving a red handprint on her back. What precipitated the event, well Cooper got into it with a Brown player and looked like a fight might break out. He grabbed her off the court and shoved her to the bench (I was watching the game when it happened). Even she didn’t claim she was throttled! Now you go with the infamous Cole picture! As to the mysterious second player, about all we know for sure is neither that player or her parents supported the Cooper suit. For that matter, neither did about 90% (?) of his former players. High emotion coach? I would suggest you have never either seen in person or watched a game as if you had, you would realize he toned down his act substantially over the years. You can accuse BG of a variety of failures over his last 7/8 seasons, but no one has every claimed he swore or screamed at his players, his histrionics on the court were directed at the refs. Even then, he rarely, if ever swore, and I think the lack of technical he received over his career supports this view. The GU situation or for that matter the BU mess w/ Greenburg have one enormous difference, in both cases, multiple then current and former players stepped forward to support the compliant. Neither you or I have any evidence that there was any “leash,” to the contrary, I have no reason to believe there was any leash at all. I doubt we will ever learn what soured the relationship between AM & BG, but the handling of this mess by Sullivan & the school was nothing short of inept. My current concern going forward is this disaster has resulted a real problem, we have received NO new commits for either 20 or 21. Hopefully, that will change soon.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Sept 29, 2019 10:18:17 GMT -5
I have spoken to a D1 AD who told me he makes it very clear to assistant coaches, if you see something, say something
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Sept 29, 2019 10:53:11 GMT -5
My current concern going forward is this disaster has resulted a real problem, we have received NO new commits for either 20 or 21. Hopefully, that will change soon. Wasn't McInerney Gibbons' lead recruiter? Recruits often build their foremost relationships with the recruiter, not the head coach. There haven't been any 2020 de-commitments, have there?
Putting aside the different accounts of what led to the suspension, it was perfectly reasonable for Holy Cross to have let Gibbons go at the end of his contract - both parties likely knew well in advance of the suspension that he was finished here.
|
|
|
Post by HC13 on Sept 29, 2019 11:08:52 GMT -5
My current concern going forward is this disaster has resulted a real problem, we have received NO new commits for either 20 or 21. Hopefully, that will change soon. Wasn't McInerney Gibbons' lead recruiter? Recruits often build their foremost relationships with the recruiter, not the head coach. There haven't been any 2020 de-commitments, have there?
Putting aside the different accounts of what led to the suspension, it was perfectly reasonable for Holy Cross to have let Gibbons go at the end of his contract - both parties likely knew well in advance of the suspension that he was finished here. Yes she was and no de-commits that we know of. I have given them cudos for keeping both '19 signees & that so far as we know keeping the '20s. I have also stated & will restate my belief that going the interim route was idiotic. Again, the fact of no new commits and a noticeable lack of announced offers is worrying. We have at least 2 opennings each for 20 & 21
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 29, 2019 11:40:47 GMT -5
HC13, this note by the Marquette law professor recites the substance of Cooper 's complaint (which references the incident at the Brown game and a Lehigh game as well), and includes the text of several letters of support for Gibbons from former players and Worcester area coaches. law.marquette.edu/assets/sports-law/pdf/gIBBINS.2614.pdf(He has written a second subsequent note that mentions briefly that the case was settled.) Cooper's pleading is phrased in terms most favorable to her, and as the case was settled, there was no adjudication of the factuality of her claims. Suspension or no suspension, Gibbons' in his lawsuit, claims that the college pushed him out the door because the college wanted to hire a younger and cheaper coach; that there was a budgetary shortfall in the program and a means for making up this shortfall was to hire a younger and cheaper coach. To me, that is the core of his complaint. (He was paid during the suspension, and paid after the suspension term ended, so no damages there.) In other words, but for his age and his salary, he should have been given a contract extension. Though perhaps, I am more sensitive to age discrimination complaints, having been the defendant in one. The government lawyer representing me was very good, and plaintiff lost. She is no longer a government lawyer, but from time to time, is quoted in the press. See Gordian knot quote in this NY Times article on WeWork. www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/business/wework-jpmorgan.html?module=inline
|
|
|
Post by gks on Sept 29, 2019 12:02:20 GMT -5
HC13, this note by the Marquette law professor recites the substance of Cooper 's complaint (which references the incident at the Brown game and a Lehigh game as well), and includes the text of several letters of support for Gibbons from former players and Worcester area coaches. law.marquette.edu/assets/sports-law/pdf/gIBBINS.2614.pdf(He has written a second subsequent note that mentions briefly that the case was settled.) Cooper's pleading is phrased in terms most favorable to her, and as the case was settled, there was no adjudication of the factuality of her claims. Suspension or no suspension, Gibbons' in his lawsuit, claims that the college pushed him out the door because the college wanted to hire a younger and cheaper coach; that there was a budgetary shortfall in the program and a means for making up this shortfall was to hire a younger and cheaper coach. To me, that is the core of his complaint. (He was paid during the suspension, and paid after the suspension term ended, so no damages there.) In other words, but for his age and his salary, he should have been given a contract extension. Though perhaps, I am more sensitive to age discrimination complaints, having been the defendant in one. The government lawyer representing me was very good, and plaintiff lost. She is no longer a government lawyer, but from time to time, is quoted in the press. See Gordian knot quote in this NY Times article on WeWork. www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/business/wework-jpmorgan.html?module=inline Why do you keep going back to the Cooper thing? This lawsuit is about an assistant coach, Gibbons and HC. Cooper is old news for which Gibbons was found to be in the right.
|
|