|
Post by longsuffering on Jul 11, 2021 14:39:15 GMT -5
I always liked BG personally but felt like Carmody he was "mailing it in" after many years of success. It would appear that his case is all about Holy Cross damaging his reputation as he can't claim they fired him since they simply didn't renew his contract. The damaged reputation is more than a bit nebulous. I believe he's claimed he hasn't been offered any other jobs and attributes that to having been besmirched by the College. Would think that'd be hard to prove when his record over his last 4 full seasons was: 2017-2018: 13-18 2016-2017: 8-22 2015-2016: 13-17 2014-2015: 15-17 Total: 49-74 = 39.8% Near as I can figure, in his last, partial season (suspended on or about 1/31/19), the record was 11-9, which was an improvement, obviously, but was on a 3-6 string his last 9 games. Suspending him meant he was getting his salary without having to coach/earn it. Financially he probably wasn't hurt and an argument could be made that he could/should have used that time to start looking elsewhere. He could have resigned and likely have been able to move on. Even in the best of times, Bill had a volatile personality to be polite about it. I always wished he had just walked away or failing that, taken on some back office role with the athletic department which would have perhaps salvaged his reputation. The former UConn men's basketball coach Dee Rowe is the gold standard for the process you wished BG had taken. He stepped down as head coach and then stayed in the UConn Athletic Dept for over forty years until his death. He conquered the Peter Principle and found a function he shone (shined?) in. BG would have brought value in community relations, Diocese relations, and alumni relations as he would have been familiar to decades of graduates, many from his glory years. RP,Sr. at HC and Mike Eruzione at BU are other positive examples of mutually beneficial arrangements. Perhaps BG would have had this opportunity if he negotiated well before his contract expired.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jul 13, 2021 11:38:32 GMT -5
I always liked BG personally but felt like Carmody he was "mailing it in" after many years of success. It would appear that his case is all about Holy Cross damaging his reputation as he can't claim they fired him since they simply didn't renew his contract. The damaged reputation is more than a bit nebulous. I believe he's claimed he hasn't been offered any other jobs and attributes that to having been besmirched by the College. Would think that'd be hard to prove when his record over his last 4 full seasons was: 2017-2018: 13-18 2016-2017: 8-22 2015-2016: 13-17 2014-2015: 15-17 Total: 49-74 = 39.8% Near as I can figure, in his last, partial season (suspended on or about 1/31/19), the record was 11-9, which was an improvement, obviously, but was on a 3-6 string his last 9 games. Suspending him meant he was getting his salary without having to coach/earn it. Financially he probably wasn't hurt and an argument could be made that he could/should have used that time to start looking elsewhere. He could have resigned and likely have been able to move on. Even in the best of times, Bill had a volatile personality to be polite about it. I always wished he had just walked away or failing that, taken on some back office role with the athletic department which would have perhaps salvaged his reputation. Other than the win-loss record, I am not aware of anything about his reputation that needs salvaging. I suppose the uninformed could take something from non-credible allegations from a former assistant or a former player. I'm not sure a job in the athletic department or anything the school could do will prevent people from focusing on malicious gossip
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jul 13, 2021 17:42:53 GMT -5
To my knowledge, in the case of rowing, HC's insurer has settled the several suits that were filed. I believe all suits were moved to Federal court for the Middle District in Florida, and settled there. In looking at the roster for spring 2021, I believe all the injured rowers were on it, including the two who were most grievously injured.
Cooper's case was settled after she was allowed to move the case back to state court, and join the HC BoT as defendants, IIRC. ------------------ In the case of BG, IIRC his remaining damages would be for loss of consortium, and damage to his reputation because he was suspended. He suspended himself after Cooper filed her complaint, which would suggest that he himself considered suspension to be an appropriate sanction.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jul 13, 2021 19:38:46 GMT -5
To my knowledge, in the case of rowing, HC's insurer has settled the several suits that were filed. I believe all suits were moved to Federal court for the Middle District in Florida, and settled there. In looking at the roster for spring 2021, I believe all the injured rowers were on it, including the two who were most grievously injured. Cooper's case was settled after she was allowed to move the case back to state court, and join the HC BoT as defendants, IIRC. ------------------ In the case of BG, IIRC his remaining damages would be for loss of consortium, and damage to his reputation because he was suspended. He suspended himself after Cooper filed her complaint, which would suggest that he himself considered suspension to be an appropriate sanction. Loss of consortium is real in the sense that after 35 years at an employer the ability to attend games, events, retirement receptions, etc. and consort with your old colleagues is a tremendous joy. However, how much of the loss of consortium was caused by the plaintiff by the way he responded to events and then filed suit is an interesting question.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jul 13, 2021 20:18:04 GMT -5
Of course, loss of consortium in MA refers to the loss of a spouse/partner's/child's care, comfort, and companionship. I don't know if anyone else has done so but you can read the Complaint (and all the pleadings) online. It's an interesting read, albeit too long and a bit overwrought.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jul 13, 2021 20:30:13 GMT -5
Of course, loss of consortium in MA refers to the loss of a spouse/partner's/child's care, comfort, and companionship. I don't know if anyone else has done so but you can read the Complaint (and all the pleadings) online. It's an interesting read, albeit too long and a bit overwrought. I haven't read the report but I guess you mean the claim is career disruption caused family disruption. I was thinking more of the reported no trespass order by Holy Cross severing the usual post employment consortium available to a long time career employee. Either way it paints a paternalistic picture of HC as having broad responsibility for an employee's happiness that doesn't seem realistic.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jul 14, 2021 7:16:27 GMT -5
The only claim for loss of consortium in the lawsuit is by BG's wife. It strikes me as a very thin claim. It's a very short part of the Complaint, but the gist seems to be that HC defamed, mistreated, abused, and embarrassed BG so badly that his wife was denied the benefit of his companionship and company.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jul 14, 2021 8:29:57 GMT -5
The only claim for loss of consortium in the lawsuit is by BG's wife. It strikes me as a very thin claim. It's a very short part of the Complaint, but the gist seems to be that HC defamed, mistreated, abused, and embarrassed BG so badly that his wife was denied the benefit of his companionship and company. Isn't that an add on in almost all civil suits?
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jul 14, 2021 8:55:50 GMT -5
Yes, you see it most frequently in personal injury suits.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jul 14, 2021 10:02:50 GMT -5
The definition of "loss of consortium:"
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jul 14, 2021 10:07:52 GMT -5
When I was a young claims adjuster, we were taught that loss of consortium meant very specifically that last part. Guessing over the years, women's lib, equal rights and all the definition has broadened (no pun intended!!!).
I was wondering what Gibbons and/or his lawyers were thinking. I guess he or she were so psychologically and emotionally devastated that his contract was non-renewed after so many years.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jul 14, 2021 10:17:52 GMT -5
When I was a young claims adjuster, we were taught that loss of consortium meant very specifically that last part. Guessing over the years, women's lib, equal rights and all the definition has broadened (no pun intended!!!). I was wondering what Gibbons and/or his lawyers were thinking. I guess he or she were so psychologically and emotionally devastated that his contract was non-renewed after so many years. ...or the stress of the situation affected him physically, yada, yada, yada? Nothing like a good lawsuit to make someone who I would tend to like be unlikeable.
|
|
|
Post by HCFC45 on Jul 29, 2021 7:02:53 GMT -5
From today's (07/29/2021) Telegram:
Court records: Holy Cross denies ex-professor fired unfairly over sexual misconduct allegations
Scott O'Connell
Telegram & Gazette
WORCESTER – Holy Cross has denied a former professor’s accusations in federal court that he was fired unfairly over sexual misconduct allegations, court records show.
The college and its former president, Rev. Philip Boroughs, filed their response to Christopher Dustin’s lawsuit on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Worcester.
In addition to refuting Dustin’s allegation that he was pushed out at the college to placate students and faculty members upset with the school’s handling of reported sex offenses on campus, Holy Cross claims in its filing Dustin “breached the duty of loyalty he owed to” the college.
“(Dustin) was obligated to act, first and foremost, in its best interest, and Plaintiff breached those duties by acting contrary to Holy Cross’s best interests, in violation of its policies, and in breach of his agreement with Holy Cross,” the school’s response says, “by engaging in self-dealing activities to advance his personal interests at the expense of Holy Cross and using Holy Cross’s resources.”
Because of Dustin, “Holy Cross has suffered and will continue to suffer damages,” the document goes on to say.
A philosophy professor who joined the college in 1991, Dustin has been accused of inappropriate behavior by two former students, who came out publicly with their allegations two years ago. The college removed him from his position last year.
His alleged misconduct made him a central figure in a largely student-led campaign in 2019 to get the college to improve its track record on handling reported sexual harassment and abuse on campus. But in his lawsuit against the college, Dustin argues it was that climate that led the college to unjustly fire him, despite his claims that the school never found him guilty of sexual harassment in its own investigation.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jul 29, 2021 9:18:22 GMT -5
Okay: "by engaging in self-dealing activities to advance his personal interests at the expense of Holy Cross and using Holy Cross’s resources.” ...then what were the self-dealing activities? "self-dealing" is defined as "engagement in a transaction for the benefit of oneself rather than for the benefits of someone to whom one owes a fiduciary duty". I wouldn't necessarily categorize anything related to sexual misconduct as self-dealing.
Maybe just lawyer-speak.
|
|
|
Post by rickii on Jul 29, 2021 9:45:27 GMT -5
Okay: "by engaging in self-dealing activities to advance his personal interests at the expense of Holy Cross and using Holy Cross’s resources.” ...then what were the self-dealing activities? "self-dealing" is defined as "engagement in a transaction for the benefit of oneself rather than for the benefits of someone to whom one owes a fiduciary duty". I wouldn't necessarily categorize anything related to sexual misconduct as self-dealing. Maybe just lawyer-speak. While the choice of verbage is unique, I think the inference is clearly that tim.
|
|