|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 16, 2023 8:21:23 GMT -5
And his loss of access to the Worcester Consortium for Higher Education Van once he was no longer an employee, right? I never got that "loss of Consortium" claim. He actually did complain about HC taking away his HC-issued credit card, his keys to Hart/Luth, and one or two other deprivations (a coaches' banquet?). He also accused HC of failing to give him 'due process', in that he was not allowed to read and review the statements/declarations of those interviewed during the course of the investigation. Presumably, these were statements by players and other coaches.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 16, 2023 9:40:39 GMT -5
Consortium is the loss of the care, comfort, and relations of another. So BG's wife, I assume, is alleging that HC's action upset BG so much that it damaged their marriage. You see loss of consortium claims in many personal injury cases, and it makes for some very uncomfortable depositions ("So, Ms. Smith, how often did you and Mr. Smith have sex before the automobile accident? And how often since?").
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Mar 16, 2023 10:19:57 GMT -5
Consortium is the loss of the care, comfort, and relations of another. So BG's wife, I assume, is alleging that HC's action upset BG so much that it damaged their marriage. You see loss of consortium claims in many personal injury cases, and it makes for some very uncomfortable depositions ("So, Ms. Smith, how often did you and Mr. Smith have sex before the automobile accident? And how often since?"). Is Mrs. G part of the suit? You'd think that would be something that she'd be suing for, not him.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 16, 2023 10:24:35 GMT -5
Consortium is the loss of the care, comfort, and relations of another. So BG's wife, I assume, is alleging that HC's action upset BG so much that it damaged their marriage. You see loss of consortium claims in many personal injury cases, and it makes for some very uncomfortable depositions ("So, Ms. Smith, how often did you and Mr. Smith have sex before the automobile accident? And how often since?"). Is Mrs. G part of the suit? You'd think that would be something that she'd be suing for, not him. Yes, Lisa Gibbons is a plaintiff.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 16, 2023 10:27:28 GMT -5
I suppose you've (Newfie) heard your share of creative euphemisms to explain the loss.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 16, 2023 10:34:03 GMT -5
Loss of Consortium is also not being able to, after 34+ years (was assistant men's coach first) stop by for coffee or go to a game that even if non-renewed without suspension would be normal.
|
|
|
Post by crusader12 on Mar 16, 2023 16:56:07 GMT -5
I hope Bill Gibbons takes Holy Cross to the cleaners. HC has become a breeding ground of the woke where you’re guilty until proven innocent. Go get ‘em Bill!
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 16, 2023 18:58:32 GMT -5
I hope Bill Gibbons takes Holy Cross to the cleaners. HC has become a breeding ground of the woke where you’re guilty until proven innocent. Go get ‘em Bill! Well, this is the most fatuous post I've read in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 16, 2023 19:00:21 GMT -5
There's another article in the Telegram today about the case. I'll try to cut and paste when I get a chance. BG's case is taking on water.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 16, 2023 19:24:43 GMT -5
Just read the article. Can’t cut and paste from my iPad but I’ll tease the article by saying we are going to be awfully interested in this.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Mar 16, 2023 19:36:20 GMT -5
WORCESTER — A judge is weighing whether to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought against the College of the Holy Cross by former women’s basketball coach William P. Gibbons, after Gibbons admitted to falsifying, and then lying under oath, about emails presented as evidence.
“There has been such a cascade of lies and misrepresentations by this plaintiff … we at the college don’t even know what’s true,” Holy Cross lawyer Gregory A. Manousos said Thursday afternoon in Worcester Superior Court, referring to additional emails presented to the defendant Wednesday.
“What amount of fraud is enough?” Manousos continued. “The plaintiff should suffer the dismissal of the whole case. That’s the only thing that would serve justice.”
Gibbons’ attorney Janet Ruggieri said her client admitted he was in the wrong for falsifying evidence. However, she argued that the sanctions he should face would be the impressions of the jury when they learned about his fabrications – as the emails were now inadmissible as evidence because they were fake, while Gibbons’ actions were fair game for the defendants to use to try and undermine his credibility.
“The sanction is that the defendant can use these (emails) and he can’t,” Ruggieri told the court. “He’s already created his own sanctions.”
Gibbons filed a civil lawsuit in September 2019 accusing Holy Cross officials of several counts including breach of contract, defamation and infliction of emotional distress.
The claims originated from the fallout over an incident at a Nov. 15, 2018 Holy Cross-Boston College game in which Gibbons and an assistant coach got into a disagreement over a substitution.
Bill Gibbons on the sidelines during a Holy Cross game against Loyola in February 2018.
Gibbons was suspended Jan. 31, 2019, for 60 days, after an internal investigation into what the school labeled a “personnel matter.”
Meanwhile, at the time of Gibbons’ suspension, the campus was wrestling with allegations of sexual misconduct by faculty/staff. In fact, the day before Gibbons’ suspension, the college placed a philosophy professor on administrative leave amid sexual assault allegations.
Gibbons and his attorneys protested the original Jan. 31 press release announcing his suspension, which the college then revised to say “this suspension does not pertain to any sexual allegation.” However, Ruggieri said, the modified press release was never distributed to the media and instead remained buried on the Holy Cross website.
On March 28, 2019, the school announced that Gibbons’ contract would not be renewed.
Gibbons subsequently sued, alleging that the college had defamed him by not specifying in the press release announcing his suspension that his case was not due to a violation of the sexual misconduct policy or because of a student issue. Gibbons alleges this led to a misconception in the community that he had been fired because of sexual misconduct.
“He was scapegoated by Holy Cross while it was in the midst of sexual misconduct scandals on three or four fronts,” Ruggieri said. “People were led to believe it was a sexual misconduct complaint that led to his suspension.”
But Manousos said it was "a huge stretch to claim defamation from a truthful press release."
Moreover, Manousos said Gibbons had been lying throughout, desperate to “bolster” his case. This took the form of emails from other members of the basketball community that Gibbons doctored, as well as emails to the Telegram & Gazette and to members of the Holy Cross community from fake personas he created. Gibbons also lied in a deposition about the authenticity of the fake emails, only admitting his deception “when he got caught,” Manousos said.
Coach seeks additional charges
Manousos asked the judge to issue sanctions, including that the case be dismissed.
Ruggieri opposed the motion and had other requests.
She sought to amend the complaint to include additional charges of violation of privacy and the right of free association, to reopen the discovery phase of the case, and to get the college to share emails involving its general counsel.
For the additional claims, Ruggieri said the 2022 release of a report on sexual misconduct by faculty at the college, in which outside investigators wrote that an unnamed male coach of a female sports team at the college during the 2010s had allegedly “groomed” students, constituted an invasion of privacy because it led people to speculate that it referred to Gibbons. Similarly, “scuttlebutt about Mr. Gibbons’s life” on a blog dedicated to Holy Cross sports had led to an invasion of privacy.
“When there are incidents that defendants created that cause people to reach into a private life, that is an invasion of privacy,” Ruggieri said.
Meanwhile, an ongoing no-trespass order had violated Gibbons’s rights of free association, she argued.
Finally, Ruggieri asked to reopen discovery and for the college to share emails from its general counsel regarding the suspension and eventual firing. Ruggieri argued the emails were essential to proving that the college acted with actual malice in firing and defaming Gibbons.
“Without those, we would not be able to move forward on our case,” Ruggieri said, seeking to have the judge review the emails to see if they could be admitted.
Manousos argued the emails from general counsel fell under attorney-client privilege. He noted the investigation into faculty sexual misconduct was not conducted by Holy Cross and its report did not name Gibbons, nor was the blog affiliated officially with the college.
And he said the college was private property where the right of free association could not be violated. Finally, he noted the requests were coming after the discovery period had been closed for five months, and were made more than three years after the case was filed.
“This case has been fully and fairly litigated,” Manousos said. “(Plaintiffs) haven’t apparently found enough to satisfy them.”
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 16, 2023 19:50:33 GMT -5
A reference to Crossports in the article?
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 16, 2023 19:53:57 GMT -5
A reference to Crossports in the article? Yes. That’s what intrigued me. I am assuming this is the unofficial blog that is referenced.
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Mar 16, 2023 20:12:41 GMT -5
Win or lose, Ruggieri is doing a hell of a job representing her client.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 16, 2023 20:41:08 GMT -5
Win or lose, Ruggieri is doing a hell of a job representing her client. It will be interesting to see if she stays in the case. A lot of lawyers would withdraw after what BG did.
|
|
|
Post by spenser on Mar 16, 2023 21:07:36 GMT -5
Win or lose, Ruggieri is doing a hell of a job representing her client. It will be interesting to see if she stays in the case. A lot of lawyers would withdraw after what BG did. I’d be withdrawing. It’s problematic to represent a client who you know has lied under oath, ethical issues make putting him on the stand a but dicey. But neither the press or we know the whole story.
|
|
|
Post by alumni111 on Mar 16, 2023 21:18:31 GMT -5
A lot of good thoughts. To me, the overriding factor is this suit is that HC acted with actual malice in firing and defaming FHCBG. Everything flows from there. The harm done to him has been incalculable, outweighing (but not excusing) his falsifying evidence and lying to the court. He never got the due process his contract required (let alone deserved). It seems the only person at HC who had the right take was FADNP. HC had many opportunities to handle this properly, and only continued -- and continues to this day -- to compound its terrible handling of this issue. I'd like to think fresh perspectives from a new President (a lawyer and law professor by training) and a new BOT chair (Helen Boucher '86) can bring this saga to an end out of court. Get Rougeau, Boucher & Gibbons in a room and I believe the fairest possible solution could be achieved -- and with BG again welcome in the HC community.
|
|
|
Post by spenser on Mar 16, 2023 21:32:21 GMT -5
A lot of good thoughts. To me, the overriding factor is this suit is that HC acted with actual malice in firing and defaming FHCBG. Everything flows from there. The harm done to him has been incalculable, outweighing (but not excusing) his falsifying evidence and lying to the court. He never got the due process his contract required (let alone deserved). It seems the only person at HC who had the right take was FADNP. HC had many opportunities to handle this properly, and only continued -- and continues to this day -- to compound its terrible handling of this issue. I'd like to think fresh perspectives from a new President (a lawyer and law professor by training) and a new BOT chair (Helen Boucher '86) can bring this saga to an end out of court. Get Rougeau, Boucher & Gibbons in a room and I believe the fairest possible solution could be achieved -- and with BG again welcome in the HC community. It’s well beyond that point now. Probably could, and definitely should have been resolved when the whole thing blew up. Clearly the fact that his offense was not of a sexual nature should have been better publicized. But he’s lied under oath in a court proceeding. Some judges would react to that and dismiss his case. What he did is that serious. The only thing that will most likely stop that from happening is the fact that dismissal is viewed as an extraordinary remedy and is not done lightly. My familiarity with the judge who heard this case today makes me think that she will not dismiss.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 16, 2023 21:48:38 GMT -5
Gibbons admitted to falsifying and then lying under oath about emails presented as evidence in his case. Wow. Isn't that admitting to a crime? I'll be surprised if the DA charges him, but perjury is illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 16, 2023 22:03:46 GMT -5
Gibbons was not fired. His contract was not renewed.
In his original complaint, he alleged that his contract was not being renewed because 1.) women's basketball was spending over its budgeted amount; 2,) HC no longer wanted to pay him his high salary (the salary was high because of his long tenure, and he benefited from RW's high salary and Title IX); 3.) HC intended to replace him with a younger coach at a lower salary. He did not claim that HC did not pay him for the full term of his contract.
Clearly, he was not offered a contract extension prior to the incident with the assistant coach. He has made no claim that an extension offer/commitment was withdrawn after the incident.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 16, 2023 22:08:50 GMT -5
A lot of good thoughts. To me, the overriding factor is this suit is that HC acted with actual malice in firing and defaming FHCBG. Everything flows from there. The harm done to him has been incalculable, outweighing (but not excusing) his falsifying evidence and lying to the court. He never got the due process his contract required (let alone deserved). It seems the only person at HC who had the right take was FADNP. HC had many opportunities to handle this properly, and only continued -- and continues to this day -- to compound its terrible handling of this issue. I'd like to think fresh perspectives from a new President (a lawyer and law professor by training) and a new BOT chair (Helen Boucher '86) can bring this saga to an end out of court. Get Rougeau, Boucher & Gibbons in a room and I believe the fairest possible solution could be achieved -- and with BG again welcome in the HC community. I enjoyed BG's banter with Bob Fouracre, Kevin Shea and others for decades, loved seeing an HC team rack up 20 win season after 20 win season, pile up league championships and NCAA appearances, and the long running "Holy Cross Women's Basketball Show" when I could get Charter-3. But you realize he was not fired by the college and was paid in full for 34 years, right? What confuses matters is HC not renewing his contract can be justified by the years long drop off in performance. Even Nate Pine might have made the decision to not renew as he had already decided not to renew before BG's final contract year.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 16, 2023 22:27:57 GMT -5
Gibbons admitted to falsifying and then lying under oath about emails presented as evidence in his case. Wow. Isn't that admitting to a crime? I'll be surprised if the DA charges him, but perjury is illegal. He appears to have lied to his own attorney. She almost certainly asked him for documentation that he became unemployable as a result of the College's suspension. He apparently had no documentation that supported the claim, so he doctored correspondence with other coaches / athletic officials, and provided these to her. She apparently never cross-checked with these other parties as to the authenticity of their communication with Gibbons. Gibbons apparently did not realize that Holy Cross would depose the other coaches / athletic officials to verify that they had told him he was unemployable. , He surely did not tell his attorney what he had done, because if she knew, she would be subject to sanctions as an officer of the court for furthering the misrepresentations.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 17, 2023 7:03:54 GMT -5
A lot of good thoughts. To me, the overriding factor is this suit is that HC acted with actual malice in firing and defaming FHCBG. Everything flows from there. The harm done to him has been incalculable, outweighing (but not excusing) his falsifying evidence and lying to the court. He never got the due process his contract required (let alone deserved). It seems the only person at HC who had the right take was FADNP. HC had many opportunities to handle this properly, and only continued -- and continues to this day -- to compound its terrible handling of this issue. I'd like to think fresh perspectives from a new President (a lawyer and law professor by training) and a new BOT chair (Helen Boucher '86) can bring this saga to an end out of court. Get Rougeau, Boucher & Gibbons in a room and I believe the fairest possible solution could be achieved -- and with BG again welcome in the HC community. I don't know enough of the inside facts of this matter to say that HC acted perfectly in all respects, but you really should get your facts right before you bad mouth HC. BG wasn't going to remain as coach. He was no longer succeeding in that role. He got paid for all of his work. The HC community appreciates all of the great things he did for the program but it was time to move on. I've always thought that this case would settle, and it still might, but BG may have burned that bridge with his egregious conduct. In 46 years of practicing law I never saw a client do anything like this ( although I've had a few suggest it). If this case goes to trial he's going to get hammered, as he should. He asked for a rock fight, and now he's got one. BTW, if the case goes to trial BG's lawyers might try to introduce posts from Crossports in support of the defamation claim. There would be some evidentiary issues, but Crossports might be part of the trial.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 17, 2023 7:15:04 GMT -5
A lot of good thoughts. To me, the overriding factor is this suit is that HC acted with actual malice in firing and defaming FHCBG. Everything flows from there. The harm done to him has been incalculable, outweighing (but not excusing) his falsifying evidence and lying to the court. He never got the due process his contract required (let alone deserved). It seems the only person at HC who had the right take was FADNP. HC had many opportunities to handle this properly, and only continued -- and continues to this day -- to compound its terrible handling of this issue. I'd like to think fresh perspectives from a new President (a lawyer and law professor by training) and a new BOT chair (Helen Boucher '86) can bring this saga to an end out of court. Get Rougeau, Boucher & Gibbons in a room and I believe the fairest possible solution could be achieved -- and with BG again welcome in the HC community. But you realize he was not fired by the college and was paid in full for 34 years, right? At the time of the suspension, it was reported that he was suspended with pay. If he was suspended without pay and it was determined the suspension was not justified, that would be another issue
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 17, 2023 7:30:10 GMT -5
A lot of good thoughts. To me, the overriding factor is this suit is that HC acted with actual malice in firing and defaming FHCBG. Everything flows from there. The harm done to him has been incalculable, outweighing (but not excusing) his falsifying evidence and lying to the court. He never got the due process his contract required (let alone deserved). It seems the only person at HC who had the right take was FADNP. HC had many opportunities to handle this properly, and only continued -- and continues to this day -- to compound its terrible handling of this issue. I'd like to think fresh perspectives from a new President (a lawyer and law professor by training) and a new BOT chair (Helen Boucher '86) can bring this saga to an end out of court. Get Rougeau, Boucher & Gibbons in a room and I believe the fairest possible solution could be achieved -- and with BG again welcome in the HC community. I don't know enough of the inside facts of this matter to say that HC acted perfectly in all respects, but you really should get your facts right before you bad mouth HC. BG wasn't going to remain as coach. He was no longer succeeding in that role. He got paid for all of his work. The HC community appreciates all of the great things he did for the program but it was time to move on. I've always thought that this case would settle, and it still might, but BG may have burned that bridge with his egregious conduct. In 46 years of practicing law I never saw a client do anything like this ( although I've had a few suggest it). If this case goes to trial he's going to get hammered, as he should. He asked for a rock fight, and now he's got one. BTW, if the case goes to trial BG's lawyers might try to introduce posts from Crossports in support of the defamation claim. There would be some evidentiary issues, but Crossports might be part of the trial. Are you applying to be Crossports’ counsel in this case ? What are your rates ? How about pro bono ? ( for St. Patrick’s Day, and Bono) Dean, are you liable ?
|
|