|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 15, 2023 14:56:06 GMT -5
I've been keeping an eye on the Court's online docket. HC's lawyers have alleged that BG doctored/manufactured some emails and that he lied about it in his sworn deposition. They're asking that the suit be dismissed. There's an article in todays Telegram. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 15, 2023 15:26:03 GMT -5
Would someone please copy and paste that article ?
|
|
|
Post by HC13 on Mar 15, 2023 15:31:43 GMT -5
Citing fake emails, Holy Cross wants court to drop suit of former women's hoop coach Cyrus Moulton Telegram & Gazette Hear this story
WORCESTER - The College of the Holy Cross is seeking to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by former women’s basketball head coach William P. Gibbons, after Gibbons admitted to falsifying and then lying under oath about emails presented as evidence in his case.
“Most egregiously, Plaintiff altered the text of an email sent by a potential hiring manager in a manner clearly intended to support his specious claim that the College’s issuance of an accurate press release - which stated simply that Plaintiff had been suspended due to a ‘personnel matter’ - defamed him and caused him reputational harm,” Holy Cross’ lawyers, Gregory A. Manousos and Alexandra L. Pichette, wrote in a motion for sanctions filed in Worcester Superior Court.
“Additionally, Defendants have also adduced evidence indicating that Plaintiff was involved in sending emails from at least two pseudonymous Gmail accounts to many individuals within the College community … after Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this case. Those emails sought to influence the College’s handling of this litigation and to support the Plaintiff’s defamation claim.”
Bill Gibbons on the sidelines during a Holy Cross game against Loyola in February 2018. Gibbons also admitted to lying in a deposition when asked about the emails’ veracity.
In its motion, the college seeks sanctions including “dismissal of the complaint.”
Holy Cross declined to comment on pending litigation.
Gibbons was the women's basketball coach at Holy Cross for 34 years before he was suspended in January 2019 following an internal investigation into what the school labeled a personnel matter. Months later the school announced he would not return as the coach.
He sued the college in September 2019, moving the matter to civil courts.
Gibbons’ lawyer, Janet Ruggieri of Murphy and Rudolf, argued in an opposition to the motion for sanctions, saying that Gibbons’ actions “did not act to ‘substantially interfere’” with the defendants’ case.
“The actions of the plaintiff, while clearly misconduct, did not prejudice defendants’ preparation or presentation of their case to the factfinder,” Ruggieri wrote. “Indeed the emails from the fictitious fans and the additions and deletions to the emails of local athletic directors did not add to or detract from the material facts in the case.”
Moreover, Ruggieri said that the email falsifications demonstrate Gibbons’ “mental distress.”
“A 34-year Head Coach, the winningest coach in Holy Cross history, per the NCAA (Holy Cross won't credit him the final wins), who brought the women's basketball team and the college to national prominence with his successes as coach, was so distraught about the defamatory statements Holy Cross made about him that out of desperation and despair, he took these actions,” Ruggieri said in an email Wednesday.
And while Holy Cross is requesting that the case end, Ruggieri is seeking to reopen the discovery phase of the case, amend the complaint to include additional charges of violation of privacy and the right of free association, and to get the college to share emails that involve its general counsel.
“General Counsel injected herself into every management decision made regarding the Plaintiff, and these decisions and how they were made are the crux of his claims,” a plaintiff’s memorandum, in support of his motion to reopen discovery for limited purposes, said.
Proud HC coach Maureen Magarity excited about her team taking in NCAA experience
Holy Cross opposes the amended complaint and the reopening of discovery.
“Ultimately, Plaintiff is attempting to introduce new legal theories after the close of the lengthy and thorough discovery period that apparently failed to produce evidence supporting his original claims, and only after Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions seeking dismissal of the Complaint,” Holy Cross attorneys wrote in opposition to the motions for an amended complaint and reopening of discovery.
The motions are scheduled to be argued Thursday.
Gibbons filed a civil lawsuit in September 2019 accusing Holy Cross officials of breach of contract, defamation, age discrimination, infliction of emotional distress and other wrongdoing. The age discrimination claim and one of two infliction of emotional distress claims were dropped, according to court documents.
The claims originated from the fallout over an incident Nov. 15, 2018, during a Holy Cross game against Boston College. Gibbons and an assistant coach got into a disagreement over a substitution.
The assistant coach complained to human resources that the disagreement constituted a “threat,” prompting an investigation. The investigation report detailed claims by the assistant coach that Gibbons displayed “racism” toward her and some of the minority players on the team for the past two seasons, and that Gibbons was ignoring and not taking suggestions from the assistant coaches, according to the lawsuit.
Gibbons was suspended Jan. 31, 2019, for 60 days, after an internal investigation into what the school labeled a “personnel matter.”
In his lawsuit, Gibbons described the allegations as "fabricated” and uncorroborated “stories" designed "to advance a hidden agenda of the assistant coaches.”
Gibbons also alleged in his lawsuit that the investigation was flawed, that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations as was his contractual right, and that the investigative report was “factually erroneous.” He therefore claims that the firing was unjust.
Meanwhile, Gibbons alleges he was unjustly barred from campus, causing further reputational and emotional harm and preventing him from telling his side of the story.
As for the defamation count, Gibbons argued that Holy Cross defamed him by not originally specifying in the Jan. 31, 2019, news release announcing his suspension that his case was not due to a violation of the sexual misconduct policy or because of a student issue.
At the time of Gibbons’ suspension and firing, the campus was wrestling with allegations of sexual misconduct by faculty/staff. Just the day before Gibbons’ suspension, the college placed a philosophy professor on administrative leave amid sexual assault allegations.
Ruggieri said that Gibbons’ and his attorneys protested the original press release and the college revised it to say, “this suspension does not pertain to any sexual allegation.” However, Ruggieri said the amended document was never distributed to the media and was instead “buried” on the Holy Cross website.
On March 28, 2019, the school announced that Gibbons’ contract would not be renewed.
“The record, the performance of the team in the past few seasons has not been where we think it needs to be in terms of being competitive throughout the Patriot League and providing the opportunity for our team, which we think is really talented,” the interim director of athletics, Brendan Sullivan, said at the time.
Gibbons alleged that he has not been able to find work since, however, and that the presumption in the community is that he was fired for sexual misconduct.
Gibbons admitted to doctoring two emails to support his claims.
In the first example, an email from a potential employer at another institution to which Gibbons was applying was doctored to add “at this time, because of the way the College portrayed your departure as being similar to the Organist and professor who were accused of sexual misconduct, I would be unable to prove to our Board that you are hire-able.”
A second email from another coach was also doctored.
“The way the Holy Cross thing went down it would be impossible for me to pursue you, even as a volunteer,” the second coach wrote, according to court documents. “They say perception becomes reality, and the perception out there is you were terminated due to a harassment issue. Until that is clearly up publicly, my hands are tied. As a fellow coach I feel terrible for you, and hope your name is cleared and a school gives you a chance.”
But Gibbons deleted the text that came next: “Even though you are now old . Please give my best to the family and especially your mom.”
Finally, Gibbons admitted to creating two fake personas from whom sets of emails came.
Ruggieri acknowledged that the emails shouldn’t have been doctored or false personas created. She called the doctoring “very limited,” and noted that the fake personas would not be admissible in the case, however.
“There is no question he should not have done it,” Ruggieri said in an interview Wednesday. “Our position is that it doesn’t substantially interfere with the defendants’ case and doesn’t interfere with the court of justice. … It’s unfortunate that it happened at all. But it has no bearing on material facts of the case.”
She also expressed confidence that witnesses and documents would corroborate and prove Gibbons’ case.
“He’s just trying to make it right and he just did it the wrong way because Holy Cross won’t come forward and admit what really happened,” Ruggieri said. “Holy Cross is using these issues, which do not prejudice their case, as a distraction from the real issue - that Holy Cross defamed him, refused to correct the record and are continuing to tortiously interfere with his privacy rights.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 15, 2023 15:53:43 GMT -5
We need an objective attorney to analyze this, please.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 15, 2023 15:56:39 GMT -5
Do the lawyers on the board think BG's attys are working on contingency or hourly? This must be getting expensive if it's hourly. BG might have been sandbagged by the assistants but Sometimes you have to admit you've been outplayed and move on.
The length of this ordeal reminds me of a saying in sales: "A no is better than a maybe." If you lose but get the monkey off your back you might be better off than dragging it out.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 15, 2023 16:01:18 GMT -5
We need an objective attorney to analyze this, please. I don't know how objective I am, but here's my two cents. What Gibbons has been caught doing is pretty serious. It puts him and his case in a bad light. Having said that, Courts are reluctant to dismiss a case absent the most egregious conduct. The law disfavors denying someone their day in court. Different judges would handle this differently. My guess is that the case will not be dismissed but that Gibbons will be sanctioned in some way. His lawyer's argument was pretty brazen, essentially that yes he did wrong but only because of how upset he was at being treated so badly by HC. If I were the judge that argument would annoy me greatly.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Mar 15, 2023 16:01:54 GMT -5
A topic maybe better in "Non-sports Discussion"
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 15, 2023 16:28:06 GMT -5
Even if he avoids dismissal for this (which he should because as newfie points out judges don't like to dismiss cases) and if he survives a summary judgement motion which will likely be filed (doesn't take a lot to survive it but this case looks extraordinarily weak) if the case gets to trial when he gets cross examined he is going to get crucified for this. It goes to his credibility (if he would lie in discovery why wouldn't he lie at trial?)
Not comparing their actions in any way, but Alex Murdaugh tried to explain his lies to the police when he testified at trial. That didn't go well with the jury which convicted him in a couple of hours.
To the question of whether he is paying a lawyer hourly, I sure hope not for his sake. This would seem like throwing good money after bad.
|
|
|
Post by Ray on Mar 15, 2023 16:40:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure we need an objective lawyer to evaluate this. Gibbons admits he lied under oath and fabricated evidence. His lawyer's defense seems to be "it's not a big deal".
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 15, 2023 16:56:46 GMT -5
While I had empathy for BG when his cntract was not renewed, his conduct in changing evidence seems to work against him. After all, he was not fired. His contract xpired and I do not see how he had a right to demand it. Whatever the case, I hope this ends soon for the benefit of all concerned.
|
|
|
Post by spenser on Mar 15, 2023 16:58:07 GMT -5
Even if he avoids dismissal for this (which he should because as newfie points out judges don't like to dismiss cases) and if he survives a summary judgement motion which will likely be filed (doesn't take a lot to survive it but this case looks extraordinarily weak) if the case gets to trial when he gets cross examined he is going to get crucified for this. It goes to his credibility (if he would lie in discovery why wouldn't he lie at trial?) Not comparing their actions in any way, but Alex Murdaugh tried to explain his lies to the police when he testified at trial. That didn't go well with the jury which convicted him in a couple of hours. To the question of whether he is paying a lawyer hourly, I sure hope not for his sake. This would seem like throwing good money after bad. This semi-objective lawyer agrees with this. Having appeared before the judge who is assigned to this case, my sense is that there will be substantial sanctions short of dismissal.
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Mar 15, 2023 16:58:21 GMT -5
I'm not sure we need an objective lawyer to evaluate this. Gibbons admits he lied under oath and fabricated evidence. His lawyer's defense seems to be "it's not a big deal". In the alternative, it's HC's fault because what it did to him made him so distraught that he was forced to make stuff up. Blaming someone else for misdeeds seems to be fashionable these days.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Mar 15, 2023 17:04:28 GMT -5
Ironically, if HC had "rope a doped" Coach Parks' complaint for another 5-6 weeks, the season would have been over; they would have not renewed his contract and there'd be no semblance of a case; probably never would have come to this.
I do wonder if someone else pushed her into making that complaint. Some folks here have insinuated that there were others on the staff who, at that point, weren't very loyal.
If this ever comes to trial, will any of the others involved or on staff (or players) get called as witnesses?
|
|
coachrt
Climbing Mt. St. James
Posts: 93
|
Post by coachrt on Mar 15, 2023 18:59:12 GMT -5
Ironically, if HC had "rope a doped" Coach Parks' complaint for another 5-6 weeks, the season would have been over; they would have not renewed his contract and there'd be no semblance of a case; probably never would have come to this. I do wonder if someone else pushed her into making that complaint. Some folks here have insinuated that there were others on the staff who, at that point, weren't very loyal. If this ever comes to trial, will any of the others involved or on staff (or players) get called as witnesses? I'm no lawyer but I would hope so. Especially since one of the other assistants had her eyes set on taking over as head coach.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 15, 2023 19:19:46 GMT -5
FADNP felt the original in-game coaching dispute wasn't anything to get excited about. Then Nate exited stage left and a succession of less relaxed Holy Cross officials became involved after the personnel complaint. Who knows if the formal complaint would ever have happened if NP stayed and mediated staff issues within the dept.? Timing is everything.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 15, 2023 19:33:13 GMT -5
Ironically, if HC had "rope a doped" Coach Parks' complaint for another 5-6 weeks, the season would have been over; they would have not renewed his contract and there'd be no semblance of a case; probably never would have come to this. I do wonder if someone else pushed her into making that complaint. Some folks here have insinuated that there were others on the staff who, at that point, weren't very loyal. If this ever comes to trial, will any of the others involved or on staff (or players) get called as witnesses? I'm no lawyer but I would hope so. Especially since one of the other assistants had her eyes set on taking over as head coach. I guess that's a good example of circumstantial evidence. The Associate Head Coach was in the position that generally gets elevated to interim head coach when a suspension/illness/death, etc. occurs. She was elevated. She might have manipulated the situation or she might not have. Any advice she gave to anyone could have been pure and sincere or from a darker place.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Mar 15, 2023 21:03:45 GMT -5
Hopefully the one (and I'm pretty sure it's one) Black player who left the team (quite a while, almost an entire season; after Bill was no longer the head coach) stopped playing due to reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with this situation. I'd hate for it to be related somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 15, 2023 21:10:40 GMT -5
Then why mention it ?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 16, 2023 5:49:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Mar 16, 2023 6:10:12 GMT -5
I'm not sure we need an objective lawyer to evaluate this. Gibbons admits he lied under oath and fabricated evidence. His lawyer's defense seems to be "it's not a big deal". In the alternative, it's HC's fault because what it did to him made him so distraught that he was forced to make stuff up. Blaming someone else for misdeeds seems to be fashionable these days. Yes, the very fact he fabricated evidence is itself evidence he’s been damaged by HC. (Of course one could argue the very fact he fabricated evidence of damages is proof he did not have actual evidence of damages because he was not damaged by HC…)
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Mar 16, 2023 6:38:52 GMT -5
In my long experience I have found that once someone demonstrably lies to a judge or jury it's a long road back to credibility. BG put his lawyers in a bad spot, but I found their arguments to defend him on this issue ridiculous. It's like a bank robber defending himself by saying he did it because the bank made him feel bad about his own lack of money.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Mar 16, 2023 6:52:16 GMT -5
In my long experience I have found that once someone demonstrably lies to a judge or jury it's a long road back to credibility. BG put his lawyers in a bad spot, but I found their arguments to defend him on this issue ridiculous. It's like a bank robber defending himself by saying he did it because the bank made him feel bad about his own lack of money. It’s really all they’ve got in terms of an argument (not saying it’s a good one or that anyone would buy it.)
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Mar 16, 2023 7:18:09 GMT -5
IIRC, Gibbons made three basic claims for which he sought damages. The first was an age discrimination complaint. HC wouldn't renew his contract because he was too old, and wanted a younger and less expensive coach. I believe that claim was dismissed.
The second was loss of consortium.
The third was that HC by suspending him, irreparably damaged his character and reputation. and he became unemployable. If the age discrimination claim was indeed tossed, his case rested solely on he being able to demonstrate he was unemployable. It appears from the T&G article, that the evidence of his unemployability rests entirely on email correspondence that he altered.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 16, 2023 7:23:45 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.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Mar 16, 2023 7:40:20 GMT -5
"Loss of consortium is a term in tort law that describes loss due to the wrongful death or injury of a loved one. While it's one type of personal injury case, it tends to be a standalone claim made against negligent or intentional wrongs that deprive someone of their relationship with the injured person."
|
|