jazzcyclist wrote:I still don't understand why Kearney would resign if she planned on fighting this. She should have forced Texas to fire her. How can she argue wrongful termination when she wasn't terminated?
Not sure that it makes a dime's worth of difference for some elements. Too bad Law Dude is not here very often any more.
Word is she offered to settle for $3M and UT said bring it on. $3M is nothing to them so she must really not have a case if they're not willing to make her go away for that amount of money.
I'm sure dozens upon dozens of coaches and faculty have had relationships with students but she's the only one that did it with a direct report or athlete and broke NCAA rules by providing other benefits (car, rent, etc.).
There seemed to be a hint that they might be constrained on money for a settlement and there was a sense that an actual lawsuit and penalty would be a required expenditure.
Civil cases are a lot easier than criminal cases and if UT wants to put their faith in a jury outcome before even knowing what the rules of the game will be, they would seem to taking a risk. Yes, the implication of this is that there might not be very much 'there' there. On the other hand, losing a lawsuit will probably look worse than making a settlement. It might be concerns about other cases being filed in the future that drives this decision but if it goes wrong with a trial, then the school is likely to worse off all around.
There is a tradeoff of certainty of a problem and a cost if they settle with moderate probability of losing and having it cost more. The decision maker might be someone where those potential future cost will be on someone else's watch and are too heavily discounted. They might want to talk to the ex-Penn State AD....
Howard said he and Kearney know of “in excess of 10” similar relationships between UT staffers and subordinates, including but not limited to the athletic department. When Kearney files a lawsuit against UT -- which she can do 180 days after Tuesday's filing date -- those staffers will be subpoenaed, Howard said.
Here's her filed complaint. If her best argument is that she was discriminated against in salary, she's got nothing. She was the 3rd highest paid track coach in the country and was about to receive a 50% raise when the affair was made public.
Cooter Brown wrote:Here's her filed complaint. If her best argument is that she was discriminated against in salary, she's got nothing. She was the 3rd highest paid track coach in the country and was about to receive a 50% raise when the affair was made public.
it will be interesting to see how this develops. There will likely be a whole lot of losers if she decides to make public every "illicit" relationship,real or imagined, she suspects happened at UT while she was there. I imagine the divorce lawyers in Austin are all rubbing their hands with glee at the income prospects that may fall out from this case.
I wonder how she can keep a straight face when she claims remuneration discrimination.
The bizarre thing is that today's news reports indicate she cites "unwritten rules" requiring employees to report relationships with students, but previous news stories indicated such a rule was instituted in 2001 (a year before the relationship began) and that it was, in fact, written.
I'm far from an expert in all of this, but it looks to me like she's gone all-in while holding a pair of sevens.
I think this really is a business decision. The powers that be at Univ. of Texas decided that they no longer wanted her for whatever reason, i.e., her salary is too high, they just don't like her, or some combination of these and other reasons. THEN they decided to find a way to get rid of her. Companies do this regularly.