Jury: $1.4 Million to Jane Meyer

[David1979]

It's been mentioned over and over again, Meyer was not Griesbaum's boss.

No but she made decisions that favored her program and Barta didn't know about relationship. That might be something he should be told. Also he didn't need a reason to fire her bc it's an at will position. Plaintiff did a good job making it seem she had to be fired for a reason and if not it was discrimination. That's why the lack of documentation seemed bad to jury but it shouldn't have mattered. Plaintiff didn't prove their case

 

[ScoutRefugee]

Just selection is a huge component of winning a trial bc most jurors come to a decision before ever hearing the evidence and don't change their mind

I'm not disagreeing with that but in this case, Barta handled the whole situation in an incompetent manner at best and a discriminatory manner at worst. Every aspect of this case has his screw ups at the core.
When he found out about their relationship, he had grounds to fire both. He did nothing.
When Meyer was causing problems and screwing up her own assignments, Barta should have documented all of it as it occurred. He did nothing.
When Meyer sent that memo pointing out discrimination, he tripled down on his failure by re-assigning her the next day.
There is University procedure for handling this situation and every variation of. Barta did not follow that well established protocol.

 

[Dauminator]

They believe this is a landmark case for women's coaches and administrators around the country. .

Landmark as in another in a long line proving if you're a protected class, you can do anything you want and get rewarded.

As another poster already said, Barta failed to document her behavior at the time that things happened. He couldn't be bothered, I guess.

Freedom of Information Act. Anything he would have written down would have been pulled by someone and twisted into an attack against the UI. You can't win in his position.

This implies that the U of IA is intolerant. I don't buy that. In fact the reason the unqualified JM had her job was to make snowflakes happy. And this is what happens when people attain positions not on merit but because of their "protected" status. They fail and then realize they don't have to own their shortcomings. Because society allows some to blame-shift their way thru life.

This needs more likes. You can't put it any better.

This is a miscarriage of justice at the expense of Iowa taxpayers.

Well, maybe you can.

I seem to be in a different direction on this so I'm probably wrong.... but this doesn't feel like a ton of money to me. .

It's a lot of money to be paid for being awful at your job. Her just reward would have been being fired years before she was. Instead she gets to retire in comfort (well, more comfort than her already bloated salary would have provided her).

 

[myteamcanbeatupyourteam]

I'm not disagreeing with that but in this case, Barta handled the whole situation in an incompetent manner at best and a discriminatory manner at worst. Every aspect of this case has his screw ups at the core.
When he found out about their relationship, he had grounds to fire both. He did nothing.
When Meyer was causing problems and screwing up her own assignments, Barta should have documented all of it as it occurred. He did nothing.
When Meyer sent that memo pointing out discrimination, he tripled down on his failure by re-assigning her the next day.
There is University procedure for handling this situation and every variation of. Barta did not follow that well established protocol.

Sadly, hindsight being 20/20, Barta would have been better off canning her after the insubordination during the meeting where she went off on Barta.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

Freedom of Information Act. Anything he would have written down would have been pulled by someone and twisted into an attack against the UI. You can't win in his position.
It's the freaking LAW!
And, it has nothing to do with how you handle employee documentation as an administrator. When an employee is not performing the job requirements, you set a meeting with that employee, HR and maybe even University legal. You have a letter describing the conduct that's detrimental and you provide a copy to your employee and you put your copy in their employment file. You then discuss any additional concerns in that meeting after the employee has read the letter you provided. This is why you have HR/Legal in this meeting.
This is the kind of documentation that Barta is REQUIRED to collect as an administrator of the University of Iowa, per the University of Iowa employment contracts.
This process^^^^^^ protects the University of Iowa and Gary Barta in lawsuits like this.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

Sadly, hindsight being 20/20, Barta would have been better off canning her after the insubordination during the meeting where she went off on Barta.

This is not a matter of hindsight. This is a matter of Gary Barta failing to adhere to the rules that his employer, the U of I, has set forth. And these are not new rules and procedures we are talking about. The first middle management job I ever had was 26 years ago for a company that had about 50 employees and I was well schooled in the rules regarding employee behavior documentation. I was making 16K a year and 20 yrs old at the time. Gary Barta makes 500K a year and has a much larger dept.

 

[DodgerHawki]

Landmark as in another in a long line proving if you're a protected class, you can do anything you want and get rewarded.


Freedom of Information Act. Anything he would have written down would have been pulled by someone and twisted into an attack against the UI. You can't win in his position.


This needs more likes. You can't put it any better.


Well, maybe you can.


It's a lot of money to be paid for being awful at your job. Her just reward would have been being fired years before she was. Instead she gets to retire in comfort (well, more comfort than her already bloated salary would have provided her).

It's fairly obvious FOIA was used as an excuse by Barta to not document anything. Not all communications have to be turned over as a result of FOIA requests. Documents dealing with personnel performance or personnel matters (which would have been the case if Barta was emailing about aspects of job perfomance that needed improvement) would not have to be turned over as a result of FOIA requests). If he didn't like email, he could have used a myriad of other options, such as notes kept on his computer, typed or handwritten letters to Meyer, or other things.

Do I believe that Barta was/is intolerant of people based on either gender or orientation? No. But his and the department's actions leave open wide swaths to interpretation.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Standard operating procedure in civil trials.

The loser picks up all attorney fees. This may be as much as the awarded money.

Well that's not true. Without the specific laws on civil rights and employment, civil cases normally don't have attorney fee awards.

 

[myteamcanbeatupyourteam]

This is not a matter of hindsight. This is a matter of Gary Barta failing to adhere to the rules that his employer, the U of I, has set forth. And these are not new rules and procedures we are talking about. The first middle management job I ever had was 26 years ago for a company that had about 50 employees and I was well schooled in the rules regarding employee behavior documentation. I was making 16K a year and 20 yrs old at the time. Gary Barta makes 500K a year and has a much larger dept.

It all could have been avoided if he had fired her the moment she was insubordinate, he had cause. He didn't do it then which lead to all the other issues happening. So yes, in hindsight, he would have been better off firing her then.

 

[Enfuego85]

How about the jury got it right and the University (Athletic Dept) needs to conduct themselves appropriately.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

It all could have been avoided if he had fired her the moment she was insubordinate, he had cause. He didn't do it then which lead to all the other issues happening. So yes, in hindsight, he would have been better off firing her then.

How about he just do what's expected of an avg McDonalds shift manager and document? You document so you don't need hindsight.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

It's fairly obvious FOIA was used as an excuse by Barta to not document anything. Not all communications have to be turned over as a result of FOIA requests. Documents dealing with personnel performance or personnel matters (which would have been the case if Barta was emailing about aspects of job perfomance that needed improvement) would not have to be turned over as a result of FOIA requests). If he didn't like email, he could have used a myriad of other options, such as notes kept on his computer, typed or handwritten letters to Meyer, or other things.

Do I believe that Barta was/is intolerant of people based on either gender or orientation? No. But his and the department's actions leave open wide swaths to interpretation.

Documentation via email is considered taboo in a lot of D1 athletic departments. This is for NCAA purposes, however and has nothing to do with how he manages employees. It's a piss poor excuse. Nothing more.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Here are some of the glaring issues that lead to the U losing this case and these are just what I have picked up, so there were probably more if I had sat in the court room.
1. No documentation. It actually appeared as though the AD staff made an effort not to use emails and other documentation on purpose, to avoid the FOI laws. Apparently, the AD doesn't feel like the general public has a need to know, in spite of the laws of the state of Iowa.
2. Similar complaints of mistreatment have been filed by parents against a male coach (volleyball) and no disciplinary action was taken.
3. Meyer sent a memo to Barta, outlining the issues of discrimination, etc and the very next day, Barta re-assigns her to a position outside of athletics, then eliminates that position at a later date. That's a piss poor attempt at firing her, without having to appear to have actually fired her. And it highlights Barta's incompetence and cowardice.
When you put these things together it appears that there is a culture of treating male and female coaches differently, that the AD makes an effort to skirt the state laws, That Barta never documented or took issue with her behaviors until she sent that memo and the resulting re-assignment was retaliation for that memo.
Some of you can call this a miscarriage of justice or some other such nonsense but anyone that has ever been in charge of employees at a corporation is well schooled to document all behaviors are unacceptable to the work place environment. The U of I has policies in place spelling this out. I can guarantee you that Barta has given the HR speech to all of his middle administrators 100 times over the past 10 years! It's inexcusable for him to fail at this basic principle of management. So, he's either a catastrophic FAILURE at the simplest of his job requirements or guilty of the actions he/U has been sued for.

Wait, it appears you're mixing the Griesebaum and Meyer suits into one.

Item 2 has no bearing on this case.
Item 1 is easily offset by the reports from other female staff in a same sex marriage that she was always included and treated well. Remember, the onus is on Meyer to prove that she was discriminated against based on gender and/or sexual orientation. It's not up to the UI to prove they didn't.
Item 3: My understanding is that Meyer was reassigned when the Griesebaum suit was filed due to a conflict of interest, which is perfectly reasonable. The timing of the letter was coincident to that. Assuming a cause/effect relationship with those two events is speculation at best and was certainly not proven (remember that onus thing).

It was a weak case at best. I would say it's clear that many (probably a vast majority) in the athletic department did not like Meyer. It's not hard to figure out why. I didn't know that not being liked was a way to ensure you cannot be fired.

I think I'll start being a total d**k at work, that way they can never let me go.

 

[doughudd]

Curious anyone with legal background can U of I appeal or anything? That being said after taxes and legal fees she'll probably walk away with less than half of it in her pocket. Amazing she won but then again if anyone has done jury duty amazing some of the people eligible who get picked. Some not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Yep about 4 years in pay of her $170k salary. Better than nothing. Think she is 58-59, gets her to SS age.

 

[Dauminator]

Just putting forth the explanation. I sympathize with protecting against FOIA stuff. But, I do find him derelict in A) not firing her right away, B) trying to shuffle her off instead of firing her, and C) having no proof of the ongoing complaints.

I think I'll start being a total d**k at work, that way they can never let me go.

Make sure you belong to a protected class before you do that, though.

 

[doughudd]

I am a lawyer. A senior partner at a law firm in Des Moines that mainly does defense. All civil work much of which is employment. I did not follow the case super closely. However, I have no clue why the State in a case of this magnitude did not bring in top counsel. Not casting shade on Carroll per se as these attorneys are hamstrung. They are State employees paid the same win or lose. In my experience dealing with them, bankers hours, no weekends, and a reason they work for the State. Dear God, this case is disastrous with the next case coming. How in the hell do you not hire the best for this case? Unreal.

Aw heck they made her work for her money. Aired her dirty laundry in public to where she stated she couldn't even get a job at Home Depot. Sounds like they didn't think they would win anyway. Save the expenses.

 

[Boomer51]

"How about the jury got it right and the University (Athletic Dept) needs to conduct themselves appropriately."
How can you speak of such treason??? lol
I mean, lots of people who got info from news clips and internet boards SHOULD have the same information to render a verdict as the people who sat in 3 weeks of testimony for up to 8 hrs a ay.
Very simple. Barta and Co. said she was horrible, did this and this, and needed fired. But didn't document a single thing! Meyers and Co produces documents of compliments and kudos from same said complainers. If she was so problematic and the coaches all hated working with her, why was nothing every documented?

 

[Boomer51]

"How about the jury got it right and the University (Athletic Dept) needs to conduct themselves appropriately."
How can you speak of such treason??? lol
I mean, lots of people who got info from news clips and internet boards SHOULD have the same information to render a verdict as the people who sat in 3 weeks of testimony for up to 8 hrs a ay.
Very simple. Barta and Co. said she was horrible, did this and this, and needed fired. But didn't document a single thing! Meyers and Co produces documents of compliments and kudos from same said complainers. If she was so problematic and the coaches all hated working with her, why was nothing every documented?

If they are smart, they need to write Griesbaum a check right now, because that trial could cost a lot more money.

 

[JoelBittner]

Make sure you belong to a protected class before you do that, though.

^^^^ Gets to the heart of it. People elected enough social justice warrior politicians to get an America that has confused justice with balkanization. Now we have a society which is divided and more unjust than the society it replaced in the name of political correctness.

Egalitarianism isn't created with "protected classes" . . . it is defeated with "protected classes".

 

[doughudd]

Any chance that this verdict could spark interest in some colleges to want to hire Meyer? I would think there would be several places that would love to have her after she has been vindicated in this trial.

None

 

[myteamcanbeatupyourteam]

How about he just do what's expected of an avg McDonalds shift manager and document? You document so you don't need hindsight.

An average McDonald's shift manager would have fired the employee at the first insubordination incident.

 

[AuroraHawk]

Curious anyone with legal background can U of I appeal or anything? That being said after taxes and legal fees she'll probably walk away with less than half of it in her pocket. Amazing she won but then again if anyone has done jury duty amazing some of the people eligible who get picked. Some not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Wrong. Fee shifting statutes involved.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

Wait, it appears you're mixing the Griesebaum and Meyer suits into one.

Item 2 has no bearing on this case.
Item 1 is easily offset by the reports from other female staff in a same sex marriage that she was always included and treated well. Remember, the onus is on Meyer to prove that she was discriminated against based on gender and/or sexual orientation. It's not up to the UI to prove they didn't.
Item 3: My understanding is that Meyer was reassigned when the Griesebaum suit was filed due to a conflict of interest, which is perfectly reasonable. The timing of the letter was coincident to that. Assuming a cause/effect relationship with those two events is speculation at best and was certainly not proven (remember that onus thing).

It was a weak case at best. I would say it's clear that many (probably a vast majority) in the athletic department did not like Meyer. It's not hard to figure out why. I didn't know that not being liked was a way to ensure you cannot be fired.

I think I'll start being a total d**k at work, that way they can never let me go.

Not true. The firing of Griebaum is what prompted Meyer to send Barta the memo pointing out the discrimination in the handling of Griesbaum/Shnansky. The day after Barta gets that memo, he re-signs Meyer. The two are certainly connected.
Bringing in other employees that have an obvious conflict due to the fact that they still work under Barta, is a fool's effort and it didn't fool the jury. Meyer's attorney could show complaints of abuse by Griesbaum and Shnansky, filed in official record within the AD. One is a man. One is a woman. The woman is the only one of the 2 that got fired for these complaints. This is irrefutable and every jury will agree with that.
"Your understanding" is nothing but interpretation of the circumstances. Meyer's attorney took the timing of the memo and added it to the Griesbaum/Shnansky evidence, and the lack of any negative documentation regarding Meyer in her employment files and made an easy case.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

An average McDonald's shift manager would have fired the employee at the first insubordination incident.

And that's the only other reasonable option if you're not going to document and discipline. There are 2 options and Barta failed to do either.

 

[Hawkeye3087]

How about the jury got it right and the University (Athletic Dept) needs to conduct themselves appropriately.

I disagree and this is what has been confusing to me. If the jury got it right the award should have been WAY more. If she was actually discriminated against we should be talking about $50 million - not $1.4.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

Has anyone bothered to look at Griesbaum's coaching record at Iowa? If KF had anywhere close to that record, he could burn down the PedMall and nobody would want to see him fired!

 

[ScoutRefugee]

I disagree and this is what has been confusing to me. If the jury got it right the award should have been WAY more. If she was actually discriminated against we should be talking about $50 million - not $1.4.

I think the amount is tied to her salary/earning potential. But I'm not completely sure.

 

[JoelBittner]

Has anyone bothered to look at Griesbaum's coaching record at Iowa? If KF had anywhere close to that record, he could burn down the PedMall and nobody would want to see him fired!

Nobody wants him fired as it is and most years he can't eclipse Nebraska in total wins. Barta should be fired and some are freaking out because they fear it may cost Iowa the 7-win kid.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Not true. The firing of Griebaum is what prompted Meyer to send Barta the memo pointing out the discrimination in the handling of Griesbaum/Shnansky. The day after Barta gets that memo, he re-signs Meyer. The two are certainly connected.
Bringing in other employees that have an obvious conflict due to the fact that they still work under Barta, is a fool's effort and it didn't fool the jury. Meyer's attorney could show complaints of abuse by Griesbaum and Shnansky, filed in official record within the AD. One is a man. One is a woman. The woman is the only one of the 2 that got fired for these complaints. This is irrefutable and every jury will agree with that.
"Your understanding" is nothing but interpretation of the circumstances. Meyer's attorney took the timing of the memo and added it to the Griesbaum/Shnansky evidence, and the lack of any negative documentation regarding Meyer in her employment files and made an easy case.

While the timing looks suspicious, anyone with a modicum of logic can see that the timing is in now way proof of a causal relationship. I drove to the mall last night and today my car wouldn't start...clearly driving to the mall caused my car to not start.

Not that I expect the average jury member (and a few posters here apparently) to understand that.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

While the timing looks suspicious, anyone with a modicum of logic can see that the timing is in now way proof of a causal relationship. I drove to the mall last night and today my car wouldn't start...clearly driving to the mall caused my car to not start.

Not that I expect the average jury member (and a few posters here apparently) to understand that.

Yes....because the 2 are exactly alike. I expect most jury members to ignore your ridiculous comparison. And most posters here too.
And that excuse doesn't hold water. The relationship in question was approved by the HR department. So, how is it OK to move Meyer out of the AD's office when Griesbaum gets fired? Was this an agreed upon condition at the time the HR dept made their ruling? NO! Or there would be documentation on that too. You can't fire someone because you anticipate problems arising from having fired their girlfriend. That will land you in court all by itself for wrongful termination.

 

[theIowaHawk]

While the timing looks suspicious, anyone with a modicum of logic can see that the timing is in now way proof of a causal relationship. I drove to the mall last night and today my car wouldn't start...clearly driving to the mall caused my car to not start.

Not that I expect the average jury member (and a few posters here apparently) to understand that.

You definitely missed your calling Matlock.

 

[Dauminator]

I disagree and this is what has been confusing to me. If the jury got it right the award should have been WAY more. If she was actually discriminated against we should be talking about $50 million - not $1.4.

Eh? Based on what?

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Yes....because the 2 are exactly alike. I expect most jury members to ignore your ridiculous comparison. And most posters here too.
And that excuse doesn't hold water. The relationship in question was approved by the HR department. So, how is it OK to move Meyer out of the AD's office when Griesbaum gets fired? Was this an agreed upon condition at the time the HR dept made their ruling? NO! Or there would be documentation on that too. You can't fire someone because you anticipate problems arising from having fired their girlfriend. That will land you in court all by itself for wrongful termination.

She got moved out when her significant other filed a lawsuit against the university. There's a clear conflict of interest. This isn't rocket science.

 

[theIowaHawk]

She got moved out when her significant other filed a lawsuit against the university. There's a clear conflict of interest. This isn't rocket science.

Moved out and given a job with nothing to do. As long as you get paid are the duties meaningless?

 

[mvhomerj]

Who cares? Hot coffee on your lap... 1 million. 3 blow out bowl losses... 3 miliion, each.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

She got moved out when her significant other filed a lawsuit against the university. There's a clear conflict of interest. This isn't rocket science.

Still doesn't square with the HR dept approving the relationship.
When the decision was made to allow their relationship, it was made with the knowledge that this could be the result. It's why the rules are there in the first place. The reason the rule is there is because you want the administrator representing the company in all decisions and not their romantically involved subordinate. This is inherently a conflict of interest. Now you (and Barta) want to squeal about there being a conflict of interest??????
That horse left the barn years ago.
Personally, I would have much rather Barta re-assigned or fired them upon discovery of the relationship. That's what a competent AD would do. It's not going to win any friends and it's a heartless decision but it would have been the right one.

 

[doughudd]

An average McDonald's shift manager would have fired the employee at the first insubordination incident.

Yeah cuz a fry cook and and a senior associate athletic director are so similar.

 

[myteamcanbeatupyourteam]

Yeah cuz a fry cook and and a senior associate athletic director are so similar.

Sorry, I'm not the one who started the McDonald's employee comparison. Carry on!

 

[doughudd]

Sorry, I'm not the one who started the McDonald's employee comparison. Carry on!

Yep but it was you that posted the reply back. Sorry for you, I'm carrying on.

 

[myteamcanbeatupyourteam]

Yep but it was you that posted the reply back. Sorry for you, I'm carrying on.

No worries, Dough Udd.