ADVERTISEMENT

Jury: $1.4 Million to Jane Meyer

The Griesbaum case is going to leave UI Athletics a smoking crater if they don't settle. The articles by Scott Dochterman alone lay out a story juries will eat up if the legal narrative is done right.
 
I think the amount is tied to her salary/earning potential. But I'm not completely sure.

I would assume it is but if the jury agrees she's unhireable because of what the University did it should be the anticipated salary (and benefits) for the rest of her life. I could be wrong, but I wouldnt think this is enough.

And if the University somehow targeted her because of her sexual orientation I don't understand how there wouldn't be punitive dollars included.

It seems like they half assed it is what I'm trying to get at.
 
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.

Apparently you can't see the difference between two people in the same department having a relationship vs one of those two suing that department. Now I understand your perspective better.
 
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.
He can fire her for whatever reason he wants. That's the point. She is an at will employee. She could have done everything right and he just said I don't like your personality so you are gone. The law doesn't require him to document and that's why the defense attorneys lost the case. Listen to what a jury member says. She said those were petty complaints they had against her. Well it does t matter if they were petty or not he could fire her. the plaintiff didn't prove their discrimation case and still won, bad job by the defense
 
  • Like
Reactions: ih8iast8
He can fire her for whatever reason he wants. That's the point. She is an at will employee. She could have done everything right and he just said I don't like your personality so you are gone. The law doesn't require him to document and that's why the defense attorneys lost the case. Listen to what a jury member says. She said those were petty complaints they had against her. Well it does t matter if they were petty or not he could fire her. the plaintiff didn't prove their discrimation case and still won, bad job by the defense
What does unanimous mean?
 
What does ignorance mean?
Who is ignorant? The jury selected by both teams? The Iowa athletic dept? Armchair QBs that did not sit on the jury and see all the evidence? Hawk fans that could be blind to an athletic dept that apparently broke the law? Every one else? Who is ignorant?
 
Did you take the last three weeks off work to listen to every piece of testimony and learn about each exhibit?
Have read enough of the testimony over the past several weeks.
The bottom line: she did a piss-poor job and then is rewarded with more than a million dollars. Her gender/lift partner status was not the issue.
Cannot imagine what the jury was thinking.
Hope the University appeals.
 
Apparently you can't see the difference between two people in the same department having a relationship vs one of those two suing that department. Now I understand your perspective better.
Yeah....I'm the one that can't see. Did you "see" the verdict? Did you "see" the amount?
 
  • Like
Reactions: frydaze
Have read enough of the testimony over the past several weeks.
The bottom line: she did a piss-poor job and then is rewarded with more than a million dollars. Her gender/lift partner status was not the issue.
Cannot imagine what the jury was thinking.
Hope the University appeals.

Like all of us who were not in Des Moines for the trial, what you and me and others read that came in the tweets from people from the Des Moines Register, represented probably 1% of what was discussed in the 3-week trial.

For a guy who posts 2 times a year since being a member, your post here wasn't too well thought out and had little substance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkssox1
I would assume it is but if the jury agrees she's unhireable because of what the University did it should be the anticipated salary (and benefits) for the rest of her life. I could be wrong, but I wouldnt think this is enough.

And if the University somehow targeted her because of her sexual orientation I don't understand how there wouldn't be punitive dollars included.

It seems like they half assed it is what I'm trying to get at.

Could you give me a link to where the jury or the judge said the award was based on Jane being unhireable ??
 
The Griesbaum case is going to leave UI Athletics a smoking crater if they don't settle. The articles by Scott Dochterman alone lay out a story juries will eat up if the legal narrative is done right.

a "smoking crater"...please. A couple of million dollars won't make a dent in the brand.
 
a "smoking crater"...please. A couple of million dollars won't make a dent in the brand.

You don't really comprehend the full picture... sure, this 1.4m is peanuts. We will likely have a civil suit. Then we get to go through the Griesbaum trial.... and if she wins another civil suit, then a whole host of interesting litigation could come at the administration. Rowing, volleyball, golf to name a few.
 
For someone who has "no worries" how many times do you have to post it? You must be worried and need to feel good and get the last post in. So post it one more time.
Angry-computer-guy-800x430.png
 
You don't really comprehend the full picture... sure, this 1.4m is peanuts. We will likely have a civil suit. Then we get to go through the Griesbaum trial.... and if she wins another civil suit, then a whole host of interesting litigation could come at the administration. Rowing, volleyball, golf to name a few.

I understand the domino effect with Griesbaum, they probably wish they would have settled with her. Bad call.

Not sure how rowing, volleyball etc come into play. Iowa has spent plenty of $$ on women's sports to stay in Title IX compliance. (see boat house). Where are the vulnerabilities?
 
Last edited:
I don't see how Barta can be saved. Whether we agree or not that Jane Meyer was incompetent Barta and his staff were guilty in court to firing someone because of her sex and sexual orientation.

I think she won because of Bartas incompetence not because he's truely sexist. But in the end that doesn't matter. Right now Iowas AD is publicly guilty of being sexist.
 
I don't see how Barta can be saved. Whether we agree or not that Jane Meyer was incompetent Barta and his staff were guilty in court to firing someone because of her sex and sexual orientation.

I think she won because of Bartas incompetence not because he's truely sexist. But in the end that doesn't matter. Right now Iowas AD is publicly guilty of being sexist.

They weren't guilty. This wasn't a criminal trial.
 
They weren't guilty. This wasn't a criminal trial.
8 jurors agreed on all counts that the athletic department acted in a discriminatory way. Guilty might not be the correct word. But either way it means according to a a court and jury the Iowa Athletic Department discriminated against them because they were women (again I don't agree with the jury).
 
ADVERTISEMENT