L 7Sorry, I'm not the one who started the McDonald's employee comparison. Carry on!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
L 7Sorry, I'm not the one who started the McDonald's employee comparison. Carry on!
I think the amount is tied to her salary/earning potential. But I'm not completely sure.
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.
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 defenseYes....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.
What does unanimous mean?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
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?What does ignorance mean?
Have read enough of the testimony over the past several weeks.Did you take the last three weeks off work to listen to every piece of testimony and learn about each exhibit?
Yeah....I'm the one that can't see. Did you "see" the verdict? Did you "see" the amount?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.
That's a lot of Birkenstocks…
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.
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.
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.
Have read enough of the testimony over the past several weeks.
We need to stop having jury trials, and just have reporters give updates, then do online internet polls to decide verdicts.
Seems like a much better idea.
Don't tell Mn Hawk that!!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!
Serious?I doubt Barta gets fired over it but we can certainly hope so.
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.No worries, Dough Udd.
a "smoking crater"...please. A couple of million dollars won't make a dent in the brand.
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.
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.
her lover, Tracy Greasebaum, must be licking her chops right about now
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.
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).They weren't guilty. This wasn't a criminal trial.