Meyer won lawsuit

[jvclark]

She sure as hell should! This really bothers me - I'm afraid a precedent has been established and the University is basically screwed from here on out.

I am neither a lawyer, a judge, but I am afraid this may set a precedent on what "at will" employment really means in the state of Iowa. It may end up limiting a company's ability to terminate employment regardless of the quality of work for fear of a lawsuit.

Not to mention it just opens up the door for more lawsuits brought on by attorneys and crappy employees that deserved to lose their jobs.

Just another step down the path of not being accountable for ones actions and efforts.

"All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee"
-Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men

 

[jvclark]

At the risk of presenting an unpopular opinion, it's easy to criticize a jury but unless you are witness to the entirety of the trial, instructions and deliberations, it's pretty difficult to have an informed opinion regarding verdict. The fact that this was unanimous is pretty telling.

Personally, I'm surprised Barta isn't taking more heat. Anyone with any experience managing others knows that in order to really get rid of a problem employee you document, document, document, and follow formal protocol. I haven't seen much evidence that he did any of this. Whether or not this situation was brought on by discrimination, I really don't know, but from my perspective Barta seriously dropped the ball in his overall handling in this situation. I suspect we may see a similar scenerio in Griesbaum case.

I don't think the "full amount of heat" that Barta will feel is here just yet. Especially with the second trial coming right around the corner.

 

[MSU158]

Sara,

There is currently an auction going on to have a face to face dinner with Coach Brands. Why don't you bid? The top bid is only $4,000.00 now. He was directly involved in certain aspects of the Meyer saga. Maybe he can give you a first hand account so you will no longer not know what you think you don't know!

It would all be for a good cause. Hawkeye wrestling and your continued education!

 

[Sara Henryson]

Sara,

There is currently an auction going on to have a face to face dinner with Coach Brands. Why don't you bid? The top bid is only $4,000.00 now. He was directly involved in certain aspects of the Meyer saga. Maybe he can give you a first hand account so you will no longer not know what you think you don't know!

It would all be for a good cause. Hawkeye wrestling and your continued education!

With the exception of eye to eye contact, nothing works better than a direct request! I've already made this year's HWC donation, but if I had $4,000 to spend this year I would send it to Meals on Wheels.

 

[rossel 33]

With the exception of eye to eye contact, nothing works better than a direct request! I've already made this year's HWC donation, but if I had $4,000 to spend this year I would send it to Meals on Wheels.

why not Dykes on Bikes? jes kiddin'

 

[IAChief32]

why not Dykes on Bikes? jes kiddin'

 

[theIowaHawk]

Are there really posts in this thread demanding a poster not comment if they didn't sit through the trial? How does that not apply to every single post?

 

[akaoni]

Are there really posts in this thread demanding a poster not comment if they didn't sit through the trial? How does that not apply to every single post?

My intent wasn't to say that you shouldn't comment, but rather it's very easy to criticize juries from the outside but you really can't know why they made their decision w/o really putting yourself in their shoes. Plenty of folks on this board had their minds made up from the start.

 

[theIowaHawk]

My intent wasn't to say that you shouldn't comment, but rather it's very easy to criticize juries from the outside but you really can't know why they made their decision w/o really putting yourself in their shoes. Plenty of folks on this board had their minds made up from the start.

Agreed, carry on.

 

[WEH8ST8HAWK]

My intent wasn't to say that you shouldn't comment, but rather it's very easy to criticize juries from the outside but you really can't know why they made their decision w/o really putting yourself in their shoes. Plenty of folks on this board had their minds made up from the start.

And we still do have our minds made up.

 

[DayHawk18]

I followed it religiously as I have with many cases (my current night shift job has allowed me to do so from afar and with ease).

I saw no case for her besides the amount she was paid as compared to Taylor. There were no grounds for her sexual orientation argument. By all accounts, the testimony showed her to be a spiteful, vengeful a-hole.

She screamed at Barta and talked down to him after he fired her partner and then was blatantly disrespectful to him and the male athletic staff/coaches. How she won on all five counts, I genuinely have no idea.

I have a degree in contract law (do not use it though, instead do online trading in the Asian markets. Make more, work less, and don't have to set it in an office doing paperwork all day)

 

[pablow]

I followed it religiously as I have with many cases (my current night shift job has allowed me to do so from afar and with ease).

I saw no case for her besides the amount she was paid as compared to Taylor. There were no grounds for her sexual orientation argument. By all accounts, the testimony showed her to be a spiteful, vengeful a-hole.

She screamed at Barta and talked down to him after he fired her partner and then was blatantly disrespectful to him and the male athletic staff/coaches. How she won on all five counts, I genuinely have no idea.

I have a degree in contract law (do not use it though, instead do online trading in the Asian markets. Make more, work less, and don't have to set it in an office doing paperwork all day)

IMO your correct. The Taylor salary was a Barta blunder. Other than that, I doubt anyone cared whether she was a woman or lesbian. She was an a-hole and a-holes are not a protected class.

 

[cidhawkeye]

Barta was an incompetent leader. His 'we determined she was so bad we kept her' was horrible. If she was a cancer, grow a pair and fire her for it. And document. Don't transfer, fire

 

[theIowaHawk]

I followed it religiously as I have with many cases (my current night shift job has allowed me to do so from afar and with ease).

I saw no case for her besides the amount she was paid as compared to Taylor. There were no grounds for her sexual orientation argument. By all accounts, the testimony showed her to be a spiteful, vengeful a-hole.

She screamed at Barta and talked down to him after he fired her partner and then was blatantly disrespectful to him and the male athletic staff/coaches. How she won on all five counts, I genuinely have no idea.

I have a degree in contract law (do not use it though, instead do online trading in the Asian markets. Make more, work less, and don't have to set it in an office doing paperwork all day)

Followed it how?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Barta was an incompetent leader. His 'we determined she was so bad we kept her' was horrible. If she was a cancer, grow a pair and fire her for it. And document. Don't transfer, fire

Thissitty this this.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

Shudder

She would work better than icy cold water in killing one's desire

 

[el dub]

I didn't bother digging into it because I'm truly not interested in the case but wasn't the lawsuit based on a claim of discrimination against her sexual orientation and not her gender? I admittedly could have that wrong.

I can speak on these matters because I'm comfortable in my manhood while also being very much in touch with my feminine side. My feminine side is 100% lesbian btw.

What a co-inky-dink. I'm also a lesbian! (But pretty sure you're not my type.)

 

[grapplefann]

There's lots of parts to this verdict, and why and how this was rendered. I am not defending anyone. I'm just trying to understand the jury's decision. I only read the Gazette about it, so I don't have a great perspective. And no, I don't have the good sense to "refrain" from this because I'm not a lawyer. I have served on several juries, and verdicts reflect the unpredictability of the jurors. They also reflect the quality of the evidence and the competence of the lawyers.

I can't speak to Myer's competence, but it probably wouldn't look good to a jury if Barta treated other coaches issues differently than he did Griesbaum's, and that is what the Gazette seemed to indicate. It also doesn't look good that other coaches can have family members on their staff without an problem, but Barta found Meyer's relationship with Griesbaum a problem. This seems to smell of favoritism, even if Terry B. and Brian F. were "the best persons for the job." Nor does Meyer's excellent job performance under Bowlsby, but subsequent awful performance under Barta seem to make sense. Why didn't the defense have Bowslby testify against Meyer? In fact, there seemed to be no problem with Meyer's performance until after Griesbaum was fired. That timing seemed suspicious.

In short, the defense made the trial not about Meyer's performance or behavior, but about Barta's poor treatment of Meyer and Griesbaum. From the articles in the Gazette, it did seem that Barta's lawyers got taken to school by Meyer's lawyers.

It's 2017, and if you really want to get rid of someone who you think is behaving badly or performing poorly, you need to take great care in doing so, particularly when that person is high-level, a minority, and your immediate subordinate at a large public institution. College administrators just can't make it up as they go along these days.

You folks are right. There will be consequences from this, and the millions of dollars Meyer will eventually receive will be relatively minor. My guess is that Gary Barta's days at Iowa may be numbered. In hindsight, this should have been settled out of court.

 

[The Vak]

It's impossible to understand what happened in a trial without actually attending it. The bottom line for this is that, if your workplace has a protocol for relieving someone of their duties, and absent them committing some sort of crime with a ton of proof, you need to follow the damned protocol to THE LETTER.

As a lawyer, I would be HAMMERING the alleged sudden shift in performance under Bowlsby compared to Barta. Also the standard of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence, which means one side only has to persuade the jury ever so slightly in their favor. It's not a matter of overwhelming evidence on one side.

 

[Cali_Nittany]

There's lots of parts to this verdict, and why and how this was rendered. I am not defending anyone. I'm just trying to understand the jury's decision. I only read the Gazette about it, so I don't have a great perspective. And no, I don't have the good sense to "refrain" from this because I'm not a lawyer. I have served on several juries, and verdicts reflect the unpredictability of the jurors. They also reflect the quality of the evidence and the competence of the lawyers.

I can't speak to Myer's competence, but it probably wouldn't look good to a jury if Barta treated other coaches issues differently than he did Griesbaum's, and that is what the Gazette seemed to indicate. It also doesn't look good that other coaches can have family members on their staff without an problem, but Barta found Meyer's relationship with Griesbaum a problem. This seems to smell of favoritism, even if Terry B. and Brian F. were "the best persons for the job." Nor does Meyer's excellent job performance under Bowlsby, but subsequent awful performance under Barta seem to make sense. Why didn't the defense have Bowslby testify against Meyer? In fact, there seemed to be no problem with Meyer's performance until after Griesbaum was fired. That timing seemed suspicious.

In short, the defense made the trial not about Meyer's performance or behavior, but about Barta's poor treatment of Meyer and Griesbaum. From the articles in the Gazette, it did seem that Barta's lawyers got taken to school by Meyer's lawyers.

It's 2017, and if you really want to get rid of someone who you think is behaving badly or performing poorly, you need to take great care in doing so, particularly when that person is high-level, a minority, and your immediate subordinate at a large public institution. College administrators just can't make it up as they go along these days.

You folks are right. There will be consequences from this, and the millions of dollars Meyer will eventually receive will be relatively minor. My guess is that Gary Barta's days at Iowa may be numbered. In hindsight, this should have been settled out of court.

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this. While I'm a PSU fan I've been following this case because the precedent to these types of situations have been set in Cali. It seems like that Barta didn't do his due diligence in documentation on the bad behavior of Meyer. Because it's a public job, it's all about documentation. As I have said before, it's an unfortunate waste of tax payer $ that she won this case (and there will be more to come with her consort), in a public job you have to document, document, document.

 

[hawkiz4life]

Let me start off by saying I have no knowledge of the subject at hand so I can not honestly say the verdict was right or wrong. Do you know all of the facts in the case? Do you know for fact that she experienced patriarchy, sexism, or homophobia? I won't get into salaries because in my job I can tell you there are females making more than I do that do not have more experience, knowledge, or years of employment in my field. Should I sue for reverse sexism? I may be wrong but my impression of you is a "the man is always wrong" type of female and by your definition or should be anyone's for that matter you are sexist toward males.

If your answer to my questions are no then can you please refrain from commenting on something of which you know nothing?

Let me start of by saying, I don't know "all" the facts of this case. I did not sit in the court room during this trial. I am not privy to all of the information regarding either side or many of the arguments made. Let me also make clear, I am straight, white, christian and male. I do recognize and am grateful for the privilege that I was born into, and anyone who doesn't think that is a privilege in the united states is... well my intent is not to name call.

First thing worth addressing is the idea that just because there is a woman that makes more money than you and may be less experienced, does not mean that as a general rule of thumb, woman are not discriminated against in terms of salary. Just because there is one situation where it is reversed, does not excuse the reality that generally it is not the case elsewhere.

Also, generally speaking, an appointment in a high position in an athletic department is not an "at will" position, so "at will" loss of employment protocols do not apply to this situation most likely. I don't know this for a fact though.

On to the meat of my point. I do not work for the University of Iowa. I do however work for another athletic department. As a whole, it is a very male dominated cast as most of you would imagine. That isn't to say that women do not have roles and positions in athletics, but its disproportionate. How often do you find women coaching men vs men coaching women? How often do you find female Athletic Directors vs male Athletic Directors? This does not directly indicate sexual bias but it is something to take into account. I see things on a regular basis that for me don't bother me personally, because they aren't derogatory towards me. But I'm not naive enough to think that things that are said, actions that are taken, gestures that are made, are not offensive and inappropriate in the work place to some. Just because you aren't offended doesn't mean someone else isn't. I'm aware that this country is hypersensitive and I get just as frustrated with that as many of you, but there is still a threshold which gets crossed regularly, and it is more frequently crossed in athletics than I would imagine in most, if not all, career fields.