Anyone have an interpretation on this lawsuit that can provide some clarity?
Based upon my reading of Bill Speltz's Missoulian story, the lawsuit seems (am I correct on this?) to avoid any reference to job performance. Instead, it seems to focus on the $25K disparity in starting salaries for UM basketball head coaches. Is there apparently NO claim that Kent Haslam violated UM policy regarding job performance and that the lawsuit instead focuses on the salary inequity? If that's the case, this lawsuit could affect more Montana post-secondary institutions than UM. But the issue seems far muddier...
For instance: Why does Speltz, in his story, include the "imwith21" movement, which I've heard (I haven't visited the site) is most upset with unfair termination based upon conflicting job performance procedures? From what I have heard, this "movement" is not merely concerned with pay/employment inequity, but rather wrongful termination.
So... what is the issue: job performance or inequitable employment policy?
My initial reaction to the story is that the lawsuit is structured to avoid any kind of focus on Shannon Schweyen's job performance and instead claim title 7 violations by UM as an institution.