Reason for firing

[CDAGRIZ]

Why do you think it would be hard to turn it into a wrongful discharge case, given the recent MT Sup Ct case? Looks like a no-brainer to me.

Because the University is honoring the terms of the contract by paying the money. And then they're not renewing the contract once that obligation is satisfied. And nothing in the Yellowstone Club case limits or restricts their ability to do that.

And yes, I know you don't agree, and I know exactly why you don't agree. Just saving you some typing.

I'll tell you why I think I respectfully disagree:

I think the case holds that such a contract is not a written contract for a specified term as defined in the express exception to the Act. I think it's about whether the employee has a legal right to remain employed for the ostensibly specific term. If not (like here, apparently), the situation is not excepted from the Act. I'm not convinced that it's about whether terminated employees are subsequently paid the money under the contracts that decidedly still fall under the ambit of the Act.

Put another way, I don't think the case says you can have a contract for 3 years with a termination without cause provision, and as long as you pay the dude for the 3 years, you magically aren't subject to the wrongful termination Act.

I wonder if the University is paying all the compensation for the duration including incentives, etc.?

 

[ranco]

It doesn't matter if university is paying the money. That's not the point. In the YC case, YC was paying the money.

Wrong. The Yellowstone Club did not pay the salary and benefits through the term of the contract. They paid a minor severance to avoid paying the salary and benefits.

I don't think that distinction has any relevance, because the fact a severance was paid was not germane to the decision. The fact the contract could be terminated without cause is what the court hung its hat on. Long story short, they can pursue contractual damages or damages under the wrongful discharge act.

 

[tnt]

I'm only guessing, but I suspect we will never know which of you guys is right...... O'day has settled pretty much to the letter of his contract. I'd bet we hear shortly that Pflu has done the same. I'm guessing the sticking point will be the incentives. Some obviously can not or won't be met even if he were still HC. The reliance may or may not be arguable, but I'm suspecting he will move on with out raising a stink (as has Oday) both because he has repect for the program, himself and the University not to mention raising too much of a stink taints his future prospects.....

 

[PlayerRep]

It doesn't matter if university is paying the money. That's not the point. In the YC case, YC was paying the money.

Wrong. The Yellowstone Club did not pay the salary and benefits through the term of the contract. They paid a minor severance to avoid paying the salary and benefits.

YC paid the three months severance, as required by the contract. The court had zero discussion about the amount of the severance. The finding of the case was that if the employer could terminate the employment ahead of the stated term, it was not a contract with a specific term.

Feel free to point out any holding or discussion in the YC case that supports your view. Note that the YC case was concerned about employment being terminated ahead of the term; not salary/benefits being paid. You need to look closely at the statute cited, to understand the ruling. Note that an employment contract is about both having the job and being paid. In the YC case, the court seemed to focus on the employment/job component, not on the compensation or severance.

Given that case holding--and it being recent and unanimous--no district court judge is going to rule against an employee in this situation, in my view. The employer can feel free to appeal the decision to the supreme court, but the supreme court will not overturn its recent decision, in my view. The only realistic remedy for the situation is a change of the statute, in my view.

 

[Gaeilge1]

I may not agree with Player very often but I do on this point. The University has simply mitigated their potential loss by agreeing to honor the existing contracts and to pay O'Day an additional year. By doing so they limit the potential for a separate breach of contract suit from O'Day. I would not be surprised if they agree to some buyout with Pflu on the issue of his renewal contract as well to avoid his potential breach of contract suit.

However this will do nothing to limit the probable wrongful discharge suits that both men may be contemplating. The Yellowstone case is the last one in a series of cases of the MT Supreme Court that have taken a dim view of "no cause" terminations since the state changed its constitution in 1972-73 and developed at that point the concept of full legal redress in Article II of the constitution. The modern history of wrongful discharge legislation is because of the concept of full legal redress and there are very few if any states in the Union that have this as a constitutional mandate. The 4 year allowance under the wrongful discharge statutes not only include salary but also ancillary benefits such as health insurance and retirement contribution. At least in Pflu's case there could be an argument for contract incentives and promotions to be included. Admittedly, the terminated individuals have an obligation to try to mitigate the damages, but given the publicity nationally that may be difficult for either to accomplish.

While wrongful discharge cases are rarely brought due to the mitigation clause, the ones that have been successful are usually the high profile ones. If there is no smoking gun, and with all that is on the line, attorney's for both O'Day and Pflu will be looking at these cases very carefully before ever telling their clients to take the initial offer.

Further, I find it a bit disengenuous to have the University be extraordinarily public about the sexual abuse scandal and what it is doing in that regard and then turn around and be silent on the termination or non-renewal of two of the most public figures at the University! IMO it's a bit late to be hiding behind the veil of privacy.

 

[Growler1]

There is also no evidence that the sequence did not happen and there is evidence that Pflugrad made an incredibly stupid public statement after Engstrom had made it clear that things needed to change. Could have been a power trip, but Pflugrad should have been astute enough to know better.

There is ample evidence, I think, that Pflu was in over his head -- as many coaches, even experienced ones, would be -- when it came to the non-coaching aspects of his job in this kind of situation. (I thought, and still do, that he was working himself into a good comfort zone as far as the x's and o's, halftime adjustments, etc., parts of his job.) When push came to shove, he didn't know how to walk the line between appropriately backing his players and responding to the "larger picture."

Okay, Pflu stepped all over his tongue, so they threw him to the wolves. Why not a reprimand for "insensitivity"? And why fire O'Day? He didn't come out and make dumb statements (that I know of). If either or both overtly undermined the prez by refusing to make reasonable changes, then there would be "cause" for termination -- but no causes are mentioned. Beyond that, power trip or caving in to political pressure ... neither says much for Engstrom's leadership skills.

Edit: Just saw the new thread about "Engstrom Sitting on Coaches' Contracts." If that's true (and no evidence is offered, yet), then that just strengthens my concern about Engstrom "showing'em who's boss" ( i.e. power trip). Not that that's all bad -- he is the boss, after all -- but that kind of approach portends trouble in the long run. (Of course "my[our] concern" means diddly-squat, but that's why we have a fan board. :lol: )

[And I've wasted enough time on this non-football topic, so I'm outa here.]

Very astute post. Most pedestrian fans don't understand that the job of a head football coach is about 60% PR and 40% coaching. Pflu never seemed to grasp the PR part of it. Most of the Xs and Os are delegated to the assistants. Pflu's sophomoric handling of the PR stuff is what cost him his job. O'Day lost his for not understanding that Pflu had a PR issue, and administrating that situation accordingly. The buck stops with the AD, and O'Day was too much buddies with Pflu (and Hauck), to be an effective boss.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Feel free to point out any holding or discussion in the YC case that supports your view.

"The present case also does not involve the right of an employer to not renew an employment contract which has expired. See e.g. Solle v. Western States Ins. Agency, 2000 MT 96, 299 Mont. 237, 999 P.2d 328; Farris v. Hutchinson, 254 Mont. 334, 838 P.2d 374 (1992)."

The question is, does paying a contracted employee's salary and benefits through the duration of the contract satisfy the employer's contractual obligations? I say it does, and I think the courts would see it the same way. And if so, nothing in the Yellowstone Club case compels an employer to renew a contract.

And maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not an attorney, and at least I could sleep well knowing that I didn't bill a bunch of hours to some poor client to test my theory.

 

[br fan]

I'm sure a lot of you are on this spam list as well, but I got this e-mail today:

Dear :

I am writing with an update regarding personnel changes in Intercollegiate Athletics. As most of you know by now, I have appointed Jean Gee as Interim Athletic Director. Jean has served as our Associate AD for seven years and knows the responsibilities and the people of the program well. After receiving helpful feedback from a number of groups and many individuals in the past several days, I have decided to move forward with the search for a new AD over the course of the summer, with the goal of having a permanent person in place beginning Fall Semester 2012. Within the next two weeks, I will appoint a Search Advisory Committee to work with me. We will look for a person who can administer and represent Intercollegiate Athletics, and who will also serve as an integral member of the leadership team of the University through a seat on the President’s Cabinet. We will consider both internal and external candidates.

You also know that Mick Delaney is serving as Interim Head Coach through the 2012 season. Coach Delaney and his staff did an excellent job with the team at the Saturday evening scrimmage before a crowd of more than 8,000 fans under the new lights at Washington-Grizzly Stadium. By the end of the 2012 season, we will appoint a permanent Head Coach for the 2013 season. Again, we will consider both internal and external candidates.

I want you to know that we are fully committed to continuing our tradition of having one of the most highly respected athletic programs in the country, a program integral to the mission and reputation of the University. Such a powerhouse athletic program must meet these criteria:
• Excellence on the playing fields and courts;
• Excellence in the classroom;
• Excellence in character in the community.

We will continue to build on our tradition and success and will work on improvements in the following areas:

• The lights of Washington-Grizzly Stadium;
• Funding and approval to begin construction on a new Academic Success Center attached to the Adams Center;
• The addition of Women’s Softball as a new intercollegiate sport, funded largely through student fees;
• A planned new weight room and locker room through fundraising and institutional contributions;
• A new Student-Athlete Conduct Code that clarifies expectations and actions for student-athletes and coaching staff.

Grizzly Athletics plays many important roles for the University. Most importantly, it provides an opportunity for our student-athletes to develop in a supportive and highly competitive program. Athletics contributes in a major way to the vibrancy of our campus and community as we build one of the most Dynamic Learning Environments in higher education. Grizzly Athletics is the window through which many people interact with and remain attached to UM and, of course, Athletics contributes so much to our community. We are Montana!

Thank you for your support. Go Griz!

Royce C. Engstrom, President

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Feel free to point out any holding or discussion in the YC case that supports your view.

"The present case also does not involve the right of an employer to not renew an employment contract which has expired. See e.g. Solle v. Western States Ins. Agency, 2000 MT 96, 299 Mont. 237, 999 P.2d 328; Farris v. Hutchinson, 254 Mont. 334, 838 P.2d 374 (1992)."

The question is, does paying a contracted employee's salary and benefits through the duration of the contract satisfy the employer's contractual obligations? I say it does, and I think the courts would see it the same way. And if so, nothing in the Yellowstone Club case compels an employer to renew a contract.

And maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not an attorney, and at least I could sleep well knowing that I didn't bill a bunch of hours to some poor client to test my theory.

Oh, I think I see where the might lie. See bolded.

I also think we are asking two different questions:

1. You say the question is whether compensation through the term of the contract satisfies the contract.
2. The question I was addressing is whether the contract at issue falls within or without the exception to the wrongful termination Act. Yellowstone appears to hold that it falls without, and therefore a claim under that Act would not appear to be barred.

Attorneys are all evil and mean. Congrats on the sleep, bro. :thumb:

 

[PlayerRep]

Feel free to point out any holding or discussion in the YC case that supports your view.

"The present case also does not involve the right of an employer to not renew an employment contract which has expired. See e.g. Solle v. Western States Ins. Agency, 2000 MT 96, 299 Mont. 237, 999 P.2d 328; Farris v. Hutchinson, 254 Mont. 334, 838 P.2d 374 (1992)."

The question is, does paying a contracted employee's salary and benefits through the duration of the contract satisfy the employer's contractual obligations? I say it does, and I think the courts would see it the same way. And if so, nothing in the Yellowstone Club case compels an employer to renew a contract.

And maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not an attorney, and at least I could sleep well knowing that I didn't bill a bunch of hours to some poor client to test my theory.

Correct, the YC case had nothing to do with renewing a contract. The YC found that being able to fire an employee without cause prior to the stated term of the contract, made the contract subject to the MT wrongful termination statute, i.e. made the situation subject to a claim for wrongful termination. The case focused on the termination of employment; not on whether compensation was paid or not. No, I don't think payment of salary until the end of the contract would satisfy the employer's obligations, as the employee also wants to the be the coach, which is his passion and profession, and to be able to qualify for bonuses and other income under tv/radio agreements. Of course, what you suggest could be argued. I would counter by saying the payment of salary/benefits is merely the stated severance, and point out that the coach could probably double the salary if he had a good year and was able to get the tv/radio compensation. Again, all just my view, but I have previously discussed this case with about 10 lawyers who practice employment law or advise companies on employment agreements.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I want you to know that we are fully committed to continuing our tradition of having one of the most highly respected athletic programs in the country, a program integral to the mission and reputation of the University. Such a powerhouse athletic program must meet these criteria:

• Excellence on the playing fields and courts;
• Excellence in the classroom;
• Excellence in character in the community.

Grizzly Athletics plays many important roles for the University. Most importantly, it provides an opportunity for our student-athletes to develop in a supportive and highly competitive program. Athletics contributes in a major way to the vibrancy of our campus and community as we build one of the most Dynamic Learning Environments in higher education. Grizzly Athletics is the window through which many people interact with and remain attached to UM and, of course, Athletics contributes so much to our community. We are Montana!

Thank you for your support. Go Griz!

Royce C. Engstrom, President

 

[JBS]

There is also no evidence that the sequence did not happen and there is evidence that Pflugrad made an incredibly stupid public statement after Engstrom had made it clear that things needed to change. Could have been a power trip, but Pflugrad should have been astute enough to know better.

I have a problem with this, but I'm not a public relations person. The way I see it, if a reporter asks a question about this you have 3 options. 1) Say "no comment" or something completely vanilla. 2) Throw the player under the bus. 3) Defend the player.

Hauk was criticized because he constantly used the first option. No coach is going to throw a player under the bus from a simple allegation. If it was me, I would go with the 3rd option, as I think most coaches would. Put yourself in that position and ask what you would do. Remember, Phlu's relationship with JJ and his family is more than just a coach who recruited a player. He knows them well. I don't see why what he said is a problem.

I'm staying out of the legal stuff.

 

[grizpack]

I think the problem was the comment about something like "as high of morals" or high character, or something like that. If he just said, "I think Jordy is a good kid, and we will work through this as a team...." I don't think things happen they way they did.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I think the problem was the comment about something like "as high of morals" or high character, or something like that. If he just said, "I think Jordy is a good kid, and we will work through this as a team...." I don't think things happen they way they did.

Agreed 100%. Until the NEXT time he put his foot in his mouth. :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

I may not agree with Player very often but I do on this point. The University has simply mitigated their potential loss by agreeing to honor the existing contracts and to pay O'Day an additional year. By doing so they limit the potential for a separate breach of contract suit from O'Day. I would not be surprised if they agree to some buyout with Pflu on the issue of his renewal contract as well to avoid his potential breach of contract suit.

However this will do nothing to limit the probable wrongful discharge suits that both men may be contemplating. The Yellowstone case is the last one in a series of cases of the MT Supreme Court that have taken a dim view of "no cause" terminations since the state changed its constitution in 1972-73 and developed at that point the concept of full legal redress in Article II of the constitution. The modern history of wrongful discharge legislation is because of the concept of full legal redress and there are very few if any states in the Union that have this as a constitutional mandate. The 4 year allowance under the wrongful discharge statutes not only include salary but also ancillary benefits such as health insurance and retirement contribution. At least in Pflu's case there could be an argument for contract incentives and promotions to be included. Admittedly, the terminated individuals have an obligation to try to mitigate the damages, but given the publicity nationally that may be difficult for either to accomplish.

While wrongful discharge cases are rarely brought due to the mitigation clause, the ones that have been successful are usually the high profile ones. If there is no smoking gun, and with all that is on the line, attorney's for both O'Day and Pflu will be looking at these cases very carefully before ever telling their clients to take the initial offer.

Further, I find it a bit disengenuous to have the University be extraordinarily public about the sexual abuse scandal and what it is doing in that regard and then turn around and be silent on the termination or non-renewal of two of the most public figures at the University! IMO it's a bit late to be hiding behind the veil of privacy.

A very good analysis. Also, note that some posters are starting to lay out some "facts" that could make a wrongful termination lawsuit more attractive.

 

[JBS]

I think the problem was the comment about something like "as high of morals" or high character, or something like that. If he just said, "I think Jordy is a good kid, and we will work through this as a team...." I don't think things happen they way they did.

That would be too vanilla for me, especially if I knew the kid and his family well. But, public relations is not my thing (nor is being a successful football coach). I don't claim to know how to handle that situation, I'm just saying if it was me, it would be my nature to defend this kid. I didn't see a problem with it.

 

[PlayerRep]

Why do you think it would be hard to turn it into a wrongful discharge case, given the recent MT Sup Ct case? Looks like a no-brainer to me.

Because the University is honoring the terms of the contract by paying the money. And then they're not renewing the contract once that obligation is satisfied. And nothing in the Yellowstone Club case limits or restricts their ability to do that.

And yes, I know you don't agree, and I know exactly why you don't agree. Just saving you some typing.

I'll tell you why I think I respectfully disagree:

I think the case holds that such a contract is not a written contract for a specified term as defined in the express exception to the Act. I think it's about whether the employee has a legal right to remain employed for the ostensibly specific term. If not (like here, apparently), the situation is not excepted from the Act. I'm not convinced that it's about whether terminated employees are subsequently paid the money under the contracts that decidedly still fall under the ambit of the Act.

Put another way, I don't think the case says you can have a contract for 3 years with a termination without cause provision, and as long as you pay the dude for the 3 years, you magically aren't subject to the wrongful termination Act.

I wonder if the University is paying all the compensation for the duration including incentives, etc.?

This is exactly my analysis of the YC case. When I first heard of the case, my thought was that this couldn't be true or was a bad decision. Then I read the case, and saw that the court was focusing on the statutory provision that you pointed out. The case was then much more understandable. I also noted, as you point out, that the court focused on the employment aspect, not the payment aspect. I think it would take a change in the statute for this court to decide a different way.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Let's say you're a football coach and you win a wrongful discharge suit. How does the court fashion a salary remedy, given the possible incentives? It's not rocket science, and the mere fact that there are incentives shouldn't make it impossible for an employer to buy out a contract. You guys need to be more practical.

Besides, if I'm defending this case, I'm having a jury trial in Bobcat country. :thumb:

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Let's say you're a football coach and you win a wrongful discharge suit. How does the court fashion a salary remedy, given the possible incentives? It's not rocket science, and the mere fact that there are incentives shouldn't make it impossible for an employer to buy out a contract. You guys need to be more practical.

Besides, if I'm defending this case, I'm having a jury trial in Bobcat country. :thumb:

Does this mean you are now on board that a wrongful discharge action would not be barred simply due to subsequent compensation?

 

[ranco]

Let's say you're a football coach and you win a wrongful discharge suit. How does the court fashion a salary remedy, given the possible incentives? It's not rocket science, and the mere fact that there are incentives shouldn't make it impossible for an employer to buy out a contract. You guys need to be more practical.

Besides, if I'm defending this case, I'm having a jury trial in Bobcat country. :thumb:

Does this mean you are now on board that a wrongful discharge action would not be barred simply due to subsequent compensation?

finally people are coming around to understand just how legally stupid the firings were. Engstrom's whimsical decision will cost the UM around a Million dollars. someone please tell me why he shouldn't step down.