Reason for firing

[TxGriz]

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.

Because someone knee capped him? j/k

 

[ranco]

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

you boys are sad. you think its ok that if you defend someone's character then its ok to fired for it. I think Pflu knew better than anyone that the allegations against JJ were/are false and, as such, he went to bat for JJ. Then some spineless POS woke up in a tift and fired him for it. If you are in that camp, then please do not step into mine.

 

[PlayerRep]

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

you boys are sad. you think its ok that if you defend someone's character then its ok to fired for it. I think Pflu knew better than anyone that the allegations against JJ were/are false and, as such, he went to bat for JJ. Then some spineless POS woke up in a tift and fired him for it. If you are in that camp, then please do not step into mine.

Terrific point/post.

If this turned out to be one of the main reasons Pflu (who has known JJ and his family for years) got fired, this would make for a great wrongful termination lawsuit. Good chance of 4 years compensation plus punitive damages for that.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

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

Not a chance in hell.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

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

Not a chance in hell.

So it's fair to say that you think, under Montana law, a terminated employee is barred from bringing an action for wrongful termination where an employment contract specified that the employee would remain employed for a term of x years, yet the employer could terminate the employment at any time, as long as the employer compensated the employee after the termination? Interesting. Can you expand on why you think so?

 

[goatcreekgriz]

These are not great cases, and claims for wrongful discharge (if you can prove it) are not lucrative. If they are litigated,it will be in arbitration, there is a duty to mitigate damages, and UM has strong arguments for a legitimate reason for discharge. Nothing is a lead-pipe cinch, though, and Engstrom's head may be on the block before this is all over. The groundwork has been laid for the university and football program to move on.

 

[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

you boys are sad. you think its ok that if you defend someone's character then its ok to fired for it. I think Pflu knew better than anyone that the allegations against JJ were/are false and, as such, he went to bat for JJ. Then some spineless POS woke up in a tift and fired him for it. If you are in that camp, then please do not step into mine.

Terrific point/post.

If this turned out to be one of the main reasons Pflu (who has known JJ and his family for years) got fired, this would make for a great wrongful termination lawsuit. Good chance of 4 years compensation plus punitive damages for that.

You're just chomping at the bit, aren't you? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

And ranco, why is it so difficult to understand "context" and proper 'time and place'?

 

[mcg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the key aspects of the Yellowstone case that the terminated employees contract allowed him to be terminated for cause without payment of remaining wages by the employer? Thus the court ruled the contract had no term and the wrongful discharge laws would apply.

Is that correct?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

These are not great cases, and claims for wrongful discharge (if you can prove it) are not lucrative. If they are litigated,it will be in arbitration, there is a duty to mitigate damages, and UM has strong arguments for a legitimate reason for discharge. Nothing is a lead-pipe cinch, though, and Engstrom's head may be on the block before this is all over. The groundwork has been laid for the university and football program to move on.

I was unaware that the contracts contained arbitration clauses. Thanks for that info. Can you by any chance post the other provisions of the contracts when you get a chance? Thanks.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the key aspects of the Yellowstone case that the terminated employees contract allowed him to be terminated for cause without payment of remaining wages by the employer? Thus the court ruled the contract had no term and the wrongful discharge laws would apply.

Is that correct?

Very close, but I think it was that the contract allowed for termination without cause, and at the same time purported to be for a specific term of years. The court did not appear to focus on wages/severance. I have no idea what the contracts we're talking about provide for, but some others have said they are similar.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

There was a link posted a few weeks ago for Pflugrad's contract, but I'm not sure where, and I assume O'Day's contract has an arbitration clause because there is little reason for there to be different provisions for dispute resolution. PR and I disagreed about enforceability of the arbitration clause, and I see no way out of it. Both of these guys should be able to find gainful employment, and UM is entitled to offset other earnings against any damages. UM has exposure but not seven figures. Arbitration is not a great venue for Pflugrad or O'Day.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

There was a link posted a few weeks ago for Pflugrad's contract, but I'm not sure where, and I assume O'Day's contract has an arbitration clause because there is little reason for there to be different provisions for dispute resolution. PR and I disagreed about enforceability of the arbitration clause, and I see no way out of it. Both of these guys should be able to find gainful employment, and UM is entitled to offset other earnings against any damages. UM has exposure but not seven figures. Arbitration is not a great venue for Pflugrad or O'Day.

Thanks for the info, man. I've been out of the loop on this entire thing; not that I was ever in the loop to begin with.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

It's been beaten to death more than once, and you haven't missed much. The story about the federal discrimination complaint just posted by Wahlberg has the potential to be far more important.

 

[mcg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the key aspects of the Yellowstone case that the terminated employees contract allowed him to be terminated for cause without payment of remaining wages by the employer? Thus the court ruled the contract had no term and the wrongful discharge laws would apply.

Is that correct?

Very close, but I think it was that the contract allowed for termination without cause, and at the same time purported to be for a specific term of years. The court did not appear to focus on wages/severance. I have no idea what the contracts we're talking about provide for, but some others have said they are similar.

Actually that's what I recalled, but it seemed very stupid as I typed. An employment contract that allows for termination without cause and without payment of remaining wages truly has no term as the employer can dismiss the employee at any time without cost. It's logical that the court ruled that the wrongful discharge laws apply as they are the only protection the employee has (the contract provides none).

I can't believe that Pflu's contract would allow termination without cause and without payment of remaining wages. If this is the case, how does Yellowstone apply?

 

[mcg]

I am actually pretty surprised that I have heard the university utter the word "terminate". When it happened, it was just that they chose not to renew the contract.

I don't think the University has ever uttered the word "terminate". I think the words were "elected not to renew". Very important difference.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Yellowstone applies because the termination without cause provision precludes the contract from being for a specific term, therefore WDEA remedies are available.

 

[mtgrizrule]

What I don't get in all this, why would the university not decide this earlier? Especially with Pflu,the season ends, he recruits relentlessly, gets through signing day, etc, then it was decided to go a new direction in the program? WTH? I would be under the impression I would be coaching the upcoming season, after getting that far. Who wouldn't be under that impression, at that stage?

 

[Growler1]

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.

You'd just love that, wouldn't you? If you hate UM so much, why do you pretend to be a supporter? I hear the Bobcats have a need for a jock-sniffer apologist to provide cover for their player's transgressions.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the key aspects of the Yellowstone case that the terminated employees contract allowed him to be terminated for cause without payment of remaining wages by the employer? Thus the court ruled the contract had no term and the wrongful discharge laws would apply.

Is that correct?

Very close, but I think it was that the contract allowed for termination without cause, and at the same time purported to be for a specific term of years. The court did not appear to focus on wages/severance. I have no idea what the contracts we're talking about provide for, but some others have said they are similar.

Actually that's what I recalled, but it seemed very stupid as I typed. An employment contract that allows for termination without cause and without payment of remaining wages truly has no term as the employer can dismiss the employee at any time without cost. It's logical that the court ruled that the wrongful discharge laws apply as they are the only protection the employee has (the contract provides none).

I can't believe that Pflu's contract would allow termination without cause and without payment of remaining wages. If this is the case, how does Yellowstone apply?

Because of its wording, I am not sure what your question is (not trying to be a dick, I just want to try to answer).

1. If you are asking how Yellowstone might apply in the event that the contract provided for termination without cause and without compensation, I would say it most definitely applies because Pflugrad would have even less protection than the dude in Yellowstone (I wonder if that plaintiff is a Griz fan reading all of this BTW, haha).

2. If you are asking how the case might apply if Pflugrad's contract provided for termination without cause but still mandated compensation until the end of the term, it gets a bit more hairy, but not too bad. I think the compensation thing might have been less of a consideration for the Court than the provisions of the contract that were, in practice, at odds with one another. The employment, and the rights thereto, were the focus as I read it. The language of this next sentence might get weird: I think if the contract here was for a specific term, yet allowed for termination without cause, with or without subsequent compensation, Yellowstone would apply and termination under the contract pursuant to the termination without cause provision would be subject to the wrongful termination Act due to [what you have already picked up on in your last post].

Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who has never taken the Montana Bar Exam, and has only read the Yellowstone case once, very quickly.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I am actually pretty surprised that I have heard the university utter the word "terminate". When it happened, it was just that they chose not to renew the contract.

I don't think the University has ever uttered the word "terminate". I think the words were "elected not to renew". Very important difference.

I guess the argument against that distinction having import would be that the terms of the contracts were not yet up, right? So, if they simply elected not to renew, wouldn't they still be employed until the end of the term? I really don't mean this to sound condescending, I really am in the dark about a lot of this.