'Voice of the Bobcats' resigned amidst sexual harassment investigation

[PlayerRep]

Note the time distance between the Feb. 24 tweet storm and the reporter's complaint on September 25. I suppose the Big Sky media days were in July. I see that her tweet saying she was taking the new job was on Oct. 23.

So, she obviously was looking and maybe even had a job offer, before she filed her complaint with MSU on Sept. 25.

 

[PlayerRep]

I think you’re asking the question backward, PR. It doesn’t really matter what the vendor’s company position is. If they desire the contract and the contract stipulates that vendors adhere to msu’s Policies, then that’s the way the contract is signed.

So I’ll answer your question this way: My Firm hires vendors. Everyone of them signs a contract that they will abide by my Firm’s policies. In addition, every contract employee at those vendors signs a disclosure statement every year that they understand our Firm’s policies and that they are in full compliance.

I'm no lawyer, but I dealt with them for decades in my "day job" and have in-laws who are lawyers (one was a judge, now retired, whom every defense attorney shopped around to avoid). For us, it worked two ways: We operated under a contract with the Federal government and agreed to comply with their policies (with all that that implies). In turn, we would subcontract with third parties for certain services (or goods, but that's probably not relevant here).

I think the point that PR (and others) is trying to make is that, when a subcontractor employee agreed to "comply with" our policies, that did not mean that we, the contract holder, had any right to go after that individual for his/her transgression. Keep in mind that, because of the Federal connection, we had some quite punitive contracts. Depending upon the wording of the contract, the subcontractor might lose the contract, pay fines, etc. But it was up to them to punish the transgressor (usually meaning they got fired). Here where neither individual involved is an employee of the "complainant," there is no way they have legal jurisdiction. To me, this is a prime example of the arrogance of the academic world, which considers itself a special, protected class.

I agree. All I can think of is that somehow MSU concluded that the reporter was an part-time employee of MSU during the time in question. However, the way the Gazette article was written, I wonder if that was the case.

This is a good example of why people, like the announcer, should have consulted a lawyer. A good lawyer like Paoli, would have backed MSU down in a big hurry, is my guess.

Everett, looks like Idaho dosen't agree with you either.

 

[EverettGriz]

Show us the wording of your company's contact in which vendors agree to abide by your company's policies.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Yeah, I get right on that, as soon as you post a couple of "Internal Use Only" documents from your law firm.


Good god, you are something else.

As for Idaho, I agree Learfield would have the responsibility to punish their employee. msu still has the right -- and I would argue the obligation -- to conduct an investigation. I would hazard a guess that if Idaho's company had a contract employee go rouge, they too would conduct their own investigation, as would any decent organization.

 

[PlayerRep]

Show us the wording of your company's contact in which vendors agree to abide by your company's policies.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Yeah, I get right on that, as soon as you post a couple of "Internal Use Only" documents from your law firm.


Good god, you are something else.

As for Idaho, I agree Learfield would have the responsibility to punish their employee. msu still has the right -- and I would argue the obligation -- to conduct an investigation. I would hazard a guess that if Idaho's company had a contract employee go rouge, they too would conduct their own investigation, as would any decent organization.

Vendor contracts are not internal use. Our law firm doesn't have internal use contracts. Just post the provision you claim the contracts have. I know you won't, because the contracts don't say what you said they do.

Perhaps conduct some sort of investigation, but not a Title IX proceeding.

Good god you are an idiot. You need to stop playing lawyer. You are wrong every time you say something about the law or what lawyers do.

Don't know which you know less about: the law or football.

 

[EverettGriz]

Yep. I guess even sexual harassment has to be all about pr.

 

[PlayerRep]

Yep. I guess even sexual harassment has to be all about pr.

You don't know what sexual harassment is. From the EEOC website:

"Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government."

If MSU was not the announcer's employer, or there is not a specific contractual provision giving MSU Title IX authority over Learfield employees, MSU has no authority to conduct a Title IX investigation.

MSU must have concluded that the announcer was a part-time employee when this stuff was occurring, or else they have overstepped their authority by doing a Title IX proceeding.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Too bad Amie Just couldn't have found a healthier paper than the Times Picayune. Since 2012 New Orleans has been served by a paper that prints only three days a week after cutting staff citing costs most likely due to falling circulation.

There are NO healthy papers.

 

[mcg]

I think when Learfield and Learfield employees wrap themselves and blue and yellow and proclaim that they are the 'voice of the bobcats' then MSU gains some level of authority over their behavior. Imagine if Learfield said 'hey no problem, boys will be boys'; the fallout would land squarely on MSU athletics.

 

[PlayerRep]

I think when Learfield and Learfield employees wrap themselves and blue and yellow and proclaim that they are the 'voice of the bobcats' then MSU gains some level of authority over their behavior. Imagine if Learfield said 'hey no problem, boys will be boys'; the fallout would land squarely on MSU athletics.

The question being asked is how can MSU's Title IX office have jurisdiction to do an investigation/proceeding. No one questions whether MSU can complain to Learfield and force a change.

Imagine if MSU doesn't or didn't have a good basis for doing a Title IX proceeding, and doing one without authority caused the announcer all of this bad publicity, and a good plaintiff lawyer came along to represent the announcer. Again, MSU must have some basis for concluding that they have jurisdiction, and hopefully for MSU it's a good basis.

 

[argh!]

I would hazard a guess that if Idaho's company had a contract employee go rouge, they too would conduct their own investigation, as would any decent organization.

only on egriz would somebody "go rouge". why not magenta?

 

[Ursa Major]

I think when Learfield and Learfield employees wrap themselves and blue and yellow and proclaim that they are the 'voice of the bobcats' then MSU gains some level of authority over their behavior. Imagine if Learfield said 'hey no problem, boys will be boys'; the fallout would land squarely on MSU athletics.

The question being asked is how can MSU's Title IX office have jurisdiction to do an investigation/proceeding. No one questions whether MSU can complain to Learfield and force a change.

Imagine if MSU doesn't or didn't have a good basis for doing a Title IX proceeding, and doing one without authority caused the announcer all of this bad publicity, and a good plaintiff lawyer came along to represent the announcer. Again, MSU must have some basis for concluding that they have jurisdiction, and hopefully for MSU it's a good basis.

PR, that's your question. I think most people are looking at the broader picture and not the minutiae of the Title IX proceeding.

 

[mcg]

I think when Learfield and Learfield employees wrap themselves and blue and yellow and proclaim that they are the 'voice of the bobcats' then MSU gains some level of authority over their behavior. Imagine if Learfield said 'hey no problem, boys will be boys'; the fallout would land squarely on MSU athletics.

The question being asked is how can MSU's Title IX office have jurisdiction to do an investigation/proceeding. No one questions whether MSU can complain to Learfield and force a change.

Imagine if MSU doesn't or didn't have a good basis for doing a Title IX proceeding, and doing one without authority caused the announcer all of this bad publicity, and a good plaintiff lawyer came along to represent the announcer. Again, MSU must have some basis for concluding that they have jurisdiction, and hopefully for MSU it's a good basis.

I don't think MSU needs jurisdiction in the manner a court needs jurisdiction to pursue legal action. I'd bet money Learfield and Learfield employees have signed up to follow MSU policies as condition of their relationship with MSU (it would be crazy for MSU to allow this guy to brand himself 'the voice of the bobcats' without some control over what the voice of the bobcats says and does). The guy was in effect a representative of bobcat sports. He abused Amie at an MSU Athletics event (the Big Sky media event) and Amie complained. The Title Nine staff are the logical folks to investigate. The guy resigned. end of story.

 

[Griz2k]

This is the part I don't understand....

“The assaults and harassment are why I decided to pursue a new opportunity and leave Montana,” Just said. “I was prepared to leave the journalism industry altogether had I not found another job.”

This guy was obviously in the wrong and a huge dipshit, but why would she have to leave the state and possibly journalism all together? She did a fine job covering the Griz, but I never got the sense she liked being in Missoula anyway. Regardless, no one should have to endure what she did.

 

[EverettGriz]

I think when Learfield and Learfield employees wrap themselves and blue and yellow and proclaim that they are the 'voice of the bobcats' then MSU gains some level of authority over their behavior. Imagine if Learfield said 'hey no problem, boys will be boys'; the fallout would land squarely on MSU athletics.

The question being asked is how can MSU's Title IX office have jurisdiction to do an investigation/proceeding. No one questions whether MSU can complain to Learfield and force a change.

Imagine if MSU doesn't or didn't have a good basis for doing a Title IX proceeding, and doing one without authority caused the announcer all of this bad publicity, and a good plaintiff lawyer came along to represent the announcer. Again, MSU must have some basis for concluding that they have jurisdiction, and hopefully for MSU it's a good basis.

I don't think MSU needs jurisdiction in the manner a court needs jurisdiction to pursue legal action. I'd bet money Learfield and Learfield employees have signed up to follow MSU policies as condition of their relationship with MSU (it would be crazy for MSU to allow this guy to brand himself 'the voice of the bobcats' without some control over what the voice of the bobcats says and does). The guy was in effect a representative of bobcat sports. He abused Amie at an MSU Athletics event (the Big Sky media event) and Amie complained. The Title Nine staff are the logical folks to investigate. The guy resigned. end of story.

Intelligent people understand this to be so. Good post.

 

[PlayerRep]

I think when Learfield and Learfield employees wrap themselves and blue and yellow and proclaim that they are the 'voice of the bobcats' then MSU gains some level of authority over their behavior. Imagine if Learfield said 'hey no problem, boys will be boys'; the fallout would land squarely on MSU athletics.

The question being asked is how can MSU's Title IX office have jurisdiction to do an investigation/proceeding. No one questions whether MSU can complain to Learfield and force a change.

Imagine if MSU doesn't or didn't have a good basis for doing a Title IX proceeding, and doing one without authority caused the announcer all of this bad publicity, and a good plaintiff lawyer came along to represent the announcer. Again, MSU must have some basis for concluding that they have jurisdiction, and hopefully for MSU it's a good basis.

PR, that's your question. I think most people are looking at the broader picture and not the minutiae of the Title IX proceeding.

No one disputes that, regardless of the contract and situation, MSU has the right to do an informal investigation and tell Learfield what they want done. So, why discuss or debate something that is absolutely clear and no one would dispute?

Yes, I, and at least a few others, are curious as to how MSU has concluded it has jurisdiction to do what appears to be a regular Title IX proceeding in this situation. Why do some posters lack curiosity?

 

[PlayerRep]

I think when Learfield and Learfield employees wrap themselves and blue and yellow and proclaim that they are the 'voice of the bobcats' then MSU gains some level of authority over their behavior. Imagine if Learfield said 'hey no problem, boys will be boys'; the fallout would land squarely on MSU athletics.

The question being asked is how can MSU's Title IX office have jurisdiction to do an investigation/proceeding. No one questions whether MSU can complain to Learfield and force a change.

Imagine if MSU doesn't or didn't have a good basis for doing a Title IX proceeding, and doing one without authority caused the announcer all of this bad publicity, and a good plaintiff lawyer came along to represent the announcer. Again, MSU must have some basis for concluding that they have jurisdiction, and hopefully for MSU it's a good basis.

I don't think MSU needs jurisdiction in the manner a court needs jurisdiction to pursue legal action. I'd bet money Learfield and Learfield employees have signed up to follow MSU policies as condition of their relationship with MSU (it would be crazy for MSU to allow this guy to brand himself 'the voice of the bobcats' without some control over what the voice of the bobcats says and does). The guy was in effect a representative of bobcat sports. He abused Amie at an MSU Athletics event (the Big Sky media event) and Amie complained. The Title Nine staff are the logical folks to investigate. The guy resigned. end of story.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Even MSU has admitted that it needs to have "jurisdiction." See below, in the first quoted sentence. Also, note in the second paragraph below that it refers to "employee". And then in the third para quoted below, note that the article says the announcer was employed by Learfield, not MSU.

"Ellig said that when MSU receives a complaint under Title IX and it determines that it has jurisdiction, “its obligation is to make sure that harassment ceases and doesn’t continue.”

“The remedies can be quite a range, depending on the circumstances,” he added. “They can go from the extreme of basically dismissing an employee to other things that might involve training, or making sure that the two parties are separated. So there’s not a one-size-fits-all conclusion to all these kinds of cases.”

"Though “The Voice of the Bobcats,” Sanderson technically was employed by Learfield Bobcat Sports Properties, which distributed the release announcing the resignation. MSU has a third-party agreement with Learfield for its play-by-play announcer."

 

[mcg]

I think when Learfield and Learfield employees wrap themselves and blue and yellow and proclaim that they are the 'voice of the bobcats' then MSU gains some level of authority over their behavior. Imagine if Learfield said 'hey no problem, boys will be boys'; the fallout would land squarely on MSU athletics.

The question being asked is how can MSU's Title IX office have jurisdiction to do an investigation/proceeding. No one questions whether MSU can complain to Learfield and force a change.

Imagine if MSU doesn't or didn't have a good basis for doing a Title IX proceeding, and doing one without authority caused the announcer all of this bad publicity, and a good plaintiff lawyer came along to represent the announcer. Again, MSU must have some basis for concluding that they have jurisdiction, and hopefully for MSU it's a good basis.

I don't think MSU needs jurisdiction in the manner a court needs jurisdiction to pursue legal action. I'd bet money Learfield and Learfield employees have signed up to follow MSU policies as condition of their relationship with MSU (it would be crazy for MSU to allow this guy to brand himself 'the voice of the bobcats' without some control over what the voice of the bobcats says and does). The guy was in effect a representative of bobcat sports. He abused Amie at an MSU Athletics event (the Big Sky media event) and Amie complained. The Title Nine staff are the logical folks to investigate. The guy resigned. end of story.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Even MSU has admitted that it needs to have "jurisdiction." See below, in the first quoted sentence. Also, note in the second paragraph below that it refers to "employee". And then in the third para quoted below, note that the article says the announcer was employed by Learfield, not MSU.

"Ellig said that when MSU receives a complaint under Title IX and it determines that it has jurisdiction, “its obligation is to make sure that harassment ceases and doesn’t continue.”

“The remedies can be quite a range, depending on the circumstances,” he added. “They can go from the extreme of basically dismissing an employee to other things that might involve training, or making sure that the two parties are separated. So there’s not a one-size-fits-all conclusion to all these kinds of cases.”

"Though “The Voice of the Bobcats,” Sanderson technically was employed by Learfield Bobcat Sports Properties, which distributed the release announcing the resignation. MSU has a third-party agreement with Learfield for its play-by-play announcer."

From a legal point of view this doesn't get interesting until the voice of the bobcats chooses to deny everything and insist on staying employed. Then either Learfield has to conclude that they have basis to fire him, or MSU has to find words in their contract that allows them to demand that Learfield either fire the guy or transfer him out of Bozo, and then potentially the matter is litigated. None of that happened; Amie complained, MSU investigated and concluded that she was probably was abused, the voice of the bobcats chose to high-tail it out of town. case closed. Amie should be commended for not tolerating this behavior.

 

[PlayerRep]

This is the part I don't understand....

“The assaults and harassment are why I decided to pursue a new opportunity and leave Montana,” Just said. “I was prepared to leave the journalism industry altogether had I not found another job.”

This guy was obviously in the wrong and a huge dipshit, but why would she have to leave the state and possibly journalism all together? She did a fine job covering the Griz, but I never got the sense she liked being in Missoula anyway. Regardless, no one should have to endure what she did.

Also, why would she wait to file a complaint until Sept. 25, knowing she was about to leave the State for another job, which she announced on Oct. She filed her complaint 8 days before she announced she was taking a new job. And why would she wait until Sept. 25 to to complain about a Feb. 24 text storm (and other things)?

 

[AZGrizFan]

This is the part I don't understand....

“The assaults and harassment are why I decided to pursue a new opportunity and leave Montana,” Just said. “I was prepared to leave the journalism industry altogether had I not found another job.”

This guy was obviously in the wrong and a huge dipshit, but why would she have to leave the state and possibly journalism all together? She did a fine job covering the Griz, but I never got the sense she liked being in Missoula anyway. Regardless, no one should have to endure what she did.

Also, why would she wait to file a complaint until Sept. 25, knowing she was about to leave the State for another job, which she announced on Oct. She filed her complaint 8 days before she announced she was taking a new job. And why would she wait until Sept. 25 to to complain about a Feb. 24 text storm (and other things)?

That’s the part I don’t get. REPORT IT WHEN IT HAPPENS.

 

[PlayerRep]

The question being asked is how can MSU's Title IX office have jurisdiction to do an investigation/proceeding. No one questions whether MSU can complain to Learfield and force a change.

Imagine if MSU doesn't or didn't have a good basis for doing a Title IX proceeding, and doing one without authority caused the announcer all of this bad publicity, and a good plaintiff lawyer came along to represent the announcer. Again, MSU must have some basis for concluding that they have jurisdiction, and hopefully for MSU it's a good basis.

I don't think MSU needs jurisdiction in the manner a court needs jurisdiction to pursue legal action. I'd bet money Learfield and Learfield employees have signed up to follow MSU policies as condition of their relationship with MSU (it would be crazy for MSU to allow this guy to brand himself 'the voice of the bobcats' without some control over what the voice of the bobcats says and does). The guy was in effect a representative of bobcat sports. He abused Amie at an MSU Athletics event (the Big Sky media event) and Amie complained. The Title Nine staff are the logical folks to investigate. The guy resigned. end of story.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Even MSU has admitted that it needs to have "jurisdiction." See below, in the first quoted sentence. Also, note in the second paragraph below that it refers to "employee". And then in the third para quoted below, note that the article says the announcer was employed by Learfield, not MSU.

"Ellig said that when MSU receives a complaint under Title IX and it determines that it has jurisdiction, “its obligation is to make sure that harassment ceases and doesn’t continue.”

“The remedies can be quite a range, depending on the circumstances,” he added. “They can go from the extreme of basically dismissing an employee to other things that might involve training, or making sure that the two parties are separated. So there’s not a one-size-fits-all conclusion to all these kinds of cases.”

"Though “The Voice of the Bobcats,” Sanderson technically was employed by Learfield Bobcat Sports Properties, which distributed the release announcing the resignation. MSU has a third-party agreement with Learfield for its play-by-play announcer."

From a legal point of view this doesn't get interesting until the voice of the bobcats chooses to deny everything and insist on staying employed. Then either Learfield has to conclude that they have basis to fire him, or MSU has to find words in their contract that allows them to demand that Learfield either fire the guy or transfer him out of Bozo, and then potentially the matter is litigated. None of that happened; Amie complained, MSU investigated and concluded that she was probably was abused, the voice of the bobcats chose to high-tail it out of town. case closed. Amie should be commended for not tolerating this behavior.

Again, not true. If MSU didn't have jurisdiction to start a Title IX proceeding, and the Title IX proceeding caused damage to the announcer's reputation, the accounted would have a claim. That statute of limitations to make the claim would be multiple years.

I agree that the announcer wouldn't have an employment claim, for multiple reasons. As I have said before, no matter what the contract says, MSU has the right to look into the reporter's allegations and tell Learfield to get rid of the announcer. There seems to be plenty of evidence/basis for MSU to tell Learfield to get rid of the guy. That is not wrongful under the law. The starting of the Title IX proceeding may or may not be wrongful under the law. My guess is that MSU must have a reasonable basis that they had jurisdiction to start the Title IX proceeding. I just can't see it in what was said and quoted in the newspaper article, nor have I seen the Learfield contract. I'm also not accusing MSU of anything. I'm just curious