U of I loses $1.4 million in lawsuit
- Thread starter CyTwins
- Start date
I realize that but if you are against long term extensions for KF he would have been out the door the first time the NFL knocked.
Not so sure. I'm sure there's better section 8 housing for Brian in University Heights than Cleveland or Detroit.
Common @YeahBuddy dont pretend that negotiations were the same last year as they would have been when Ferentz was 15 years younger and the hottest coach in college football. It didn't take a 10 year contract to keep him then, it certainly wouldn't have taken a 10 year contract when he is 60 to keep him now.
I agree with HawkeyeMashup. Even if he proves he is worth every dime for this contract, it wasn't needed to keep him. Barta likes to buy high and sell low from what I can see.
I am OK with giving KF a lifetime contract. Fine by me that you guys arent. He has earned it, IMO.
Meh, that one wasn't too bad at all. Basically a three extension at the time since he signed a 7 year deal while still having four years remaining on his current contract. Have to remember, all college coaches need five years left on their contracts at all times. Almost guarantees some kind of buyout before it is terminated.
I can see now how jury was easily convinced of discrimination. Attorney Zwageran did a very good job of conflating one issue in particular. After Griesbaum was fired from her job and filed a lawsuit, Meyer was reassigned to a different job and informed specifically that she was being reassigned because of 'your relationship' and the 'discrimination' lawsuit. Plaintiff's attorney used this over and over of evidence that defendant openly admitted they were discriminating against her because of her same sex relationship and it was retaliation because the lawsuit involved allegations of discrimination. They had statements from the defense attorney from the AG's office and Barta saying she was reassigned for those reasons. But they didn't mean because she was a lesbian and it wasn't retaliation. It was a move because it was an obvious conflict and proved to be a ridiculous working environment when a partner is suing the school. Barta was advised to make this move by the AG's office. Actually by the attorney who tried the case. Probably should have been kept off the case, that was a bad move by the state.
Also Motion to continue griesbaum trial states that Defense will need more than allotted time for trial. Say they will need ten days at least and don't want to split up the trial.
Also found it obvious that Meyer was trying to build a case against the university in some of the exhibits. She had all these hand written notes that she saved where she recited listening to Barta's phone call through the wall and eavesdropping on other employee conversations.
Also Motion to continue griesbaum trial states that Defense will need more than allotted time for trial. Say they will need ten days at least and don't want to split up the trial.
Also found it obvious that Meyer was trying to build a case against the university in some of the exhibits. She had all these hand written notes that she saved where she recited listening to Barta's phone call through the wall and eavesdropping on other employee conversations.
"Also found it obvious that Meyer was trying to build a case against the university in some of the exhibits. She had all these hand written notes that she saved where she recited listening to Barta's phone call through the wall and eavesdropping on other employee conversations."
This is the first I've heard of this.
I really dislike people who harp on the word "fair" so much. IMO these people are all about themselves and getting what they think is "their's" because its only fair. That would not surprise me at all and likely they had been planning the suit long ago.
Some of her hand written notes were exhibits. As soon as she was passed over for the job Gene Taylor got she started claiming discrimation.
But, what about listening to phone calls through walls and eavesdropping? Was that explicitly mentioned in the trial?
I would imagine so bc it was an admitted exhibit from the defense. Probably showing that she just trying to build a case bc that's one reason Barta said why it was becoming too difficult to work with her
I have been going through the exhibits just to see what was in the trial bc often the sports reporters and others miss some key things.
I knew about her taking notes to build a case, but don't recall hearing about the eavesdropping.
It seems she was planning this suit a long time anyway.
Barta displayed what a weak leader he is. Jane handed him her head on a silver platter at the meeting in which many witnesses saw her being opening and excessively insubordinate. As Gene Taylor testified Barta asked him what he should do and Taylor said "I'd fire her." Taylor was right and Barta didn't do it.
If Barta would have fired her then it is a documented reason she is let go. If you keep her on you are say well yeah that isn't cause to fire her, but then try to claim later on there was cause to fire her? Works against you on two fronts and he passed up a golden opportunity. The thing is he was too stupid to see the opportunity at the time in front of him, or too weak to act upon it. Either way someone's heads needs to roll for this, might as well be the guy responsible for it all.
He just signed a big contract extension, he's not going anywhere thankfully
