• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Bobcats DC suspended

#15 Fan said:
You are correct that employers cannot just fire someone on an arrest alone, and obviously msu did the right thing in suspending him.
Nope, don’t agree. There is no statute that says that. I doubt there’s such a clause in his contract, and employees do not have a constitutional right to their job.

You can fire an employee for any reason or no reason although you may get sued. In this matter, I would can his ass and invite him to meet me at court if he did not agree
 
garizzalies said:
#15 Fan said:
You are correct that employers cannot just fire someone on an arrest alone, and obviously msu did the right thing in suspending him.
Nope, don’t agree. There is no statute that says that. I doubt there’s such a clause in his contract, and employees do not have a constitutional right to their job.

You can fire an employee for any reason or no reason although you may get sued. In this matter, I would can his ass and invite him to meet me at court if he did not agree

University system is different. You can't just fire someone for no reason. You can fire "for cause" but I don't believe an arrest without conviction would qualify as "cause". I believe msu can choose not to renew his contract, but he'd remain in the payroll until June or July.

At least, I think that's how it works.

I'd imagine the MSU and MUS legal and HR teams have weighed in and advised the AD on how to proceed.
 
Grisette said:
:thumb:
indian-outlaw said:
Gotta give Coach Vigen credit, suspending his DC before an important playoff game. Sounds like a principled coach. I don't think many coaches would do that
Principled head coaches usually do a better job of vetting assistant hires.
 
wbtfg said:
garizzalies said:
Nope, don’t agree. There is no statute that says that. I doubt there’s such a clause in his contract, and employees do not have a constitutional right to their job.

You can fire an employee for any reason or no reason although you may get sued. In this matter, I would can his ass and invite him to meet me at court if he did not agree

University system is different. You can't just fire someone for no reason. You can fire "for cause" but I don't believe an arrest without conviction would qualify as "cause". I believe msu can choose not to renew his contract, but he'd remain in the payroll until June or July.

At least, I think that's how it works.

I'd imagine the MSU and MUS legal and HR teams have weighed in and advised the AD on how to proceed.

I believe Montana is the only state that still fails to recognize at-will employment. That said, I’m sure the employment contract has a “for cause” clause. And if this isn’t enumerated in said clause for this guy, they need better counsel. Just an awful look for MSU all around.
 
wbtfg said:
garizzalies said:
Nope, don’t agree. There is no statute that says that. I doubt there’s such a clause in his contract, and employees do not have a constitutional right to their job.

You can fire an employee for any reason or no reason although you may get sued. In this matter, I would can his ass and invite him to meet me at court if he did not agree

University system is different. You can't just fire someone for no reason. You can fire "for cause" but I don't believe an arrest without conviction would qualify as "cause". I believe msu can choose not to renew his contract, but he'd remain in the payroll until June or July.

At least, I think that's how it works.

I'd imagine the MSU and MUS legal and HR teams have weighed in and advised the AD on how to proceed.
I'd imagine they would prefer to not have a BLM protest at the next game.
 
kemajic said:
wbtfg said:
University system is different. You can't just fire someone for no reason. You can fire "for cause" but I don't believe an arrest without conviction would qualify as "cause". I believe msu can choose not to renew his contract, but he'd remain in the payroll until June or July.

At least, I think that's how it works.

I'd imagine the MSU and MUS legal and HR teams have weighed in and advised the AD on how to proceed.
I'd imagine they would prefer to not have a BLM protest at the next game.

Uhhhhh........yyyyyeeeeeeaaaaahhhhhhhh
 
wbtfg said:
kemajic said:
I'd imagine they would prefer to not have a BLM protest at the next game.

Uhhhhh........yyyyyeeeeeeaaaaahhhhhhhh

You can suspend him indefinitely and not allow him to coach the rest of the season and still pay him. They are choosing not to do that.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
wbtfg said:
University system is different. You can't just fire someone for no reason. You can fire "for cause" but I don't believe an arrest without conviction would qualify as "cause". I believe msu can choose not to renew his contract, but he'd remain in the payroll until June or July.

At least, I think that's how it works.

I'd imagine the MSU and MUS legal and HR teams have weighed in and advised the AD on how to proceed.

I believe Montana is the only state that still fails to recognize at-will employment. That said, I’m sure the employment contract has a “for cause” clause. And if this isn’t enumerated in said clause for this guy, they need better counsel. Just an awful look for MSU all around.

Agree across the board. I just don't think a misdemeanor arrest without a conviction is enough to meets the MUS "for cause" threshold. I could be wrong though.
 
wbtfg said:
CDAGRIZ said:
I believe Montana is the only state that still fails to recognize at-will employment. That said, I’m sure the employment contract has a “for cause” clause. And if this isn’t enumerated in said clause for this guy, they need better counsel. Just an awful look for MSU all around.

Agree across the board. I just don't think a misdemeanor arrest without a conviction is enough to meets the MUS "for cause" threshold. I could be wrong though.

I get what you’re saying, I just don’t know how the specific contract for this guy wouldn’t have something in there to contemplate this exact situation given his history. That’s just me being a dumb law dork, so take it how you will given that.
 
WaGriz4life said:
wbtfg said:
Uhhhhh........yyyyyeeeeeeaaaaahhhhhhhh

You can suspend him indefinitely and not allow him to coach the rest of the season and still pay him. They are choosing not to do that.

I would say that MSU is doing what they need to do to keep them out of a lawsuit. This will end up with Garza gone. He will resign or be fired when the legal situation clarifies.
 
bigsky33 said:
WaGriz4life said:
You can suspend him indefinitely and not allow him to coach the rest of the season and still pay him. They are choosing not to do that.

I would say that MSU is doing what they need to do to keep them out of a lawsuit. This will end up with Garza gone. He will resign or be fired when the legal situation clarifies.

Please explain to me how prohibiting him from team functions would get them sued.


And is Montana really not an at-will state?? Huh.
 
wbtfg said:
garizzalies said:
Nope, don’t agree. There is no statute that says that. I doubt there’s such a clause in his contract, and employees do not have a constitutional right to their job.

You can fire an employee for any reason or no reason although you may get sued. In this matter, I would can his ass and invite him to meet me at court if he did not agree

University system is different. You can't just fire someone for no reason. You can fire "for cause" but I don't believe an arrest without conviction would qualify as "cause". I believe msu can choose not to renew his contract, but he'd remain in the payroll until June or July.

At least, I think that's how it works.

I'd imagine the MSU and MUS legal and HR teams have weighed in and advised the AD on how to proceed.
I keep hearing MSC “can’t just fire” him. Bullshit! Sounds like you guys are just guessing?

They most certainly fucking can fire him but they are just choosing not to.

Just like he can chose to drink and drive.

Whether there will be legal consequences after the choice, is a different issue. I get all the “for cause” analysis and I’m telling you it’s garbage.

Tell him to hit the bricks and if he does not like it you’ll meet him in front of the jury who will all be wearing carharts and giant foam sombreros.

Apparently, MSC has a win-at-all-costs-approach. There is no other explanation when every single bub wants him gone!

Not a single bub has said they should give him a 5th chance, right? They all expect (and want) him to be gone by February. So why wait?
To let him practice? = win-at-all-costs



72pxg1.jpg
 
Gamble and Engstrom anyone? Dot your Ts and cross your Is and let the legal counsel and personnel earn their money. Read all about the lawsuits the U of M goes through each and every time Bodnar removes one of his dead weight lard asses in your favorite Missoulian section...
 
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
Gamble and Engstrom anyone? Dot your Ts and cross your Is and let the legal counsel and personnel earn their money. Read all about the lawsuits the U of M goes through each and every time Bodnar removes one of his dead weight lard asses in your favorite Missoulian section...

You should pay a translator
 
EverettGriz said:
bigsky33 said:
I would say that MSU is doing what they need to do to keep them out of a lawsuit. This will end up with Garza gone. He will resign or be fired when the legal situation clarifies.

Please explain to me how prohibiting him from team functions would get them sued.


And is Montana really not an at-will state?? Huh.

Apparently not. I had to look it up myself because I didn’t know non-at-will states still existed. There are likely plenty of exceptions, but MT is known for being the only state without a general at-will policy.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
EverettGriz said:
Please explain to me how prohibiting him from team functions would get them sued.


And is Montana really not an at-will state?? Huh.

Apparently not. I had to look it up myself because I didn’t know non-at-will states still existed. There are likely plenty of exceptions, but MT is known for being the only state without a general at-will policy.

Back in the day I probably terminated employees in Montana just assuming it was at-will. 😂
 
EverettGriz said:
CDAGRIZ said:
Apparently not. I had to look it up myself because I didn’t know non-at-will states still existed. There are likely plenty of exceptions, but MT is known for being the only state without a general at-will policy.

Back in the day I probably terminated employees in Montana just assuming it was at-will. 😂

No at will. Until a statute about 3.5 decades ago, it was case law on good faith and fair dealing. The statute was a compromise. With certain exceptions, termination only for cause shown. One exception is an employment contract. The universities and coaches have contracts. One year for assistants. Otherwise, just cause as defined. Sometimes it is easier and less risky to just suspend and contract expire. Stating a reason for suspension or termination can create a separate cause of action.
 
Back
Top