Bobcats DC suspended

[AZGrizFan]

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.

Well, even with three DUI’s he’s still a better role model than George “Pretty Boy” Floyd…

 

[Montanabob]

At least he wasn't dealing coke or murder for hire......
Yup, no contact renewal, morals clause.

 

[Fahque]

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 f###[#] 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

It's a good thing that you are not an employer here in Montana, or at least I hope you aren't. No, employers, public or private, cannot just fire somebody without cause. Montana has some the strongest employment protection, and for good reason. CDA is correct that Montana is not a right to work state, meaning exactly what he said that employers cannot just fire someone at-will. These laws are meant to protect employees from unjust termination, for example an employer can't just fire someone because they might have a disability or because they might have a different political ideology or religion. The reason for termination as do with that person's ability, or lack thereof, to perform the essential functions of their job

 

[suckit]

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

Clearly you have not been in any position where you had employees.
Employers have a difficult time reliving employees with a actual legitimate reasoning, and yes, it does open the option of a legal recourse, in which VERY rarely is in favor of the employer. So unless there is an actual clause in a separate contract just for this individual (and let's be reasonable, he doesn't) then he is subject to only what is written in the company policy manual.

 

[Griz2k]

I keep hearing MSC “can’t just fire” him. Bullshit! Sounds like you guys are just guessing?

They most certainly f###[#] 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

It's a good thing that you are not an employer here in Montana, or at least I hope you aren't. No, employers, public or private, cannot just fire somebody without cause. Montana has some the strongest employment protection, and for good reason. CDA is correct that Montana is not a right to work state, meaning exactly what he said that employers cannot just fire someone at-will. These laws are meant to protect employees from unjust termination, for example an employer can't just fire someone because they might have a disability or because they might have a different political ideology or religion. The reason for termination as do with that person's ability, or lack thereof, to perform the essential functions of their job

Just a quick clarification..."right to work" and "at will" are two different things. Right to work deals with union membership, but your basic premise is correct. Montana is not an "at will employment" state (actually the only state in the country that is not) meaning you have to have "just cause" to terminate someone.

Ok, HR hat is off...carry on.

 

[br fan]

It's a good thing that you are not an employer here in Montana, or at least I hope you aren't. No, employers, public or private, cannot just fire somebody without cause. Montana has some the strongest employment protection, and for good reason. CDA is correct that Montana is not a right to work state, meaning exactly what he said that employers cannot just fire someone at-will. These laws are meant to protect employees from unjust termination, for example an employer can't just fire someone because they might have a disability or because they might have a different political ideology or religion. The reason for termination as do with that person's ability, or lack thereof, to perform the essential functions of their job

Just a quick clarification..."right to work" and "at will" are two different things. Right to work deals with union membership, but your basic premise is correct. Montana is not an "at will employment" state (actually the only state in the country that is not) meaning you have to have "just cause" to terminate someone.

Ok, HR hat is off...carry on.

Agree, but with the exception that you can terminate without cause during a probationary period

 

[garizzalies]

No, employers, public or private, cannot just fire somebody without cause.

You have to have "just cause" to terminate someone.

:roll: :roll: Jesus Louise’s, fellas, do I really have to explain it again?

You do NOT need just cause to get rid of him. You may need it to a win a subsequent lawsuit, but you are not bound to pay an employee for eternity.

Hell, msc’s D performance throughout the season could qualify for “just cause”. The multiple dui’s after all the “fighting the good fight” speech was certainly the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I would cut bait now. The actual and real optics that are occurring right now and the related fallout (distraction) will far out weigh any possible risk of some future lawsuit that would get laughed out of court 2 years from now.

Seriously, is there a single bubcat fan who wants to keep him? Who?!? If none, wtf is the holdup?

Grow a fucking backbone, do the right thing, and stop this win-at-all-costs approach. Believe us, it never ends well.

 

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

Just a quick clarification..."right to work" and "at will" are two different things. Right to work deals with union membership, but your basic premise is correct. Montana is not an "at will employment" state (actually the only state in the country that is not) meaning you have to have "just cause" to terminate someone.

Ok, HR hat is off...carry on.

Agree, but with the exception that you can terminate without cause during a probationary period

Excellent point. Nonrenewal of nontenured teachers comes to mind. I've seen boards get their ass in a sling when a board member presses the administration for clarification as to why they are not including _________ on their list of recommended contracts for the following year. Just let him go away when the contract is up.

I've also had cases where an instructor beat the offense in court. I've also had colleagues wind up losing nonrenewal cases and the district had to pay the teacher three years salary AND reinstall said teacher to their previous position.

Gamble lost the case against Kramer and y'all know all too well about Engstrom and what he did to the entire school. Read all about in the Missoulian the issues Bodnar has had with the necessary downsizing of staff.

Let the legal team and personnel department do their due diligence.

 

[Griz2k]

Just a quick clarification..."right to work" and "at will" are two different things. Right to work deals with union membership, but your basic premise is correct. Montana is not an "at will employment" state (actually the only state in the country that is not) meaning you have to have "just cause" to terminate someone.

Ok, HR hat is off...carry on.

Agree, but with the exception that you can terminate without cause during a probationary period

Yep

 

[Griz2k]

No, employers, public or private, cannot just fire somebody without cause.

You have to have "just cause" to terminate someone.

:roll: :roll: Jesus Louise’s, fellas, do I really have to explain it again?

You do NOT need just cause to get rid of him. You may need it to a win a subsequent lawsuit, but you are not bound to pay an employee for eternity.

Hell, msc’s D performance throughout the season could qualify for “just cause”. The multiple dui’s after all the “fighting the good fight” speech was certainly the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I would cut bait now. The actual and real optics that are occurring right now and the related fallout (distraction) will far out weigh any possible risk of some future lawsuit that would get laughed out of court 2 years from now.

Seriously, is there a single bubcat fan who wants to keep him? Who?!? If none, wtf is the holdup?

Grow a f###[#] backbone, do the right thing, and stop this win-at-all-costs approach. Believe us, it never ends well.

You DO need just cause or else you WILL be paying if you lose the lawsuit. While "technically" you might be right, you're taking a big chance. Heck, even if you HAVE just cause doesn't mean you still can't get sued. As an employer, you damn well better have your ducks in a row. Working under a contract is a little more complicated, but you still can't sign away your rights. So, yes, you can fire anyone you want anytime you want, even in Montana...but you better be prepared to open the pocketbook if it goes awry.

 

[bigsky33]

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.

All that I said was that MSU is doing what they feel they need to do to keep them out of a lawsuit. You would have to ask them your question. Has anyone verified that he is participating in team functions?

 

[Griz2k]

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.

Yep, the only one. Aren't we special. We have what's called the WDEA...Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act that governs this. (Not that you probably care one bit about that!)

 

[goatcreekgriz]

:roll: :roll: Jesus Louise’s, fellas, do I really have to explain it again?

You do NOT need just cause to get rid of him. You may need it to a win a subsequent lawsuit, but you are not bound to pay an employee for eternity.

Hell, msc’s D performance throughout the season could qualify for “just cause”. The multiple dui’s after all the “fighting the good fight” speech was certainly the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I would cut bait now. The actual and real optics that are occurring right now and the related fallout (distraction) will far out weigh any possible risk of some future lawsuit that would get laughed out of court 2 years from now.

Seriously, is there a single bubcat fan who wants to keep him? Who?!? If none, wtf is the holdup?

Grow a f###[#] backbone, do the right thing, and stop this win-at-all-costs approach. Believe us, it never ends well.

You DO need just cause or else you WILL be paying if you lose the lawsuit. While "technically" you might be right, you're taking a big chance. Heck, even if you HAVE just cause doesn't mean you still can't get sued. As an employer, you damn well better have your ducks in a row. Working under a contract is a little more complicated, but you still can't sign away your rights. So, yes, you can fire anyone you want anytime you want, even in Montana...but you better be prepared to open the pocketbook if it goes awry.

Agreed, and PR’s explanation above is helpful. Defending a lawsuit is expensive — monetarily, emotionally, and politically (especially in the case of a state entity). And there is always risk. The one upside is that you get to spend more quality time with lawyers, which is fun.

 

[Griz2k]

You DO need just cause or else you WILL be paying if you lose the lawsuit. While "technically" you might be right, you're taking a big chance. Heck, even if you HAVE just cause doesn't mean you still can't get sued. As an employer, you damn well better have your ducks in a row. Working under a contract is a little more complicated, but you still can't sign away your rights. So, yes, you can fire anyone you want anytime you want, even in Montana...but you better be prepared to open the pocketbook if it goes awry.

Agreed, and PR’s explanation above is helpful. Defending a lawsuit is expensive — monetarily, emotionally, and politically (especially in the case of a state entity). And there is always risk. The one upside is that you get to spend more quality time with lawyers, which is fun.

This is fun. Maybe that's what this board has been lacking....an HR forum!

 

[garizzalies]

:roll: :roll: Jesus Louise’s, fellas, do I really have to explain it again?

You do NOT need just cause to get rid of him. You may need it to a win a subsequent lawsuit, but you are not bound to pay an employee for eternity.

Hell, msc’s D performance throughout the season could qualify for “just cause”. The multiple dui’s after all the “fighting the good fight” speech was certainly the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I would cut bait now. The actual and real optics that are occurring right now and the related fallout (distraction) will far out weigh any possible risk of some future lawsuit that would get laughed out of court 2 years from now.

Seriously, is there a single bubcat fan who wants to keep him? Who?!? If none, wtf is the holdup?

Grow a f###[#] backbone, do the right thing, and stop this win-at-all-costs approach. Believe us, it never ends well.

You DO need just cause or else you WILL be paying if you lose the lawsuit. While "technically" you might be right, you're taking a big chance. Heck, even if you HAVE just cause doesn't mean you still can't get sued. As an employer, you damn well better have your ducks in a row. Working under a contract is a little more complicated, but you still can't sign away your rights. So, yes, you can fire anyone you want anytime you want, even in Montana...but you better be prepared to open the pocketbook if it goes awry.

Finally. Someone is starting to get it. It’s like I discovered fire and everyone thinks it’s so incredulous.

Shit-can him. Hit the bricks! Get fucked.

What everyone seems to be missing is that firing him is not “taking a big chance” like the Kramer or Pflugrad firings. Because the facts are way more egregious! This is more like a no-brainer.

You want to let the legal team do their job? Good. Let him bring his joke of a WDEA claim and have him explain to the jury why the eggs rancheros landed on the hospital floor.

Any other time of the year, this dude would be long gone, right? RIGHT?!?

But there is a playoff game this week!

= win-at-all-costs

 

[Dano]

Willie Garza was arrested for speeding and DUI on November 19th after the Griz/Cat game.

 

[Dano]

Willie Garza was arrested for speeding and DUI on November 19th after the Griz/Cat game.

 

[Dano]

Willie Garza was arrested for speeding and DUI on November 19th after the Griz/Cat game.

I have not posted for a long time.

 

[grizfnz]

Willie Garza was arrested for speeding and DUI on November 19th after the Griz/Cat game.

I have not posted for a long time.

Was he really arrested and detained at the jail or just cited and sent to the hospital for a blood test (which he may or may not have declined)?

 

[horribilisfan8184]

If he's on a one year contract, time will take care of the issue shortly with non renewal.