Beathard Lawsuit VS ISU/Spack/Lyons

[Adunk33]

 

[isuquinndog]

 

[MadBird]

I'm guessing there'll be lots of discussion on this, but my first reaction is - can't the head coach fire an assistant for just about any old reason, including "insubordination"? I mean, if the HC says "let's throw a pass here", and the OC calls for a run, can't the HC just say sayonara? So the coach is running his "building" and says put this sign up or take this sign down, isn't it his choice? Might be crappy for the person who's door it's on, but . . . .

 

[Dmills]

I'm guessing there'll be lots of discussion on this, but my first reaction is - can't the head coach fire an assistant for just about any old reason, including "insubordination"? I mean, if the HC says "let's throw a pass here", and the OC calls for a run, can't the HC just say sayonara? So the coach is running his "building" and says put this sign up or take this sign down, isn't it his choice? Might be crappy for the person who's door it's on, but . . . .

"If you are a state or federal employee, then you are protected from retaliation for exercising free speech by the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that when you exercise your right to free speech, your government employer cannot retaliate against you with negative employment action."

Retaliation - Public Employees and First Amendment Rights | Workplace Fairness

Retaliation – Public Employees and First Amendment Rights Many of us know that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, but what exactly does that mean for government (public) employees? If you are a state or federal employee, then you are protected from retaliation for...

www.workplacefairness.org

I have to admit I did not read the whole article, but I would think this is what the law is here in Illinois. He is making the argument that his termination was retaliation and he probably has a very good case legally speaking.

 

[MadBird]

"If you are a state or federal employee, then you are protected from retaliation for exercising free speech by the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that when you exercise your right to free speech, your government employer cannot retaliate against you with negative employment action."

Retaliation - Public Employees and First Amendment Rights | Workplace Fairness

Retaliation – Public Employees and First Amendment Rights Many of us know that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, but what exactly does that mean for government (public) employees? If you are a state or federal employee, then you are protected from retaliation for...

www.workplacefairness.org

I have to admit I did not read the whole article, but I would think this is what the law is here in Illinois. He is making the argument that his termination was retaliation and he probably has a very good case legally speaking.

You forgot to include the next line -- "The law regarding free speech can be very complex, however, and not all speech and action is protected."

Like I say, I'm sure discussion will ensue . . . . .

 

[MadBird]

"If you are a state or federal employee, then you are protected from retaliation for exercising free speech by the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that when you exercise your right to free speech, your government employer cannot retaliate against you with negative employment action."

Retaliation - Public Employees and First Amendment Rights | Workplace Fairness

Retaliation – Public Employees and First Amendment Rights Many of us know that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, but what exactly does that mean for government (public) employees? If you are a state or federal employee, then you are protected from retaliation for...

www.workplacefairness.org

I have to admit I did not read the whole article, but I would think this is what the law is here in Illinois. He is making the argument that his termination was retaliation and he probably has a very good case legally speaking.

More:

10. Is speech protected even if it is just part of doing my job?​

This question was recently answered by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. In the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Court decided that employees must be acting as private citizens to receive First Amendment protection. That is, they are not acting as private citizens while performing their job duties. In essence, the boss can control what is said on the job, but not what the employee says on matters of public concern as a private citizen.

The Court stated, "We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."

So, to receive First Amendment protection, the employee must apparently be on his or her own time (clocked-out), and speaking in a forum for citizen expression on matters of public concern. Those employees who claim that they were just "doing their jobs too well" will find that they no longer have First Amendment protection. (They may still have protection under specific laws; for example, if they report environmental violations as required by federal law, then the environmental laws will still provide protection against adverse employment actions.)

The Garcetti decision is a setback for public employees, and we can look forward to further developments in the law as legislators consider the need for new laws, and courts issue further decisions in this area.

 

[Dmills]

He also made the case that ISU used taxpayer dollars to print flyers and promote a "political message" which was posted on his door without his permission.

 

[TIMMY]

Brock Spack went on to say "black lives matter is freaking nuts."

This ain't good.

 

[MadBird]

Brock Spack went on to say "black lives matter is freaking nuts."

This ain't good.

I hope Spack didn't say this (and would tend to believe he didn't), and if he did I'm gonna bet, at this point, that Beathard's attorney is quoting it out of context (and using it to his client's advantage, of course). As an example, he might have said "black lives matter is freaking nuts to hold a sit-in in the middle of Veterans Parkway at 5pm at night." So, not directed at the "concept" of BLM, but at some tactic they were using. Attorney is not really "lying", just not telling the "whole truth". We'll see - I could be grossly over estimating our coach, who seems like a stand-up guy to me.

In any case, this won't be good for Spack or ISU, I'm afraid, by the time it's all aired out in public. Again.

 

[Virginia Redbird]

If you have been involved with the legal/justice system for any amount of time (for myself it has been over 40 years but I am not an attorney) then you know nothing is ever settled from a legal point of view. There is case law of course but those decisions can be overturned at any time. Just look at the current furor over the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned. A lawsuit can always be filed but that is a long way from winning. Playing Devil's advocate, I would think there would be an issue if the university protected certain political expressions while suppressing other political expressions. But that is only my speculation. Most of us don't have enough facts of what occurred during the firing of Beathard to develop anything approaching an educated opinion on what took place, who may be right, and who may be wrong. The legal game will have to play out for a resolution but likely no real answer to those questions. The only thing I think we can be assured of right now is this is not something the university or Spack wanted to deal with. This is going to be interesting to follow as it develops.

College football just seems to be a mess. One positive thing I saw that got very little press was Michigan running back Blake Corum. He took NIL Iname, image, and likeness) money he received and purchased turkeys for families in need this past Thanksgiving. Nice gesture from that young man. It should have gotten more coverage.

Michigan RB Blake Corum uses NIL money to distribute Thanksgiving turkeys - Sports Illustrated

This will warm your heart.

www.si.com

 

[TIMMY]

I hope Spack didn't say this (and would tend to believe he didn't), and if he did I'm gonna bet, at this point, that Beathard's attorney is quoting it out of context (and using it to his client's advantage, of course). As an example, he might have said "black lives matter is freaking nuts to hold a sit-in in the middle of Veterans Parkway at 5pm at night." So, not directed at the "concept" of BLM, but at some tactic they were using. Attorney is not really "lying", just not telling the "whole truth". We'll see - I could be grossly over estimating our coach, who seems like a stand-up guy to me.

In any case, this won't be good for Spack or ISU, I'm afraid, by the time it's all aired out in public. Again.

I don't think context matters much with some of these issues. This is out. People will read it. Players will read it. Parents will read it. From my AD perspective it's hard to reel stuff back in.

 

[Total Red]

I don't think context matters much with some of these issues. This is out. People will read it. Players will read it. Parents will read it. From my AD perspective it's hard to reel stuff back in.

I completely agree that it won't matter to a lot of people ready to rush to judgment but it should. That's a sensational snippet from Jake Sermersheim with the add on that it comes from a "legal document." Well just because it's in a legal document doesn't necessarily mean it is true or accurate. It's the opening salvo in a lawsuit and lawyers are adversarial by design. And context is essential. "This crowd is freaking nuts" may sound like an insult to a group of spectators, but if you become aware that it is coming from an announcer after a game winning home run in the world series then you will interpret it differently.

 

[Dmills]

Read the documents: Former ISU coach sues Lyons and Spack

The complaint says Kurt Beathard was terminated after removing a Black Lives Matter poster from his office door in late August and that his First Amendment rights were violated.

pantagraph.com

 

[MadBird]

FWIW, seems to be the lawyer's website:

Home - Upstate Lawyer

The AV Preeminent rating is the highest rating for legal ability & ethical standards. It is granted based upon anonymous input from other lawyers and

upstatelawyer.com

Seems to be involved in another very similar suit. Nothing wrong with that, I spose:

UTC Coach Who Was Fired After Tweet Against Stacey Abrams Sues The University Citing 1st Amendment

www.chattanoogan.com

 

[Birdswin]

Will see what happens. Let the system work. I am more interested in flushing out those who support criminal activity, looting, criminal damage to property, and not being held accountable for supporting such nonsense.

 

[isuquinndog]

This is not going to devolve into politics. Talk about it from a legal point of view, how it could effect ISU athletics/football. Not what you think of either side of the argument.

 

[StLRedbird]

You have to be pretty tone deaf to do what Beathard did. Worse, he's damaging the school that hired him twice.

 

[Total Red]

You have to be pretty tone deaf to do what Beathard did. Worse, he's damaging the school that hired him twice.

So we're going to pick and choose who gets to make political, social and religious statements?

 

[StLRedbird]

So we're going to pick and choose who gets to make political, social and religious statements?

Take 'em both down Mike.

I work with a fellow that was slapped down pretty hard for doing something similar to what Beathard did. Sign of our times. I would have preferred Beathard had concentrated on getting his offense clicking a little better. JMO

 

[SgtHulka]

Was his contract up, or did it have a clause related to violating the contract both sides agreed to? And what was the official recorded reason for his dismissal?