Beathard Lawsuit VS ISU/Spack/Lyons

[Virginia Redbird]

I have to wonder if there was a better way to handle this at the time. Regardless, it happened and now it has to play out. From my perspective any damage to ISU or the parties involved is irrelevant. This is personnel management 101. Beathard made a decision to take some action. The University through the AD and Head Coach made a personnel decision in response to the employee's action. Beathard has every right to file a lawsuit if he believes he has been wronged and has a case. If the court decides against Lyons and Spack, they are responsible for their actions as administrators and they suffer the consequences. If Beathard does not prove his case then Lyons and Spack did not violate any personnel regulations and are both validated in the action they took. I would think Lyons and Spack had the University Attorneys heavily involved in this decision at the time. The question for me now is what is the end objective. This probably could be settled with a cash settlement for perceived damages incurred and avoid more legal wrangling. If the objective is "the principal" I would fully expect this to become ugly and would almost certainly receive significant press coverage. All that would be bad for the University and the program. Coaches are fired all the time for poor performance (wins/losses) but really they are not fired as is always reported. Their contracts are bought out and settlement of the contract between the two parties is agreed to. Again, I don't have all the details but this seems to be a different situation.

 

[MadBird]

I have to wonder if there was a better way to handle this at the time. Regardless, it happened and now it has to play out. From my perspective any damage to ISU or the parties involved is irrelevant. This is personnel management 101. Beathard made a decision to take some action. The University through the AD and Head Coach made a personnel decision in response to the employee's action. Beathard has every right to file a lawsuit if he believes he has been wronged and has a case. If the court decides against Lyons and Spack, they are responsible for their actions as administrators and they suffer the consequences. If Beathard does not prove his case then Lyons and Spack did not violate any personnel regulations and are both validated in the action they took. I would think Lyons and Spack had the University Attorneys heavily involved in this decision at the time. The question for me now is what is the end objective. This probably could be settled with a cash settlement for perceived damages incurred and avoid more legal wrangling. If the objective is "the principal" I would fully expect this to become ugly and would almost certainly receive significant press coverage. All that would be bad for the University and the program. Coaches are fired all the time for poor performance (wins/losses) but really they are not fired as is always reported. Their contracts are bought out and settlement of the contract between the two parties is agreed to. Again, I don't have all the details but this seems to be a different situation.

I enjoy playing pretend attorney, did it plenty in my career, sometimes with humor with the county attorney's I worked with.

The filing someone posted up above is interesting - at first I didn't think Beathard had a leg to stand on, the filing has a few good points to make you think, especially some quote from an ISU policy document that talks about freedom of speech.

BUT - the two things that I see here that argue against Beathard's case are: 1. I don't think you have a "right to free speech" AT the workplace. If Beathard had put up a sign on the front of his house, or joined a counter-demonstration to BLM on a Saturday morning on campus and carried a sign like the one on his door, then I would say he shouldn't have been dismissed for expressing his private personal viewpoint. 2. Beathard's own filing say that he wasn't "terminated" from employment at ISU, just removed as OC. From the filing "30. Beathard was then reassigned to a completely bogus and made-up position, where he worked from home until his contract ran out at the end of 2020. Beathard’s contract was not renewed." So, there's no law that says you have to have your contract renewed, right?

I'd be happy if ISU just paid him some dough (which I'm guessing is what his personal injury lawyer would be happy with) and made it go away. We'll see.

 

[Total Red]

I enjoy playing pretend attorney, did it plenty in my career, sometimes with humor with the county attorney's I worked with.

The filing someone posted up above is interesting - at first I didn't think Beathard had a leg to stand on, the filing has a few good points to make you think, especially some quote from an ISU policy document that talks about freedom of speech.

BUT - the two things that I see here that argue against Beathard's case are: 1. I don't think you have a "right to free speech" AT the workplace. If Beathard had put up a sign on the front of his house, or joined a counter-demonstration to BLM on a Saturday morning on campus and carried a sign like the one on his door, then I would say he shouldn't have been dismissed for expressing his private personal viewpoint. 2. Beathard's own filing say that he wasn't "terminated" from employment at ISU, just removed as OC. From the filing "30. Beathard was then reassigned to a completely bogus and made-up position, where he worked from home until his contract ran out at the end of 2020. Beathard’s contract was not renewed." So, there's no law that says you have to have your contract renewed, right?

I'd be happy if ISU just paid him some dough (which I'm guessing is what his personal injury lawyer would be happy with) and made it go away. We'll see.

There are two separate issues here. First, did Illinois State University have a legal right to reassign Beathard and then not renew his contract. I'm not privy to all the facts but I'd say Virginia is right, and the university attorney was likely consulted. Beathard's lawyers will try to chip away at the defense, but my gut tells me that the university has a semi-firm legal foundation for the actions that were taken.

The second issue is if the actions were morally and ethically sound? Just because you can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean you should. Did they do the right thing by effectively terminating Beathard? That's the part we can't comment on.

 

[StLRedbird]

There are two separate issues here. First, did Illinois State University have a legal right to reassign Beathard and then not renew his contract. I'm not privy to all the facts but I'd say Virginia is right, and the university attorney was likely consulted. Beathard's lawyers will try to chip away at the defense, but my gut tells me that the university has a semi-firm legal foundation for the actions that were taken.

The second issue is if the actions were morally and ethically sound? Just because you can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean you should. Did they do the right thing by effectively terminating Beathard? That's the part we can't comment on.

This needs to apply equally to both parties. There were issues on the coaching staff around that time that had an element of racial tension. As the OC on the team you do not get out a bellows and stoke the fire. Again, JMO. Peace to all.

 

[Total Red]

This needs to apply equally to both parties. There were issues on the coaching staff around that time that had an element of racial tension. As the OC on the team you do not get out a bellows and stoke the fire. Again, JMO. Peace to all.

This may all come down because we're getting into territory we've been warned not to explore but if you're going to put that out there then I'm going to respond.

Stoke the fire? That's your take? Kurt Beathard lost his wife to cancer in the summer of 2020. He placed the "All Lives Matter" poster on his door around late August, early Sept, so shortly after her death.

I would hope that people are not so shallow, selfish and insensitive that they can't understand that this man might prefer a sign on his door that reflected the loss he had just endured. I could be wrong.

 

[Bird Friend]

Frankly, I think it's impossible to talk about legal challenges based on the First Amendment without introducing politics into the discussion. As much as we want to say the Supreme Court (or any court, for that matter) bases their decisions on a legal basis, politically appointed judges are picked based on how their ideologies fit with political agendas. We want our judicial rulings to be based on the law and to not be legislative. Yet, I am of the strong opinion that rulings from any court on constitutional matters are legislative regardless. They directly affect legislative actions. Judges are expressing their ideologies within the opinions they write. And ideologies are political by their very nature.

Therefore, views to support or refute the merits of Beathard's case are statements of political opinion.

Saying all that, I would suggest shutting this thread down unless comments can be limited to status of the case and as close to verbatim quotes of what each side said . . . no commentary allowed.

JMO

 

[StLRedbird]

This may all come down because we're getting into territory we've been warned not to explore but if you're going to put that out there then I'm going to respond.

Stoke the fire? That's your take? Kurt Beathard lost his wife to cancer in the summer of 2020. He placed the "All Lives Matter" poster on his door around late August, early Sept, so shortly after her death.

I would hope that people are not so shallow, selfish and insensitive that they can't understand that this man might prefer a sign on his door that reflected the loss he had just endured. I could be wrong.

I forgot about his wife. There is not a single aspect of this situation that is good. Not one.

 

[Total Red]

I forgot about his wife. There is not a single aspect of this situation that is good. Not one.

+1 No one is really going to win.

 

[fourthandshort]

The fundamental issue in play here is a simple matter of semantics. Many of you know this already, but it can still get lost on the whole debate. So ...

Black Lives Matter as a slogan does nothing to infer any other lives dont matter. The group could have named themselves Black Lives Matter Too or Black Lives Also Matter ... because that is the clear meaning and intention.

So the issue becomes when other groups wrongly take offense to this and misinterpret it, then feel it necessary to retort with All Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter, etc.

So now you have an OC with a lot of black athletes on his offense who see this. Clearly, it's a problem Beathard caused for himself that had to be addressed. IMO, i found it very ironic that he chose to hide behind religion when he added the bit about "in the eyes of the Lord". Not sure that was appreciated by the guy upstairs. Going to guess he's squarely on the side of all the peaceful BLM protesters.

Lastly, BLM protesters are not guilty of looting stores because other black people looted stores. The notion BLM protesters should be held responsible because some other black people showed up after it got dark and looted stores lacks logic not to mention legal standing.

 

[RedbirdSoxFan]

The fundamental issue in play here is a simple matter of semantics. Many of you know this already, but it can still get lost on the whole debate. So ...

Black Lives Matter as a slogan does nothing to infer any other lives dont matter. The group could have named themselves Black Lives Matter Too or Black Lives Also Matter ... because that is the clear meaning and intention.

So the issue becomes when other groups wrongly take offense to this and misinterpret it, then feel it necessary to retort with All Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter, etc.

So now you have an OC with a lot of black athletes on his offense who see this. Clearly, it's a problem Beathard caused for himself that had to be addressed. IMO, i found it very ironic that he chose to hide behind religion when he added the bit about "in the eyes of the Lord". Not sure that was appreciated by the guy upstairs. Going to guess he's squarely on the side of all the peaceful BLM protesters.

Lastly, BLM protesters are not guilty of looting stores because other black people looted stores. The notion BLM protesters should be held responsible because some other black people showed up after it got dark and looted stores lacks logic not to mention legal standing.

I’m not touching this politically or legally. The courts will settle it. My question is, IF Coach Spack made the comment “Black Lives Matter is freaking nuts”, how does that affect the ability for him to recruit Black athletes?

 

[TIMMY]

I’m not touching this politically or legally. The courts will settle it. My question is, IF Coach Spack made the comment “Black Lives Matter is freaking nuts”, how does that affect the ability for him to recruit Black athletes?

That's where I was going when I wrote this ain't good. It can only hurt recruiting and retention. Don't think for second schools won't use it against us. They will. That quote sounds terrible true or not.

I don't give a rip about the "winner" of the lawsuit.

 

[DougSutton]

I agree that no one will win from this and have compassion for everyone involved.

That being said, I am genuinely curious how the courts could rule in favor of someone claiming they were fired because their right to free speech was violated however because many people have been fired shortly after making what was considered controversial or offensive statements. This isn't about politics at all by the way.

As an example, if a manager of a company decided to say something (or had an ongoing reputation for doing so) at work that caused a strain in the company culture and upset employees such that the employees went to the CEO or HR to complain, most employee contracts have clauses that allow the employer to fire an employee for plenty of reasons that are loosely defined and it happens all the time.

This decision isn't about whether people agree with either side of a delicate topic or not but instead about an employer's right to fire an employee. As a consultant, I've seen countless people fired over the years because leadership felt a person's behavior (including but not limited to words) was harmful to the culture of a company.

 

[MadBird]

So I see the story made the front page of the Chicago Tribune today, and of course it is based solely on Beathard's "allegations", no "other side of the story" from Spack, Lyons, or ISU. So it reads like an indictment of the Spack actions. Including the quote about "BLM is freaking nuts". What a mess.

 

[Total Red]

I agree that no one will win from this and have compassion for everyone involved.

That being said, I am genuinely curious how the courts could rule in favor of someone claiming they were fired because their right to free speech was violated however because many people have been fired shortly after making what was considered controversial or offensive statements. This isn't about politics at all by the way.

As an example, if a manager of a company decided to say something (or had an ongoing reputation for doing so) at work that caused a strain in the company culture and upset employees such that the employees went to the CEO or HR to complain, most employee contracts have clauses that allow the employer to fire an employee for plenty of reasons that are loosely defined and it happens all the time.

This decision isn't about whether people agree with either side of a delicate topic or not but instead about an employer's right to fire an employee. As a consultant, I've seen countless people fired over the years because leadership felt a person's behavior (including but not limited to words) was harmful to the culture of a company.

I've already agreed that the Athletic Dept. will likely be found to be within their legal right to take the actions they took but for me it goes beyond that. This is a public university. I want to know that the university that I support did the right thing. I want to know that they support values of fairness.

If an employee is causing strain, I would assume that a company would be even more concerned if the behavior was work related. For example, if Beathard as OC was found to be making derogatory comments about defensive coaches and players, that would be behavior that was work related and a cause for action. Beathard's behavior in this matter was personal and not related to the substance of his work.

Even so, I would agree that an employee's personal beliefs could still be cause for concern and perhaps dismissal, if the employee was abrasive and attempting to impose their thoughts and beliefs on others. For example, if Beathard had placed an "All Lives Matter" poster on Bryce Jefferson's locker then he would have been guilty of knowingly causing offense. But Beathard did not do that, in fact, according to published reports, it was just the OPPOSITE. A "Black Lives Matter" poster was placed on his office door. He wasn't necessarily looking to make a social or religious statement, but the issue was thrown up in his face. He responded with a poster of his own that accurately reflected what he truly believed. Btw, it's ridiculous to say that he was "hiding" behind his religion. By all accounts Beathard is a devout Christian. His faith affects everything he does. He was actually being very up front about what he believes and where that belief comes from - "All Lives Matter to our Lord & Savoir Jesus Christ." That's his belief but there are no accounts of him forcing that view on others.

From what we know, Kurt Beathard was not guilty of the more obvious or egregious forms of behavior that are normally found in dismissals, but I am sure you can still find team members that objected to his message.

I would find the objections of those players ironic and even hypocritical when you consider the current emphasis at Illinois State University. If you are a current or prospective student at ISU, you are going to hear a lot about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. In reading about DEI and talking to DEI proponents I find that they believe in diversity in all areas until it comes to diversity of thought. When it comes to diversity of thought it is easy to cancel another person and claim that their ideas are causing you distress. I think we need to add a "T" to the end of DEI the same way that letters have been added to "LGB." The "T" would be for Tolerance. DEIT.

I'm retired with a volunteer job. In that job I have a co-worker with whom I spend the majority of my time. This person and I have had multiple conversations about vaccine and mask mandates. Our views conflict but that is not a source of strain. I respect but disagree with his point of view and he respects but disagrees with mine. Now back to work. That's how it should work. But I'm concerned that that isn't how it worked in our Athletic Dept. Diversity of thought was denied. The actions taken reek of a decision based on intolerance instead of tolerance. In these troubled times, intolerance isn't what the university should be teaching, and it doesn't pass the fairness test.

 

[Virginia Redbird]

So I see the story made the front page of the Chicago Tribune today, and of course it is based solely on Beathard's "allegations", no "other side of the story" from Spack, Lyons, or ISU. So it reads like an indictment of the Spack actions. Including the quote about "BLM is freaking nuts". What a mess.

When a lawsuit is filed the defendants are very unlikely to make any statement at all. If any statement is made it is normally something such as we do not feel the suit has merit but make no comment on ongoing litigation. I would be very surprised if Lyons, Spack, or the University made any comment at all. Nothing to gain and only serve to toss more fuel on the press fires. I don't know if the Tribune asked (maybe yes or maybe no) but I don't think any comment would have been forthcoming anyway. The other side of the story will probably only come out if this goes to trial. If there is a settlement likely all parties will be in agreement to not discuss details publicly. I expect this will drag on.

 

[DougSutton]

I've already agreed that the Athletic Dept. will likely be found to be within their legal right to take the actions they took but for me it goes beyond that. This is a public university. I want to know that the university that I support did the right thing. I want to know that they support values of fairness.

If an employee is causing strain, I would assume that a company would be even more concerned if the behavior was work related. For example, if Beathard as OC was found to be making derogatory comments about defensive coaches and players, that would be behavior that was work related and a cause for action. Beathard's behavior in this matter was personal and not related to the substance of his work.

Even so, I would agree that an employee's personal beliefs could still be cause for concern and perhaps dismissal, if the employee was abrasive and attempting to impose their thoughts and beliefs on others. For example, if Beathard had placed an "All Lives Matter" poster on Bryce Jefferson's locker then he would have been guilty of knowingly causing offense. But Beathard did not do that, in fact, according to published reports, it was just the OPPOSITE. A "Black Lives Matter" poster was placed on his office door. He wasn't necessarily looking to make a social or religious statement, but the issue was thrown up in his face. He responded with a poster of his own that accurately reflected what he truly believed. Btw, it's ridiculous to say that he was "hiding" behind his religion. By all accounts Beathard is a devout Christian. His faith affects everything he does. He was actually being very up front about what he believes and where that belief comes from - "All Lives Matter to our Lord & Savoir Jesus Christ." That's his belief but there are no accounts of him forcing that view on others.

From what we know, Kurt Beathard was not guilty of the more obvious or egregious forms of behavior that are normally found in dismissals, but I am sure you can still find team members that objected to his message.

I would find the objections of those players ironic and even hypocritical when you consider the current emphasis at Illinois State University. If you are a current or prospective student at ISU, you are going to hear a lot about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. In reading about DEI and talking to DEI proponents I find that they believe in diversity in all areas until it comes to diversity of thought. When it comes to diversity of thought it is easy to cancel another person and claim that their ideas are causing you distress. I think we need to add a "T" to the end of DEI the same way that letters have been added to "LGB." The "T" would be for Tolerance. DEIT.

I'm retired with a volunteer job. In that job I have a co-worker with whom I spend the majority of my time. This person and I have had multiple conversations about vaccine and mask mandates. Our views conflict but that is not a source of strain. I respect but disagree with his point of view and he respects but disagrees with mine. Now back to work. That's how it should work. But I'm concerned that that isn't how it worked in our Athletic Dept. Diversity of thought was denied. The actions taken reek of a decision based on intolerance instead of tolerance. In these troubled times, intolerance isn't what the university should be teaching, and it doesn't pass the fairness test.

I appreciate you sharing your perspective and agree that there must be multiple layers beneath this story than what is being shared. A big challenge as @MadBird shared is that the only real public voice and perspective that is being shared and drawing media attention is the victim story that Beathard is sharing. It is understandable and expected that we will not hear Coach Spack's side of the story in public as I'm sure his attorneys are advising against that and also it's not his style to share stories like this in public. It's a no win situation for Coach Spack and the University as a result because Beathard and his attorneys can go on a media campaign to make accusations that will not be countered, all while drawing media attention.

You did suggest that it would be completely different, and offensive if Beathard had put this sign on Bryce Jefferson's locker instead. All we know is what has been shared so its impossible and unfair to speculate however since some speculation is being made about what is right vs. wrong, offensive vs. justified, I do believe it's fair to acknowledge that we don't know what led to the original sign being placed on his door to begin with.

I would suggest it's highly likely that whoever posted that sign to begin with (whether it was one person or a group of people) did so as a response or counter to something that Beathard either directly said or did that caused this response. We do not know what conversations may or may not have been overheard or what caused this initial action. I also believe it's likely that whoever put that sign up was a student athlete and while I won't choose to take any position on the topic of the posters because to me, that is not relevant relating to the decision to fire Beathard but rather the perceived leadership or perhaps lack of by choosing to respond in the way he did and this goes beyond the sign itself.

There are plenty of times that a coach or leader in business gets fired because they have "lost the locker room" or in the case of the business leader, they have lost their staff who no longer truly follows them.

Again, we also do not know what other conversations or actions were taken outside of these 2 events of one sign being posted and another replacing it.

I'm not sure if your concern about denying a diversity of thought is valid and my sense is that it is not the thought or believe of anyone that was the reason he was fired but instead a perceived lack of leadership and behavior that was the deeper cause.

I want to be clear I'm not taking sides here at all and have compassion for Beathard as well as Spack and the leadership at Illinois State. At the same time, I feel it's only fair to point out that most likely there is much more behind the story and cause for this firing that will not be shared in public and I wouldn't expect it to nor do I care to know.

 

[DannyCooksey]

With this lawsuit I will be very surprised if Coach Spack is retained. The truth, sadly, doesn’t matter anymore. Cosmetics decides people’s fate now and this is ugly.

 

[MadBird]

Wow, you guys are great, I appreciate your well thought out "thoughts" and that you shared them, and in a fair and even manner. I am not gonna try to react at 9:30 on Saturday night, after my dinner wine and pre-dinner cocktails, etc. This isn't an easy topic to sort through, especially since we may never know the "true facts", as they say.

Hats off to the moderators.

 

[Bird Friend]

I’m not touching this politically or legally. The courts will settle it. My question is, IF Coach Spack made the comment “Black Lives Matter is freaking nuts”, how does that affect the ability for him to recruit Black athletes?

Context would be helpful with that quote. What was the question or comment to which he was responding? What else did he say before and/or after those six words?

 

[RedbirdSoxFan]

Context would be helpful with that quote. What was the question or comment to which he was responding? What else did he say before and/or after those six words?

That’s why there was that Big ass “IF” in the post!