A defense of Schill and Gragg

[BillMedleyFan]

1) This is all Pat Fitzgeralds fault whether you want to admit it or not

2) Their inaction over the course of the last week is astonishing. My only thought is perhaps both men are under review right now and BOT hasn’t authorized them to speak publicly sans written statements that have been reviewed by legal counsel.

 

[curdog]

1) This is all Pat Fitzgeralds fault whether you want to admit it or not

2) Their inaction over the course of the last week is astonishing. My only thought is perhaps both men are under review right now and BOT hasn’t authorized them to speak publicly sans written statements that have been reviewed by legal counsel.

I think you are playing devil’s advocate (I hope) but there is no excuse for how Schill handled this. The 2 week suspension and then sudden firing, along with independent review that said there was no evidence Fitz knew will make Fitz an even wealthier man than he already is.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I think you are playing devil’s advocate (I hope) but there is no excuse for how Schill handled this. The 2 week suspension and then sudden firing, along with independent review that said there was no evidence Fitz knew will make Fitz an even wealthier man than he already is.

People who latched onto this as an excuse to dump Fitz are having trouble with the concept that the logic of the decision, taken to the logical conclusion, must necessarily implicate others.

Their aim wasn't to ruin the lives of other people; they didn't sign up for that and they don't want that on their conscience. They just wanted to dump Fitz.

 

[PURPLE Book Cat]

1) This is all Pat Fitzgeralds fault whether you want to admit it or not

2) Their inaction over the course of the last week is astonishing. My only thought is perhaps both men are under review right now and BOT hasn’t authorized them to speak publicly sans written statements that have been reviewed by legal counsel.

Characterizing this scenario as "all Pat Fitzgerald's fault" is speculative and not rooted in any evidence that has been publicly disclosed.

 

[NUCats]

Schill's & Gragg's actions for the last week are incomprehensible. I find it hard to fathom that either of them will ever regain the trust of any of the constituents of the university--especially the student athletes.

 

[phatcat]

1) This is all Pat Fitzgeralds fault whether you want to admit it or not

2) Their inaction over the course of the last week is astonishing. My only thought is perhaps both men are under review right now and BOT hasn’t authorized them to speak publicly sans written statements that have been reviewed by legal counsel.

1) om 2) they can make some statements. The silence is deafening

 

[zanycat]

#1 Fitz was the football CEO and the buck stops on his desk. He’d be gone if it happened in a corporate America office setting, albeit with a golden parachute which he’ll get anyway from the lawsuit / settlement.

#2 has handcuffed Gragg and Schill severely. Doesn’t absolve either of those inept admins or their staff / legal counsel of the Friday news dump original sin.

Lotsa talk about dumps and #2 is apropos of the whole situation and has me thinking no one in the administration ever told the turd who’s boss…

 

[BFDCat]

Stop feeding the troll!

 

[rwhitney014]

I’m a lawyer. I don’t have access to the full facts and couldn’t begin to give legal counsel.

Schill’s rushed, reactionary Saturday night statement likely exposed the university to significant liability because it left him no hand other than to fire Fitz, even though (as far as we know) no material facts changed between the time of the suspension and the time of the statement. Fitz’s counsel is now positioning their argument that the firing was not for cause and therefore he is owed the full balance of his contract. Meanwhile the university will have to pay another head coach and likely will have cascading financial effects from that decision.

My point being, blame the lawyers all you want, but either they suck too or Schill and whoever else around him freestyled this, to disastrous effect.

 

[zanycat]

I’m a lawyer. I don’t have access to the full facts and couldn’t begin to give legal counsel.

Schill’s rushed, reactionary Saturday night statement likely exposed the university to significant liability because it left him no hand other than to fire Fitz, even though (as far as we know) no material facts changed between the time of the suspension and the time of the statement. Fitz’s counsel is now positioning their argument that the firing was not for cause and therefore he is owed the full balance of his contract. Meanwhile the university will have to pay another head coach and likely will have cascading financial effects from that decision.

My point being, blame the lawyers all you want, but either they suck too or Schill and whoever else around him freestyled this, to disastrous effect.

I actually think the problem was schill and gragg went off reservation without consulting legal counsel. Neither the firm that did the report or NU’s own risk management lawyers. Corporate America won’t do a press release without vetting for liability. How the eff did the Friday news dump get authorized and why are gragg and Schill still employed? Cause or not for cause, who knew that a verbal agreement in Illinois was legally binding?

 

[lunker35]

I’m a lawyer. I don’t have access to the full facts and couldn’t begin to give legal counsel.

Schill’s rushed, reactionary Saturday night statement likely exposed the university to significant liability because it left him no hand other than to fire Fitz, even though (as far as we know) no material facts changed between the time of the suspension and the time of the statement. Fitz’s counsel is now positioning their argument that the firing was not for cause and therefore he is owed the full balance of his contract. Meanwhile the university will have to pay another head coach and likely will have cascading financial effects from that decision.

My point being, blame the lawyers all you want, but either they suck too or Schill and whoever else around him freestyled this, to disastrous effect.

Don’t you think Fitz will sue for defamation too? I think there’s a lot more money coming his way since they’ve essentially railroaded his character and taken away potential future earnings as well. I’m not a lawyer but am I wrong?

 

[Hkjb]

1) This is all Pat Fitzgeralds fault whether you want to admit it or not

2) Their inaction over the course of the last week is astonishing. My only thought is perhaps both men are under review right now and BOT hasn’t authorized them to speak publicly sans written statements that have been reviewed by legal counsel.

That's not much of a defense. Schill and Gragg put themselves on this runaway train by not thinking ahead. So if they are now being muzzled by the BOT, they have themselves to thank for it.

 

[rwhitney014]

Don’t you think Fitz will sue for defamation too? I think there’s a lot more money coming his way since they’ve essentially railroaded his character and taken away potential future earnings as well. I’m not a lawyer but am I wrong?

He’s a public figure, so there would need to be actual malice. Long story short, that’s hard and the only person so far who could possibly qualify for that standard is the rumored “out to get him” complainant. And since that is a college student, 1) he doesn’t have deep pockets to pay a claim and 2) it would make Fitz look awful to go after him, even if all other parts of it made sense.

So, no, I don’t expect to see a defamation claim. The wrongful termination claim against the university is the one with the paycheck.

 

[NUCat320]

I’m a lawyer. I don’t have access to the full facts and couldn’t begin to give legal counsel.

Schill’s rushed, reactionary Saturday night statement likely exposed the university to significant liability because it left him no hand other than to fire Fitz, even though (as far as we know) no material facts changed between the time of the suspension and the time of the statement. Fitz’s counsel is now positioning their argument that the firing was not for cause and therefore he is owed the full balance of his contract. Meanwhile the university will have to pay another head coach and likely will have cascading financial effects from that decision.

My point being, blame the lawyers all you want, but either they suck too or Schill and whoever else around him freestyled this, to disastrous effect.

Is “Yes, I’m the president, and, No, I didn’t read the report” a defense?

 

[hdhntr1]

I actually think the problem was schill and gragg went off reservation without consulting legal counsel. Neither the firm that did the report or NU’s own risk management lawyers. Corporate America won’t do a press release without vetting for liability. How the eff did the Friday news dump get authorized and why are gragg and Schill still employed? Cause or not for cause, who knew that a verbal agreement in Illinois was legally binding?

The law firm that they retained who should have been versed in IL employment law

 

[hdhntr1]

Don’t you think Fitz will sue for defamation too? I think there’s a lot more money coming his way since they’ve essentially railroaded his character and taken away potential future earnings as well. I’m not a lawyer but am I wrong?

The fact that they did not just decide to part ways and pay him but rather said it was for cause (to keep from having to pay him?) will cost NU and them. It would seem that Fitz could have a case against Schill as well as just against NU. Gragg as well if he put his name on the "for cause" as a reason for termination.

 

[Pulmocat]

I’m a lawyer. I don’t have access to the full facts and couldn’t begin to give legal counsel.

Schill’s rushed, reactionary Saturday night statement likely exposed the university to significant liability because it left him no hand other than to fire Fitz, even though (as far as we know) no material facts changed between the time of the suspension and the time of the statement. Fitz’s counsel is now positioning their argument that the firing was not for cause and therefore he is owed the full balance of his contract. Meanwhile the university will have to pay another head coach and likely will have cascading financial effects from that decision.

My point being, blame the lawyers all you want, but either they suck too or Schill and whoever else around him freestyled this, to disastrous effect.

The really bizarre thing is that Schill is a lawyer. It's hard to believe that he wouldn't involve NUs GC in a decision like this.

 

[Pulmocat]

He’s a public figure, so there would need to be actual malice. Long story short, that’s hard and the only person so far who could possibly qualify for that standard is the rumored “out to get him” complainant. And since that is a college student, 1) he doesn’t have deep pockets to pay a claim and 2) it would make Fitz look aw
ful to go after him, even if all other parts of it made sense.

So, no, I don’t expect to see a defamation claim. The wrongful termination claim against the university is the one with the paycheck.

Unless there is proof that the Daily knowingly published verifiable falsehoods ...

 

[Pulmocat]

I actually think the problem was schill and gragg went off reservation without consulting legal counsel. Neither the firm that did the report or NU’s own risk management lawyers. Corporate America won’t do a press release without vetting for liability. How the eff did the Friday news dump get authorized and why are gragg and Schill still employed? Cause or not for cause, who knew that a verbal agreement in Illinois was legally binding?

I think you bring up a valid point. It seems hard to fathom that Nu's GC was involved in the decision to fire Fitz a day after a 2 week suspension was announced. It puts nu in a very bad position.

The timing of the initial announcement about Fitz's suspension was absolutely the correct one in an instance where public criticism is likely. Unfortunately Schill torpedoed the pr benefits by immediately turning around and releasing a statement that left NU wide open to derision and hung Fitz out to dry.

Apparently Schill is a highly respected property law scholar but not at all in tune with employment law.

Makes me think that, like a lot of academicians he suffers from 'smartest guy in the room ' syndrome.

Now he has NU stuck in a battle against a large integrated law firm that has legal resources that will match anyone nu can hire, against an experienced trial law team led by a magnet for the best litigators in the country, with deep experience and access to the toughest employment lawyers in the country.

I hope he is humbled by his bumbling ignorance of the resources that he has at NU and the resources that he has caused nu to have to burn.

 

[PURPLE Book Cat]

He’s a public figure, so there would need to be actual malice. Long story short, that’s hard and the only person so far who could possibly qualify for that standard is the rumored “out to get him” complainant. And since that is a college student, 1) he doesn’t have deep pockets to pay a claim and 2) it would make Fitz look awful to go after him, even if all other parts of it made sense.

So, no, I don’t expect to see a defamation claim. The wrongful termination claim against the university is the one with the paycheck.

There is evidence that the whistleblower had motive and was willing to lie to get Fitz fired. If the university had this, could it be used to demonstrate malice?

 

[BillMedleyFan]

I think you bring up a valid point. It seems hard to fathom that Nu's GC was involved in the decision to fire Fitz a day after a 2 week suspension was announced. It puts nu in a very bad position.

The timing of the initial announcement about Fitz's suspension was absolutely the correct one in an instance where public criticism is likely. Unfortunately Schill torpedoed the pr benefits by immediately turning around and releasing a statement that left NU wide open to derision and hung Fitz out to dry.

Apparently Schill is a highly respected property law scholar but not at all in tune with employment law.

Makes me think that, like a lot of academicians he suffers from 'smartest guy in the room ' syndrome.

Now he has NU stuck in a battle against a large integrated law firm that has legal resources that will match anyone nu can hire, against an experienced trial law team led by a magnet for the best litigators in the country, with deep experience and access to the toughest employment lawyers in the country.

I hope he is humbled by his bumbling ignorance of the resources that he has at NU and the resources that he has caused nu to have to burn.

Michael Schill is a brilliant man. He knew the ramifications (as you mentioned he’s an Ivy League trained lawyer).

He made a big mistake not handing out more significant punishment up front to Fitz, but has done everything he’s needed to since then. Once the firestorm started and Northwestern was being showcased on national news networks for this stuff he had no choice but to change course and fire Fitz.

After details of the report came out every day longer Pat Fitzgerald was employed would be more costly to the university than whatever settlement they reach in court.

Think about it. The next time Fitz would have spoken publicly as HC of Northwestern it would have been an absolute circus. Every major media outlet in the US would be there asking uncomfortable questions. Would have been a complete embarrassment to Northwestern. Michael Schill saved the university.

Michael Schill and Derrick Gragg are the two men we have to trust and believe in. Instead of being mean to them. Support them.

 

[nickcat4]

Michael Schill is a brilliant man. He knew the ramifications (as you mentioned he’s an Ivy League trained lawyer).

He made a big mistake not handing out more significant punishment up front to Fitz, but has done everything he’s needed to since then. Once the firestorm started and Northwestern was being showcased on national news networks for this stuff he had no choice but to change course and fire Fitz.

After details of the report came out every day longer Pat Fitzgerald was employed would be more costly to the university than whatever settlement they reach in court.

Think about it. The next time Fitz would have spoken publicly as HC of Northwestern it would have been an absolute circus. Every major media outlet in the US would be there asking uncomfortable questions. Would have been a complete embarrassment to Northwestern. Michael Schill saved the university.

Michael Schill and Derrick Gragg are the two men we have to trust and believe in. Instead of being mean to them. Support them.

No way,

 

[ricko654321]

Michael Schill is a brilliant man. He knew the ramifications (as you mentioned he’s an Ivy League trained lawyer).

He made a big mistake not handing out more significant punishment up front to Fitz, but has done everything he’s needed to since then. Once the firestorm started and Northwestern was being showcased on national news networks for this stuff he had no choice but to change course and fire Fitz.

After details of the report came out every day longer Pat Fitzgerald was employed would be more costly to the university than whatever settlement they reach in court.

Think about it. The next time Fitz would have spoken publicly as HC of Northwestern it would have been an absolute circus. Every major media outlet in the US would be there asking uncomfortable questions. Would have been a complete embarrassment to Northwestern. Michael Schill saved the university.

Michael Schill and Derrick Gragg are the two men we have to trust and believe in. Instead of being mean to them. Support them.

Yeah i think it's about time for this troll to get kicked off lol

 

[CoralSpringsCat]

Michael Schill is a brilliant man. He knew the ramifications (as you mentioned he’s an Ivy League trained lawyer).

He made a big mistake not handing out more significant punishment up front to Fitz, but has done everything he’s needed to since then. Once the firestorm started and Northwestern was being showcased on national news networks for this stuff he had no choice but to change course and fire Fitz.

After details of the report came out every day longer Pat Fitzgerald was employed would be more costly to the university than whatever settlement they reach in court.

Think about it. The next time Fitz would have spoken publicly as HC of Northwestern it would have been an absolute circus. Every major media outlet in the US would be there asking uncomfortable questions. Would have been a complete embarrassment to Northwestern. Michael Schill saved the university.

Michael Schill and Derrick Gragg are the two men we have to trust and believe in. Instead of being mean to them. Support them.

This has to be a parody account. 🤡

 

[ricko654321]

This has to be a parody account. 🤡

indeed. he started out more subtle but now it's become quite obvious.

 

[NUCat320]

Unless there is proof that the Daily knowingly published verifiable falsehoods ...

In the initial report, they stated that a NU spokesperson declined comment. NU was given a chance to respond, and chose not to. There was no libel or slander. There was a story that they were uniquely positioned to cover.

 

[CappyNU]

Michael Schill is a brilliant man. He knew the ramifications (as you mentioned he’s an Ivy League trained lawyer).

He made a big mistake not handing out more significant punishment up front to Fitz, but has done everything he’s needed to since then. Once the firestorm started and Northwestern was being showcased on national news networks for this stuff he had no choice but to change course and fire Fitz.

After details of the report came out every day longer Pat Fitzgerald was employed would be more costly to the university than whatever settlement they reach in court.

Think about it. The next time Fitz would have spoken publicly as HC of Northwestern it would have been an absolute circus. Every major media outlet in the US would be there asking uncomfortable questions. Would have been a complete embarrassment to Northwestern. Michael Schill saved the university.

Michael Schill and Derrick Gragg are the two men we have to trust and believe in. Instead of being mean to them. Support them.

 

[catfans5]

There is a difference between an academic legal scholar, general counsel, and active, litigation counsel. The first generally has no idea of legal fights and ramifications. They have plenty of time to think things out. General counsel serves its client, usually has time to consider options, and cannot know the ramifications. They are not in fights. Active litigation counsel are in the fight, are trained and experienced in in looking at ramifications, and have to make snap decisions. A lawyer who tries cases has to make snap decisions on strategy throughout a trial that can have deleterious or beneficial effects. Retained legal counsel should be used to maelstorms.All three are trained differently and have different experiences.

 

[BillMedleyFan]

There is a difference between an academic legal scholar, general counsel, and active, litigation counsel. The first generally has no idea of legal fights and ramifications. They have plenty of time to think things out. General counsel serves its client, usually has time to consider options, and cannot know the ramifications. They are not in fights. Active litigation counsel are in the fight, are trained and experienced in in looking at ramifications, and have to make snap decisions. A lawyer who tries cases has to make snap decisions on strategy throughout a trial that can have deleterious or beneficial effects. Retained legal counsel should be used to maelstorms.All three are trained differently and have different experiences.

I’ve seen suits on Netflix.

 

[BillMedleyFan]

Rip me all you want, but history will be kind to Michael Schill. He corrected his mistake swiftly and saved the university from Pat Fitzgeralds toxicity.

 

[DaCat]

Rip me all you want, but history will be kind to Michael Schill. He corrected his mistake swiftly and saved the university from Pat Fitzgeralds toxicity.

Don't think so.

Shill read the full report from a professional, 3rd party legal team. That investigation lasted 6 months, with about 50 people interviewed, including the whistleblower, Carl Richardson. Based on this comprehensive report, Shill announced a 2 week suspension of Fitz.

That wasn't good enough for Richardson, whose sole purpose was to get Fitz fired. So he goes to the Daily to create a detailed, likely exaggerated version, resulting in huge backlash.

So Shill talks directly to Richardson and his parents, resulting in an even more one-sided version, exactly as Richardson had hoped and planned. Shill decides to fire Fitz almost immediately, without additional feedback from other sources and largely ignoring the formal investigation report.

Michael Shill got played.

 

[NUChicago]

Don't think so.

Shill read the full report from a professional, 3rd party legal team. That investigation lasted 6 months, with about 50 people interviewed, including the whistleblower, Carl Richardson. Based on this comprehensive report, Shill announced a 2 week suspension of Fitz.

That wasn't good enough for Richardson, whose sole purpose was to get Fitz fired. So he goes to the Daily to create a detailed, likely exaggerated version, resulting in huge backlash.

So Shill talks directly to Richardson and his parents, resulting in an even more one-sided version, exactly as Richardson had hoped and planned. Shill decides to fire Fitz almost immediately, without additional feedback from other sources and largely ignoring the formal investigation report.

Michael Shill got played.

Shill is like one of those real smart people who have to be told to wipe their ass.

 

[charcat]

How do they explain that things were so bad that Fitz had to be fired, even if he did not know, but all the assistant coaches have been retained and no players have been punished or removed? And the AD, who also oversaw the baseball mess and did nothing until this blew up, keeps his job with no punishment?

 

[StreamCat]

Shill is like one of those real smart people who have to be told to wipe their ass.

That reminds me…

 

[NUChicago]

How do they explain that things were so bad that Fitz had to be fired, even if he did not know, but all the assistant coaches have been retained and no players have been punished or removed? And the AD, who also oversaw the baseball mess and did nothing until this blew up, keeps his job with no punishment?

It's an NU miracle!!!

 

[CoralSpringsCat]

How do they explain that things were so bad that Fitz had to be fired, even if he did not know, but all the assistant coaches have been retained and no players have been punished or removed? And the AD, who also oversaw the baseball mess and did nothing until this blew up, keeps his job with no punishment?

They can’t.

 

[rwhitney014]

Unless there is proof that the Daily knowingly published verifiable falsehoods ...

It’s a very high bar. That’s not where the legal action will be.

The prevalent and relevant questions about the Daily are about the practice of journalism, not the practice of law.

 

[rwhitney014]

There is evidence that the whistleblower had motive and was willing to lie to get Fitz fired. If the university had this, could it be used to demonstrate malice?

As I’ve said elsewhere here, it’s a very high bar. The wrongful termination claim is an easier one for him, assuming the actual facts that will be alleged and discovered support the claim.

 

[hdhntr1]

He’s a public figure, so there would need to be actual malice. Long story short, that’s hard and the only person so far who could possibly qualify for that standard is the rumored “out to get him” complainant. And since that is a college student, 1) he doesn’t have deep pockets to pay a claim and 2) it would make Fitz look awful to go after him, even if all other parts of it made sense.

So, no, I don’t expect to see a defamation claim. The wrongful termination claim against the university is the one with the paycheck.

Hard to say there wasn't actual malice the way things were done., Including the statement that the termination was for cause. Wrongful termination gets him money owed but there was also that they intentionally destroyed both his reputation and future earning potential.

 

[rwhitney014]

Hard to say there wasn't actual malice the way things were done., Including the statement that the termination was for cause. Wrongful termination gets him money owed but there was also that they intentionally destroyed both his reputation and future earning potential.

Yeah, that’s not how this works.