Bajakian suing the university for defamation
- Thread starter T_Levine
- Start date
At this point they (NU) have put a real damper on his career and he is no longer an employee and Gragg, being who he is, just really pissed him off
But also, the best line on Bajakian’s resume is “I coached Jamies Winston’s best pro season”. As a coordinator, his offenses were mid-tier to bad to terrible. There’s no reason he should have a coordinator job to is season.
Bajakian’s best bet is for a foolish former Grad Asst buddy to get a head job and bring him in to lead the O as a favor.
First if Gragg had an issue with it, should have dealt with it when he first saw it. Directly with the individual or group,. Instead with no warning he put it out to the public to cover his ass. So Jake is forced to try to find new employment with this on top of other things while Gragg gets a golden parachute
I assume everybody agrees with each sentence you wrote. Facts are facts, even today.
Mike Bajakian
Suing for defamation
While on vacation.
Asks NU Nation:
Valid litigation?
What in tarnation?
Suing for defamation
While on vacation.
Asks NU Nation:
Valid litigation?
What in tarnation?
Wow - listening to some of you, guess NU better work the donor phones since all their endowment will be paid to the various plaintiffs…
Hey NC - what’s the percentage of success plaintiff civil cases? Is it like the federal conviction rate?
Hey NC - what’s the percentage of success plaintiff civil cases? Is it like the federal conviction rate?
Yes, you have it right. There simply is no defamation that meets the required elements for such a claim. If the judge to whom this case is assigned is reasonably good, I would submit that a well drafted motion to dismiss should be granted. And as repeatedly noted in this thread, the lack of success in his job search is because of his abysmal performance as OC & quarterback recruiter and coach. I felt sorry for him until his frivolous lawsuit.
I'm not an attorney, but I can read.
"To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."
defamation
We (that includes you) have no idea what Gragg or NU has said to others about Bajakian behind the scenes.
But in the tee shirt "incident" we have Gragg's public statement. It criticizes Bajakian's judgment and says he acted in an offensive manner, putting that forward as fact.
It seems to meet the standard.
Depends on the type of case. For example, plaintiff success rate in med mal cases is quite low, while in product liability cases it is much higher.
Not much higher. High profile cases. But there are plenty product liability cases blaming the scissor manufacturer for cutting off one’s nose. This was my bread and butter - a took many of these cases apart before we even got to jury selection.
As NC would reluctantly admit - civil litigation results in less than 50% recovery, far less in what plaintiffs actually recover and the insurers tend to roll the dice with the best cases. The NU cases, IMHO, fall square into that definition. Plaintiffs at odds, weak cases for either damages, causation or technical issues, plenty of duty to mitigate misses and so on.
PF might have the best of the cases but also why I’m not settling or working hard to dismiss the player cases. Get them all combined, let the jurors hear the fun in the locker room and dare them to give that multimillionaire more money.
Anyone tracking any of the cases? Pleading motions have to be done. Parties should be in pleading and written discovery phase of the older cases.
Basically what I said earlier.
NU wants to get the players in court first in order to get them to testify (and exaggerate their stories without committing perjury) in order to build their legal defense against Fitzgerald, a much more important case.
Some of the experts around here decried this theory as ridiculous.
From what I know of the world, if you automatically reject conspiracies, you're whats known as a "sucker." (or stooge, if you prefer)
NU is (possibly? likely?) working with the players and (if so) will settle with them for small dollars after the players testify under oath.
NU absolutely wants all the players in one lawsuit, testifying in a biased way against Fitzgerald.
After that case settles, their attorneys will cherry pick the players sworn testimony, call those guys in as defense witnesses against Fitzgerald. Did you say this? Yes I did. Were you under oath? Yes I was. Is that statement true? (Player squirms) Yes it is.
Seems like common sense.
“Lost the chance to have his contract renewed” is hilariously amateur-level lawyering. And that’s coming from a very amateur-level lawyer.
Cases have been combined so to be tried together. Unlikely to play out that way but that’s the status quo. So NU just sits there and listens to whiney player testimony that strikes some jurors as horrific and others as nothing burger.
Then PF and his arrogance takes the stand and denigrates those players. Nobody gets a consensus. Plaintiff lawyers hate hung jurors. NU says to PF - drop your lawsuit and let’s save what’s left your of your reputation in the retrial. PF agrees, worn out, and then players give up. Everybody goes home.
To his argument, NU has a history of retaining and even giving raises to underperforming coaches that graduate everyone. So I can see the mountain of evidence he could lay out there to prove his case…
Fitz’s case has very little to do with the players and a lot to do with how NU didn’t adhere to its contract.
Ok, that’s nice. But why would there ever be a legally enforceable presumption of extending an expired contract? I’m not the lawyer here, but that seems impossible to argue.
This makes very little if any sense. After trying hundreds of civil cases I can't remember a hung jury. I remain of the opinion that all of these cases will settle, and that Fitz will get a nice payday. It would be interesting, though, as you suggest, to get a handle on the status of these cases and what, if any discovery has taken place.
My understanding was that the players cases were combined into one case.
That has to be separate from Fitzgerald's case against NU, which is an employment case.
NU violated that contract - their only chance is to prove that Fitzgerald knew about the alleged hazing.
Or, better yet, directed it.
termination for cause in Fitzgerald's contract
a) you commit a deliberate and serious violation of any law, rule, regulation, constitutional provision, bylaw, or interpretation of the University, etc.
b) you know or reasonably should have known of the commission by any member of the football coaching staff of a deliberate and serious violation of any law, rule, regulation, constitutional provision, bylaw, or interpretation of the University, etc
(c) you fail or refuse to perform in good faith any of those duties that are reasonably related to your position as Head Football Coach as defined by the Vice President for Athletics & Recreation; provided, however, that the University will first give you written notice of such violation or violations and give you ten (10) days from the date of such written notice to cure such violation(s);
(d) you commit serious or repeated violations of any provision of this Agreement; provided, however, that the University will first give you written notice of such violation or violations and give you thirty (30) days from the date of such written notice to cure such violation(s);
e) you engage in conduct that constitutes moral turpitude
Northwestern is up against it.
That was meant to be tongue in cheek. But I could make the devils advocate argument - I think rather stick with the main discussion.
I read PF case combined w player cases. Now, that might just be for the purposes of discovery. Which would make sense - every deposition would create discovery for the other cases. Many of the witnesses are the same. Much of the written discovery is the same.
I would be surprised, in all honesty, to see the cases tried together. But if I’m NU, I’m at least trying for it.
It remains amazing that Fitz’s termination clause included nothing about egregious player conduct — or mistreatment specifically of players. (Beckman was brought down by that, right? Leach also?)
That said, the NU case hinges on Fitz violating a) or b), with hazing being against NU regulation and state law. Not saying it’s right or wrong, just that that’s the case.
MacPherson being specifically named in suits gives NU another potentially credible for cause argument.
Regardless of what’s written in dismissal notices to the public (Schill’s “known or should have known”, if NU can prove that there was hazing, NU’s got a defense.)
I remain shocked this has gone on for so long. It’d be fun to see Positively Ggarg on the stand.
Does anyone have any idea of whether written discovery has been served? I can't imagine any depositions have been taken, and I continue to believe that all cases will be settled prior to any depositions being taken. Also, I have learned from a highly placed member of the Alumni Counsel that the University is very anxious to remove President Schill. Of course, this won't happen until all cases are settled or otherwise resolved.
I know we have clashed in the past, at least a little, but this is the best news I've heard all day.
Fwiw, I have zero info on discovery or even court filings in any of the cases.
The players will 100% settle. They're just winging it.
Not sure Fitz will settle, unless he gets at least a public exoneration and apology from NU.
If NU has anything legitimate that would embarrass Fitz, Fitz will settle too.
But if they really don't, he's gonna go for blood, like he did as a player.
I'm not sure the university can really fire the coach if one of his players beats up another one. Or assaults another student. Or drives drunk and injures someone. My understanding is that all falls under the Student Code of Conduct, with discipline falling on the perpetrator. This is why NU's failure to punish anyone on the team seems like such a hole in their case (to me).
What Fitz really has on his side is the contractual requirement that the university tell him about any troublesome incident and give him the opportunity to remedy it.
They did not do that.
Aren’t there some cases related to Israeli Palestinian conflict under the Shrill watch too?
Yes, and it's another reason my Alumni Council source says they want him out. Again, though, I can't imagine any of this happening before all cases are resolved. When that happens, I believe both Schill and Gragg will be gone
As an actual lawyer, Bajakian's lawsuit is kind of humorous; difficult to see it going very far.
Wrongful termination is a way different situation than not getting a contract extension. Bajakian's case is much weaker as a result; he's trying to argue that he was defamed as a result of what happened to Fitz... but Bajakian was allowed to serve out the remainder of his contract.
And as others have said, the University can simply point to his production as a reason for why he wasn't extended.
There's just not much of a case here. If the offense had been a top 25 offense in the country for the past couple of years, then maybe he'd have some kind of case to argue, but even then there's no presumption of receiving a contract extension unless explicitly stated in a contract.
Wrongful termination is a way different situation than not getting a contract extension. Bajakian's case is much weaker as a result; he's trying to argue that he was defamed as a result of what happened to Fitz... but Bajakian was allowed to serve out the remainder of his contract.
And as others have said, the University can simply point to his production as a reason for why he wasn't extended.
There's just not much of a case here. If the offense had been a top 25 offense in the country for the past couple of years, then maybe he'd have some kind of case to argue, but even then there's no presumption of receiving a contract extension unless explicitly stated in a contract.
Is whether he received a contract extension or not the sole harm he may have incurred?
No. Somebody cited an ESPN article that had those words in it. Rittenberg's interpretation (which means little).
However, when Rittenberg quotes the lawsuit, you get better information.
Bajakian claims that the university's response "created, perpetuated and encouraged a false and misleading narrative" about his conduct and others on the staff...
"Derrick Gragg publicly maligned Michael Bajakian's character and reputation, and misled the public through his false statement, and has caused actual damages," Bajakian's lawsuit reads.
Let Bajak and Gregg resolve their differences with a ufc style cage fight. Settle this live on btn. I'd pay to watch
The problem for Bajakian is that I'm not even sure his lawsuit will get that far (i.e. whether harm was lack of extension or lack of comparable employment or reputational damage or otherwise). If you dig into the little that various news articles say on the lawsuit:
1) The first problem is lack of specificity. Gragg's statement about the "Cats against the World" t-shirts that a bunch of coaches/staff wore for example didn't mention anyone individually and doesn't appear to be targeted in a way that could cause reputational damage (even on a negligence basis):
"Neither I nor the University was aware that they owned or would wear these shirts today. The shirts are inappropriate, offensive and tone deaf. Let me be crystal clear: hazing has no place at Northwestern, and we are committed to do whatever is necessary to address hazing-related issues, including thoroughly investigating any incidents or allegations of hazing or any other misconduct."
Was Bajakian ever even mentioned by the University/Gragg as being involved in anything specifically? I honestly can't recall a single instance, though perhaps the lawsuit may mention something.
2) The second and bigger problem is ultimately that Illinois' legal standard is even if you accept Gragg's statement as being false, did he have reasonable grounds for making the statement?
And the same issues apply to the other part of his case that the university's response "created, perpetuated and encouraged a false and misleading narrative" about himself and the program.
Even if that's true, why didn't the university take action against anybody else?
I mean maybe the university settles this just to get it out of the news, though obviously it won't compare to Fitz's...
Fitz's case is far stronger in so many ways that I'd be surprised if Fitz doesn't end up getting somewhere above his full remaining contract value (around $50-60 million).
With Bajakian's lawsuit (from what little we know), it's just difficult to see the route to him being able to prove that either Gragg acted with actual malice or was negligent in his statements/actions (and that applies to the broader university response).
There are so many defenses that the University can employ here (McGarigle promoted despite being in a similar situation, lack of offensive production, no direct action taken against him or other staff, that the University/Gragg statements were true, new coach decided who to hire for his own staff, etc.).
But who knows, giving him $500k to just go away is also perhaps a possibility. I'm pretty sure the university just wants all of this stuff gone in the next 12-18 months.
Not a lawyer, but I thought he was trying to claim that NU's handling of the case has caused him reputational damage that prevents his being hired elsewhere, not that his contract at NU wasn't renewed. I don't think he has a leg to stand on there, either.
Similar threads
