Fitz asking for $130M in lawsuit
- Thread starter DonatelloCat
- Start date
I did a quick search for the phrase "termination clause" and did not find any hits in the document. I also searched for the word "responsibility" in the document and it returned 2 hits, neither of which specifically was tied to hazing.
Of course, it is an 83-page document that you pointed to without any additional context. But since you linked it in response to a post of mine asking about a termination clause that was being claimed to contain text specifically about responsibility for hazing, would you please point me to which page in this 83-page document contains the text that you seem to be implying that it contains?
Thank you!
Exhibit G is his contract.
Section f: Termination
Part 1: Termination for Cause
Part 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, the United States, the State of Illinois, the Big Ten Conference, or the NCAA (major violation, as defined by the NCAA) and such violation reflects adversely upon the University or its athletic program, including any violation that may result in the University’s being placed on probation or being subjected to any other significant NCAA or Big Ten Conference sanction;"
To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the particular clause that university relied on. Just making the point that he had responsibility to know what is going on.
"of the commission by any member of the football coaching staff"
Are we alleging that any member of the football coaching staff committed hazing?
Or that members of the coaching staff knew about it, were required to report it, and did not. But like I said, perhaps he was fired based on other aspects of the termination clauses.
That's not what section F.1.b says.
And you're the one who claimed:
But now you're saying that "perhaps he was fired based on other aspects of the termination clauses."
So you're waffling on your original statement.
I'm not a lawyer, but based off my reading of the complaint, Fitz's attorneys are saying:
- Fitz was told in Nov 2022 that the whistleblower was going to report false allegations of hazing
- Fitz asked the QBs if there was anything he needed to know about hazing, and they said no
- Hazing is alleged by the whistleblower Nov 30 2022
- Hickey conducts investigation, interviews Fitz in April 2023, Fitz says he knew nothing about hazing, Hickey's team does not provide any evidence of hazing to Fitz, Fitz stated that no staff members knew anything about hazing
- Hickey report is released to university in July, shows evidence of hazing (seeming conflict with previous bullet point?)
- Gragg meets with Fitz July 3, says he needs to accept 2-week suspension despite not knowing anything about hazing
- "Gragg and Graham told Fitzgerald if he agreed to this plan, Northwestern wanted the two-week suspension to coincide with Fitzgerald’s two-week vacation, so Fitzgerald could attend an important recruiting event on Northwestern’s behalf shortly after his suspension ended." (Good lord...)
- Fitz's agent and NU's counsel agree on July 6 to terms of suspension
- Suspension starts July 7
- Schill makes statement July 8 about erring on suspension
- Schill fires Fitz for cause on July 10
- Of the 7 subclauses under the for-cause termination section, none apply to this situation
- Had they applied, per contract Fitz was owed written notice and an up-to-60 day review of the termination
- NU did not do this, nor did they indicate which subclause he violated (🤦♂️)
I don't mean to waffle, so let me clarify.
PurpleWhiteBoy said
I was making the point that his contract covers not just his own actions and knowledge, but things that he should have known. The idea that he is responsible for things that he should be knowledgable about wasn't made up willy nilly.
I don't think any of us know which clause was the basis for his termination. I could imagine it being any of the first four of the seven.
To me, the most likely one is the third clause:
"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);"
This doesn't have the language about "should have known" but failing to perform his duties would seem to get at the same issue.
But if that were the clause they were invoking, then the contract stipulates that he would be given 10 days to implement corrective actions following a written notice. This quite clearly did not happen.
Does the esteemed law expert Schill not know how to read a contract?
Quite clearly I erred in that I didn't think an 83-page law filing could be so riveting. I need to curl up by the fire tonight and give it a good, thorough read.
WOW!
"78. Hickey and her team eventually created a detailed and confidential report, setting forth their factual investigation and their findings, which was provided to Northwestern. Northwestern has refused to provide Fitzgerald and his attorneys with this detailed investigative report."
Not even Fitz has been provided a copy of the report! I didn't realize that. The university is keeping it awfully close to the vest. I wonder why. What do they have to hide?
"78. Hickey and her team eventually created a detailed and confidential report, setting forth their factual investigation and their findings, which was provided to Northwestern. Northwestern has refused to provide Fitzgerald and his attorneys with this detailed investigative report."
Not even Fitz has been provided a copy of the report! I didn't realize that. The university is keeping it awfully close to the vest. I wonder why. What do they have to hide?
Dang, early to be curled up by the fireplace. That’s really weird. Maybe Gragg was the only one who got to read the report.
Comprehension is not Dr Gragg’s strong point. At least he has mastered zoom.
Thats why I said Northwestern's statement
"He had the responsibility to know that hazing was occurring and to stop it."
is an OPINION (Northwestern's opinion).
It is no longer aligned with "He should have known" (which is a debatable opinion)
It is saying he had a RESPONSIBILITY to know. (I doubt it - only if it is spelled out contractually)
Those are quite different and an attempt to move the goalposts.
Thanks a lot for posting that.
I saved it to my computer in the event somebody starts deleting!
"you know or reasonably should have known..."
I read this line and immediately thought of the hauntingly similar language Schill used that weekend - he clearly took a look at the contract and this section.
It is very interesting, though, that this specifically references negligence on the part of football coaching staff, and not specifically the actions of players. Loophole? Does this become a question of whether Fitz should have known that any of his coaches knew? Does the Coach Mac accusation (that never really got any media traction) become the crux of the lawsuit if it were to ever make it to trial?
Really depends on insurance. Most liability policies include cost of defense in Illinois. Now an intentional tort cannot be insured, but can be bonded. (Weird form of insurance)
At any rate, most times, lawyer fees are to advantage of defense. Exceptions being mass tort, contractual and criminal.
Wtf are mods censoring what will likely become things brought out in discovery? Gotta love the unbiased media of the day…no wonder society hates each, the full story never gets out.
Disagree. What kind of policy limits are in play? And most institutions I defended had considerable self retained exposure, essentially stepping in the normal insurance spot and only insuring the excess. Also, intentional torts cannot be insured in the US.
Why not?
But to answer your question - because everyone knows everything will be settled so some folks want to get the info out there. Settle? Fine but let me tell you what happened before I accept money from a party that will not acknowledge fault as part of the written agreement.
Bring on the public discussion!
And as a named defendant, might end up owing some too. Everyone gets paid.
You can find the tweet from user
@bb04128805 or simply in the replies to @WinstonLaw.
It’s a one-second video that purports to show the noodle-armed fourth stringer as runner, not runnee. Everyone is fully-clothed and it appears to have happened on whatever the GenZ equivalent of a bean bag chair is.
I don’t know specifics, besides being told that NU has a “very high limit” excess policy.
Always the interesting legal question that has remained for untouched - the victim turned perpetuator. Psychologically, they have a syndrome for this.
Again, can’t wait for John Doe identities to drop. And those team managers seemed to disappear too. Can’t help but wonder what forces encouraged them to be gone… come on and post…no? Hmmmm…..wonder why…
It’s an area I worked in. I think, opinion, much of this is self retained or not covered. Means legal counsel has a fun minefield to navigate.
To answer another post - duty to defend when conflicts arise demand a different firm. You try to establish a common defense - til that doesn’t work.
I think it's funny to sue someone and then say, "nothing personal"......
Perhaps they were focusing simply on the tortious actions — negligence, and perhaps failing to abide by oral contracts made during recruiting.
Now, they will add things such as, “also, he is a big dumb dummy,” which may or may not influence coverage to their benefit, but will more fun.
Does anybody know if Northwestern has varsity athletes sign a waiver before they are allowed to participate in their sport?
I'm guessing they probably do to protect against lawsuits subsequent to injuries, emotional trauma, whatever.
I'm guessing they probably do to protect against lawsuits subsequent to injuries, emotional trauma, whatever.
as for Northwestern's most recent statement - they actually have the gall to write these words...
"Since these findings were released, numerous former student-athletes have filed lawsuits against Fitzgerald and the University related to hazing they endured while on Fitzgerald's team."
Fitzgerald's team?
Really? How pathetic.
I always thought it was the Northwestern Wildcats.
Because it IS the Northwestern Wildcats. The school is responsible for the players. The players are students at the school. The school controls who is eligible for the team.
Unless we want to go back and change the score of the Holiday Bowl to...
Fitzgerald 31 Utah 20
"Since these findings were released, numerous former student-athletes have filed lawsuits against Fitzgerald and the University related to hazing they endured while on Fitzgerald's team."
Fitzgerald's team?
Really? How pathetic.
I always thought it was the Northwestern Wildcats.
Because it IS the Northwestern Wildcats. The school is responsible for the players. The players are students at the school. The school controls who is eligible for the team.
Unless we want to go back and change the score of the Holiday Bowl to...
Fitzgerald 31 Utah 20
I signed something when accepting my scholarship. And I was 18. So can’t say I diligently read it.
Who is the CEO of the team? Bezo’s Amazon was far better than the current schmo. And there are many debates about Apple.
