Fitz asking for $130M in lawsuit

[zanycat]

Speculating, but you have to wonder if the report shows complaints were made to members of the ath. dept. outside of the football team and were ignored? Maybe that’s why they don’t want the report to be public. Wasn’t that the case for the previous female team hazing complaints? That would be a lack of institutional control.

Still doesn’t absolve Fitz of his responsibilities. Even in corporate America many employment contracts include termination clauses with similar language regarding “should have known” when it comes to issues that could affect the reputation or liability of a company. And employers help make / have the rules on their side (at-will clauses, even in contracts) so their “opinion” matters once the contract / employment agreement is signed.

 

[NVAcat]

I will address a couple of things which will include attorneys fees, insurance, and punitive damages. I retired six years ago, so my thoughts may be dated, but I was on the civil defense side. If I am wrong, I hope someone will correct me. I do not know the policy limits, the self isured retainer (sir) or the contract languauge, or the pleadings, but I will speak in some generalities.

Punitive Damages. These are not covered by insurance. It is against public policy. In Illinois, you cannot seek punitive damages in your initial complaint. You have to bring a motion and supply the court with evidnec that the defendant acted intentionally, wilfully or wantonly, or with a reckless disregard for reasonable conduct.

Insurance. I did not do insurance coverage work, but was involved with insurance coverage issues. When one is involved in an accident, the insurance carrier will pay for the costs of the litigation, your attorney's fees and and a judgment up to the policy limits. If you have an umbrella policy, this will not come into play until you exhaust the underlying policy limits. The umbrella carrier could be the same company or a different one. For years, I had American Family as my underlying carrierand AIG as my umbrella carrier. Generally, American Family would be on the hook for all the attorney fees, even though AIG might have to pay from its policy. There are plenty of exceptions and manuevers for responsbility of the attorney fees, but there are so many variables that it is not worth exploring

I can think of three diferent insurance coverages that might be involved for NU: general liability, errors and omissions and/or directors and officers, and employment insurance for race claims, discrim and etc. All these policies will have specfic exclusions, such as breach of contract, and etc. NU has to tender to each of these carriers on each of these cases. The carriers then have to respond which can be acceptance of the claim, acceptanceanc with a reservation of rights if facts come out which changes the circumstances, or a denial of coverage fo the claim.

For an entity like NU, I would expect the SIR might be different on each policy, but I will use $3 million. From there, one company may be the next level to $5 million, and then excess insurance can go into many layers to a huge number. The insurance companies will do everything to avoid their policy limits being triggered. Thus, under my scenario, NU will be responsbiel for all attorneys fees, costs and a judgment up to $3 million. Let's say a player hits NU for $2.5 million judgment. Northwesten will have to pay for $2.5 million and all the attorney fees and costs associated with it. The next level of insurance is not triggered. NU could spend $4 million in satisfying the judgment and defending itself.

Attorney Fees NU has to defend itself. It gets interesting when you have the players' lawsuits which I guess names Schill, Fitz, Gragg, Phillips, Morty and etc. both as agents and individaully. Generally, you try to put all the defendants under one firm and defend them, but there are so many conflicts of interest between the defendants and Northwestern. On the players' suits, they could be open to punitive damages. If I am Phillips, I tender my defense to NU, but demand that they provide me with my own, independent counsel to protect me and my family. I have no idea what the insurance policies or their employment agreements provide, but NU could be on the hook for the counsel for all the individual defendants. The attorney fees will be quite large.

Very good analysis but based on my experience as a defense counsel & interaction with carriers,I would have a different point of view on the contract damages being sought by Fitz. I do not believe any of the insurance policies involved will pay anything except attorney’s fees on Fitz’s contract claim. Carriers should be on the hook for defense costs & any settlement or judgment on the defamation claim.

 

[WaveJumper]

Last night I skimmed through the complaint and the various Exhibits. In particular, Exhibit G is a copy of the terms of Fitzgerald's employment. It contains the following sections:

A. EMPLOYMENT AND TERM
B. COMPENSATION
C. OUTSIDE INCOME
D. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS. COMPLIANCE
F. TERMINATION
1. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE
Parts (a) through (g) - Part (b) is the relevant language covering the language of the "known or should have known items and reads as follows:

(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 save you some time trying to stretch part(b) to include himself, that is covered in part(a) and there is nothing in (a) that specifies "knew or should have known". The bold is my emphasis. This is the only reference to what "'he knew or should have known" in the the Termination for Cause part of his employment contract.

Furthermore, in parts (c) and particularly (d) there is verbiage that states:

(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)

Was Fitzgerald ever given written notice that he was in violation prior to his suspension and subsequent termination? Was he given either 10 days or 30 days "to cure such violations"? We don't know this, but if I had to guess, the time for that notification to occur probably should have been back in 2022 when the whistleblower first came forward.

I am not an attorney, However, I was a corporate officer and part of my job was to enter into legal agreements via my signature. So I had to at least read the T's and C's, and also had to understand the agreement (of course, I had qualified legal assistance). So I have a little experience in that. Also, I have a daughter who is a capital partner in a white shoe D.C. law firm who is a litigator that argues cases in the world bank in non-English language, so there's that (whatever it's worth). She has basically traveled the world litigating cases for various businesses and governments.

Rereading part a), NU might have a case for cause there, by committing
"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;

The complaint is, in my opinion, very thorough and lays out all of the steps Fitzgerald put in place to prevent the type of activity he is supposed to have known or "should have known about".

After reading the complaint, it's my VERY UNEDUCATED GUESS, that this will be settled, not litigated. So, like everyone - we all have opinions and something else.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Last night I skimmed through the complaint and the various Exhibits. In particular, Exhibit G is a copy of the terms of Fitzgerald's employment. It contains the following sections:

A. EMPLOYMENT AND TERM
B. COMPENSATION
C. OUTSIDE INCOME
D. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS. COMPLIANCE
F. TERMINATION
1. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE
Parts (a) through (g) - Part (b) is the relevant language covering the language of the "known or should have known items and reads as follows:

(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 save you some time trying to stretch part(b) to include himself, that is covered in part(a) and there is nothing in (a) that specifies "knew or should have known". The bold is my emphasis. This is the only reference to what "'he knew or should have known" in the the Termination for Cause part of his employment contract.

Furthermore, in parts (c) and particularly (d) there is verbiage that states:

(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)

Was Fitzgerald ever given written notice that he was in violation prior to his suspension and subsequent termination? Was he given either 10 days or 30 days "to cure such violations"? We don't know this, but if I had to guess, the time for that notification to occur probably should have been back in 2022 when the whistleblower first came forward.

I am not an attorney, However, I was a corporate officer and part of my job was to enter into legal agreements via my signature. So I had to at least read the T's and C's, and also had to understand the agreement (of course, I had qualified legal assistance). So I have a little experience in that. Also, I have a daughter who is a capital partner in a white shoe D.C. law firm who is a litigator that argues cases in the world bank in non-English language, so there's that (whatever it's worth). She has basically traveled the world litigating cases for various businesses and governments.

Rereading part a), NU might have a case for cause there, by committing
"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;

The complaint is, in my opinion, very thorough and lays out all of the steps Fitzgerald put in place to prevent the type of activity he is supposed to have known or "should have known about".

After reading the complaint, it's my VERY UNEDUCATED GUESS, that this will be settled, not litigated. So, like everyone - we all have opinions and something else.

I am also not an attorney. I did have the "pleasure" of a multi-year lawsuit in federal court. I learned a lot along the way.

I look at the "termination for cause" section of Fitzgerald's contract and I don't see the clause that gets Northwestern off the hook. After all, Fitzgerald's lawsuit is primarily about Northwestern's breach of contract and subsequent reputational damage.

The grounds for "termination for cause" are specified as:
a) Fitzgerald commits a crime or violates some rule or regulation, be it a Big Ten rule, NCAA rule or Northwestern rule.
b) One of the coaches commits a "deliberate and serious violation" of the same laws or rules.
c) Fitzgerald is derelict in his duties as defined by the VP of Athletics and Recreation. This only takes effect after he is given written notice and fails to address the problem within 10 days.
d) Fitzgerald commits serious or repeated violations of the agreement, but only after Northwestern provides written notice and Fitzgerald fails to cure the problem within 30 days.
e) Fitzgerald engages in conduct that constitutes moral turpitude. OR
f) Fitzgerald is unavailable to perform the job, other than illness or disability. OR
g) Fitzgerald seeks employment that is not permitted in the agreement.


Since steps were being implemented to address the locker room issues, I don't see how "c" or "d" can apply. It is unclear, but unlikely that NU gave the require written notice. It also doesn't seem like "e", "f" or "g" applies.

The contract doesn't really say anything about misbehavior by the players - it doesn't seem possible that Fitzgerald could be fired if players were betting on NU games, for example. Or a player was charged with sexual assault.

So it seems to me that NU is going to have to prove that Fitzgerald was ordering his players to commit abusive acts. There may be a gray area, but the standard is definitely higher than "he should have known this was happening" because that doesn't warrant termination for cause according to their written contract.

 

[Darren72]

Part C covers a lot of ground.
I don’t know if written notice was given.

But it doesn’t really matter. They wanted him fired and were certainly aware that they be sued and have to pay part or all of his salary. Parsing the contact doesn’t change that.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Part C covers a lot of ground.
I don’t know if written notice was given.

But it doesn’t really matter. They wanted him fired and were certainly aware that they be sued and have to pay part or all of his salary. Parsing the contact doesn’t change that.

Seems exceedingly unlikely that the 10-day notice was given given the public timeline. Fitz also claims no such written notice in his filing.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Part C covers a lot of ground.
I don’t know if written notice was given.

But it doesn’t really matter. They wanted him fired and were certainly aware that they be sued and have to pay part or all of his salary. Parsing the contact doesn’t change that.

If they just wanted him fired, they should have just bought out his contract. It seems like the cheaper option than getting sued for damages.

 

[Darren72]

If they just wanted him fired, they should have just bought out his contract. It seems like the cheaper option than getting sued for damages.

I guess that tells you what they think the likelihood of having to pay out more than the balance of the contract is.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I guess that tells you what they think the likelihood of having to pay out more than the balance of the contract is.

No, it tells me that Schill didn't think this through at all.

This decision seems to have been all his.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

I guess that tells you what they think the likelihood of having to pay out more than the balance of the contract is.

No way that happens unless they have some bombshell they found out in the 48 hours subsequent to the initial suspension. If they had that bombshell he wouldn’t have sued, Schill is incompetent.

 

[FanatiCat]

No, it tells me that Schill didn't think this through at all.

This decision seems to have been all his.

Schill admitted publicly in an interview that the firing decision was his and his alone, made after he read the report in the 48 hours following July 10 (which unbelievably he hadn’t read before). So I also suspect he hadn’t read Fitz’s entire employment contract nor did he consult the university’s HR department or legal counsel regarding the specific requirements and timeline for termination with cause.

I suspect Fitz is doing this with no intention of getting $130MM but with intention of getting his original buyout AND public exoneration. If he just asked for his original buyout then NU would either 1) offer to settle for less, or 2) offer him the original buyout but on condition that he could never take anything public.

 

[IGNORE2]

The fun part is that the lawsuits attack from both sides. Increases the likelihood that someone will make it into the discovery process and hopefully the leaks will flow. 🤞

 

[NUCat320]

Schill admitted publicly in an interview that the firing decision was his and his alone, made after he read the report in the 48 hours following July 10 (which unbelievably he hadn’t read before). So I also suspect he hadn’t read Fitz’s entire employment contract nor did he consult the university’s HR department or legal counsel regarding the specific requirements and timeline for termination with cause.

I suspect Fitz is doing this with no intention of getting $130MM but with intention of getting his original buyout AND public exoneration. If he just asked for his original buyout then NU would either 1) offer to settle for less, or 2) offer him the original buyout but on condition that he could never take anything public.

“Total exoneration” seems totally impossible, unless you believe that a head coach has literally zero impact on team culture.

 

[corbi296]

Schill admitted publicly in an interview that the firing decision was his and his alone, made after he read the report in the 48 hours following July 10 (which unbelievably he hadn’t read before). So I also suspect he hadn’t read Fitz’s entire employment contract nor did he consult the university’s HR department or legal counsel regarding the specific requirements and timeline for termination with cause.

I suspect Fitz is doing this with no intention of getting $130MM but with intention of getting his original buyout AND public exoneration. If he just asked for his original buyout then NU would either 1) offer to settle for less, or 2) offer him the original buyout but on condition that he could never take anything public.

I’ll wager money that FItz gets meaningfully more than his entire contract. My guess is somewhere between $75-100MM.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

“Total exoneration” seems totally impossible, unless you believe that a head coach has literally zero impact on team culture.

Total exoneration is not possible, I agree.

But the thing is, Fitzgerald had a pretty stellar reputation as a human being and Schill really went out of his way (unnecessarily) to try to ruin that reputation. I can tell you that when I received a letter via email from Michael Schill, as a parent of a Northwestern student, I was deeply offended by what he wrote. "It was the only moral thing to do." Essentially, he was claiming that anyone who disagreed with him is "immoral." That sort of crap is incredibly sanctimonious and I have zero respect for Schill because of it.

As a supporter of Fitzgerald based on the facts as I know them, I remain concerned that NU has something resembling a smoking gun that was not part of the initial report. They are not obligated to turn that information over to Fitzgeralds counsel (as I understand it) and could just be waiting for Fitzgerald to bring his lawsuit. On the other hand, the (apparent) fact that they never gave Fitzgerald the initial report strikes me as a very bad fact for Northwestern.

I am willing to change my mind, I still think it is possible that Fitzgerald was ordering the alleged mistreatment. But if NU can't prove that, they need to pay him.

 

[corbi296]

Total exoneration is not possible, I agree.

But the thing is, Fitzgerald had a pretty stellar reputation as a human being and Schill really went out of his way (unnecessarily) to try to ruin that reputation. I can tell you that when I received a letter via email from Michael Schill, as a parent of a Northwestern student, I was deeply offended by what he wrote. "It was the only moral thing to do." Essentially, he was claiming that anyone who disagreed with him is "immoral." That sort of crap is incredibly sanctimonious and I have zero respect for Schill because of it.

As a supporter of Fitzgerald based on the facts as I know them, I remain concerned that NU has something resembling a smoking gun that was not part of the initial report. They are not obligated to turn that information over to Fitzgeralds counsel (as I understand it) and could just be waiting for Fitzgerald to bring his lawsuit. On the other hand, the (apparent) fact that they never gave Fitzgerald the initial report strikes me as a very bad fact for Northwestern.

I am willing to change my mind, I still think it is possible that Fitzgerald was ordering the alleged mistreatment. But if NU can't prove that, they need to pay him.

I am willing to wager there is no smoking gun.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I am willing to wager there is no smoking gun.

The report found no evidence that Fitz knew. That was even stated by Schill himself.

If NU has a smoking gun, it's something other than what's in that report.

 

[WaveJumper]

I’ll wager money that FItz gets meaningfully more than his entire contract. My guess is somewhere between $75-100MM.

I have the same opinion after reading his complaint. My feeling, after reading the complaint, was I would not want to have to defend Schill's action on the basis of termination with cause (that dog don't hunt). This smells like termination WITHOUT cause. If that's the case, he's probably holding all of the high cards, and again, if I was him, upon advice from consul, I would extract the most painful amount in a settlement, or let it go to a jury. Starting to like Dan Webb!

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I have the same opinion after reading his complaint. My feeling, after reading the complaint, was I would not want to have to defend Schill's action on the basis of termination with cause (that dog don't hunt). This smells like termination WITHOUT cause. If that's the case, he's probably holding all of the high cards, and again, if I was him, upon advice from consul, I would extract the most painful amount in a settlement, or let it go to a jury. Starting to like Dan Webb!

I do wonder if Fitzgerald will seek to extract pain from Schill instead of the university.
You never know what people will do, but Fitzgerald clearly loved Northwestern and potentially has reasons to despise Schill - depending on what really happened.

I wonder how many millions of dollars Fitzgerald would forego to see Schill fired? It seems like it has to be very personal at this point.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Total exoneration is not possible, I agree.

But the thing is, Fitzgerald had a pretty stellar reputation as a human being and Schill really went out of his way (unnecessarily) to try to ruin that reputation. I can tell you that when I received a letter via email from Michael Schill, as a parent of a Northwestern student, I was deeply offended by what he wrote. "It was the only moral thing to do." Essentially, he was claiming that anyone who disagreed with him is "immoral." That sort of crap is incredibly sanctimonious and I have zero respect for Schill because of it.

As a supporter of Fitzgerald based on the facts as I know them, I remain concerned that NU has something resembling a smoking gun that was not part of the initial report. They are not obligated to turn that information over to Fitzgeralds counsel (as I understand it) and could just be waiting for Fitzgerald to bring his lawsuit. On the other hand, the (apparent) fact that they never gave Fitzgerald the initial report strikes me as a very bad fact for Northwestern.

I am willing to change my mind, I still think it is possible that Fitzgerald was ordering the alleged mistreatment. But if NU can't prove that, they need to pay him.

There is a zero percent chance that Fitz would ever knowingly order the hazing of one of his players. Zero.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

I do wonder if Fitzgerald will seek to extract pain from Schill instead of the university.
You never know what people will do, but Fitzgerald clearly loved Northwestern and potentially has reasons to despise Schill - depending on what really happened.

I wonder how many millions of dollars Fitzgerald would forego to see Schill fired? It seems like it has to be very personal at this point.

I mean… I would love my wife right up until the moment I found she was cheating on me. Not difficult to see how Fitz’s general attitude towards NU would change quite drastically and quite quickly.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I mean… I would love my wife right up until the moment I found she was cheating on me. Not difficult to see how Fitz’s general attitude towards NU would change quite drastically and quite quickly.

Sure, but his son is attending Northwestern. And he (Pat Fitzgerald) is going to support his son. It isn't a great situation for a family to be in. You don't want to trash your kid's school.

There is a zero percent chance that Fitz would ever knowingly order the hazing of one of his players. Zero.

I respect your confidence in Pat Fitzgerald, my own ability to read people says "of course."
But I almost never say there's a zero percent chance of anything!
And I've been wrong before, so I'll put it at 20% chance, primarily the possibility that Fitzgerald didn't consider punishing guys for failing to uphold team standards to be "hazing."

 

[thewildcat2011]

Sure, but his son is attending Northwestern. And he (Pat Fitzgerald) is going to support his son. It isn't a great situation for a family to be in. You don't want to trash your kid's school.



I respect your confidence in Pat Fitzgerald, my own ability to read people says "of course."
But I almost never say there's a zero percent chance of anything!
And I've been wrong before, so I'll put it at 20% chance, primarily the possibility that Fitzgerald didn't consider punishing guys for failing to uphold team standards to be "hazing."

I don’t think Jack will be attending NU next year.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Sure, but his son is attending Northwestern. And he (Pat Fitzgerald) is going to support his son. It isn't a great situation for a family to be in. You don't want to trash your kid's school.

1) Pretty sure NU as an institution is going to be just fine.
2) I also suspect that Jack won’t be an NU student for long, would imagine he transfers to an Ivy as soon as the season/quarter wraps.

I respect your confidence in Pat Fitzgerald, my own ability to read people says "of course."
But I almost never say there's a zero percent chance of anything!
And I've been wrong before, so I'll put it at 20% chance, primarily the possibility that Fitzgerald didn't consider punishing guys for failing to uphold team standards to be "hazing."

Zero percent chance.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

1) Pretty sure NU as an institution is going to be just fine.
2) I also suspect that Jack won’t be an NU student for long, would imagine he transfers to an Ivy as soon as the season/quarter wraps.



Zero percent chance.

Because I try to help people, I'll caution you to avoid Las Vegas and online wagering.

But, as I said, I respect your confidence in Pat Fitzgerald.

I hope you're right.

 

[WaveJumper]

I think the complaint speaks loudly and clearly how Pat Fitzgerald intends to go forward. Being just a tad vengeful myself, I totally understand and agree with going for the jugular. Schill, and NU set the tone for this (NU backed him didn't they?). If I were him, my loyalty would come to a dead stop right then. There is no loyalty involved - it's DEAD.

Did Schill/NU really expect an all-American middle linebacker to just fade away? Pretty naive. With the advice from consul, go big, or go home!

 

[fcmchi]

I’ll wager money that FItz gets meaningfully more than his entire contract. My guess is somewhere between $75-100MM.

Corbi,

Unless Fitz’s lawsuit goes to a jury verdict, I don’t think we’ll ever find out what the settlement amount is.

As a private university NU is not required to disclose the amount of any settlement. And they aren’t subject to FOI requests.

I’d guess NU requires a non-disclosure agreement in the event if a settlement. And if Fitz receives the amounts being discussed he will gladly agree to it. And at the press conference at Webb’s office following the settlement Fitz will say with a big s… eating grin on his face, “All matters in controversy have been agreeably settled by myself and NU. And pursuant to the terms of that agreement I am not allowed to say how much I may have received.”

 

[thewildcat2011]

I think the complaint speaks loudly and clearly how Pat Fitzgerald intends to go forward. Being just a tad vengeful myself, I totally understand and agree with going for the jugular. Schill, and NU set the tone for this (NU backed him didn't they?). If I were him, my loyalty would come to a dead stop right then. There is no loyalty involved - it's DEAD.

Did Schill/NU really expect an all-American middle linebacker to just fade away? Pretty naive. With the advice from consul, go big, or go home!

I love the energy in the last couple of posts, but it is “counsel”.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I love the energy in the last couple of posts, but it is “counsel”.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

 

[WaveJumper]

I love the energy in the last couple of posts, but it is “counsel”.

Glad the misspelling didn't detract from the message. It's also possible that I could have made it a piece of furniture, or maybe an expression of sympathy.

 

[curdog]

Corbi,

Unless Fitz’s lawsuit goes to a jury verdict, I don’t think we’ll ever find out what the settlement amount is.

As a private university NU is not required to disclose the amount of any settlement. And they aren’t subject to FOI requests.

I’d guess NU requires a non-disclosure agreement in the event if a settlement. And if Fitz receives the amounts being discussed he will gladly agree to it. And at the press conference at Webb’s office following the settlement Fitz will say with a big s… eating grin on his face, “All matters in controversy have been agreeably settled by myself and NU. And pursuant to the terms of that agreement I am not allowed to say how much I may have received.”

About the non-disclosure, what if someone
I’m Fitz orbit tells a reporter the figure. Wouldn’t the reporter keep it confidential (protecting sources)?

 

[fcmchi]

About the non-disclosure, what if someone
I’m Fitz orbit tells a reporter the figure. Wouldn’t the reporter keep it confidential (protecting sources)?

That could happen but the non-disclosures I’ve seen call for penalties if there is disclosure. And if Fitz gets in the high tens of millions he probably wouldn’t want to risk losing the money.

He can of course refuse to sign a no -disclosure agreement. Then they either go to trial or his side or NU’s side blinks first and he signs the disclosure or there isn’t a non-disclosure agreement.

 

[IGNORE2]

That could happen but the non-disclosures I’ve seen call for penalties if there is disclosure. And if Fitz gets in the high tens of millions he probably wouldn’t want to risk losing the money.

He can of course refuse to sign a no -disclosure agreement. Then they either go to trial or his side or NU’s side blinks first and he signs the disclosure or there isn’t a non-disclosure agreement.

If PF is truly innocent, and already independently wealthy, then he should stand his ground and instead of standard settlement language that continues to deny any liability, PF should demand NU publicly acknowledge fault and apologize.

A simple cost of defense hidden settlement says he is one guilty top alpha male.

 

[curdog]

If PF is truly innocent, and already independently wealthy, then he should stand his ground and instead of standard settlement language that continues to deny any liability, PF should demand NU publicly acknowledge fault and apologize.

A simple cost of defense hidden settlement says he is one guilty top alpha male.

So if NU agrees to the $130mm Fitz should go to trial? Makes sense.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

If PF is truly innocent, and already independently wealthy, then he should stand his ground and instead of standard settlement language that continues to deny any liability, PF should demand NU publicly acknowledge fault and apologize.

A simple cost of defense hidden settlement says he is one guilty top alpha male.

Why not just agree to settle and include a public apology as a condition for settling?

One thing I noticed in parsing the wording of Fitzgerald's lawsuit...

Northwestern actually did have Gragg negotiating a punishment and the terms thereof, prior to the Friday afternoon announcement that Fitzgerald was being suspended for two weeks. That seems pretty well documented, since Fitzgerald's agent and legal counsel were involved. Fitzgerald's attorneys attempt to establish as fact that Gragg told them the matter would be closed with no further punishment if Fitzgerald did what they requested. If thats true, it strikes me as a binding oral agreement.

As part of that agreement, Northwestern wrote a "statement of support" for the football program for Fitzgerald to release publicly. That is the statement that some people here have claimed (ad nauseum) that "proved" Fitzgerald was derelict in apologizing and accepting responsibility. Again, Northwestern wrote the statement. I find that rather amusing, given the rantings of some on this message board. (I'm not talking about you, IGNORE2)

However, the thing I noticed in Fitzgerald's filing is that prior to public release, Fitzgerald admits to editing that statement. The attorneys declare (as fact) that Fitzgerald's agent told Northwestern they had edited the official statement. The possibility exists that Fitzgerald altered the statement Northwestern wrote without telling them, which could possibly be a breach of their oral agreement.

Lastly, this lawsuit is really not about "innocence." Its about breach of an employment contract. Fitzgerald has a solid argument that he did everything he could to make sure there was no hazing - based purely on the protocols they established in the program. Whether he was covering his ass or was vehemently anti-hazing is somewhat irrelevant.

Northwestern needs to prove that Fitzgerald knew there was bad stuff going on and did nothing to stop it. Because short of that, there's no termination "for cause." And if Fitzgerald really didn't know, the defamation damages are like taking candy from a shrill little baby.

 

[IGNORE2]

So if NU agrees to the $130mm Fitz should go to trial? Makes sense.

I don’t know of any super alpha males that would allow their reputation to be tarnished so badly for big money - especially when they are already idly rich.

Let’s see - super alpha male agrees to be tagged as facilitating the sexual harassment of young men for meaningless money - somebody around here would say that should not make sense. Where’s our super alpha male expert?

Or maybe the super alpha male only objects to hazing, not the permanent stain upon their name and reputation as long as they get meaningless money…

So bizarre, so hard to understand this super alpha male dude.

 

[nickcat4]

I don’t know of any super alpha males that would allow their reputation to be tarnished so badly for big money - especially when they are already idly rich.

Let’s see - super alpha male agrees to be tagged as facilitating the sexual harassment of young men for meaningless money - somebody around here would say that should not make sense. Where’s our super alpha male expert?

Or maybe the super alpha male only objects to hazing, not the permanent stain upon their name and reputation as long as they get meaningless money…

So bizarre, so hard to understand this super alpha male dude.

Wtf are you kidding!

 

[Frabjous]

What a chickenspit response from the Schills at the university.

Release the damned report and let us see for ourselves!

As Bob Weir said, look out, here comes some free advice.
Schill might agree to release the damned report, with the ok of Pat Fitzgerald. If Schill won’t release the report, it will look like he is hiding something; if Fitz won’t agree to release the report, it will look like he is hiding something. Win/win for us interested bystanders!
But, litigation being a machine you enter as a cow and exit as a sausage, the attorneys will nod sagely and run up a massive bill in discovery, then release the report, then settle.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

"This is a personal attack and will be removed in 2 days."

So now, if somebody makes a really dumb statement no one is allowed to point out that it is a dumb statement?

"Buie is terrible."
"You're crazy." DELETE

 

[CappyNU]

"This is a personal attack and will be removed in 2 days."

So now, if somebody makes a really dumb statement no one is allowed to point out that it is a dumb statement?

"Buie is terrible."
"You're crazy." DELETE

Yes, if there is nothing else to the post other than to criticize the poster, it will be considered a personal attack and eventually removed. Clearly people will complain about any approach I take, so for now my approach is to make it clear what will be removed before doing so.

I'm happy to go back to the original approach of just removing things though if the warning is making you upset.