The Ohio State Scandal - Urban Liars Tweet
- Thread starter RollWave08
- Start date
It will be good when all the facts come out and a less emotional perspective/decision can be arrived at. In today's environment, any perceived "insensitivity" to sexual harassment/abuse instantly calls for heads to roll, fair or not. What does this mean for the everyday manager that becomes aware that one of his employees is potentially a harasser/abuser - not at the place of employment but in their personal life? Is the manager and the employer now judge and jury outside the legal system? Seems to me to be a very slippery slope.
Many millions of dollars have been spent to defend the at-will employment doctrine, where an employer can fire an employee for whatever they damn well want, but all of a sudden now people are worried that wife beaters might get fired too quickly? Lol.
Y’all are funny today.
Firing someone for what they do on their own time off company property can still leave the employer open to legal action AFAIK. Firing someone for any reason other than documented poor job performance or economic / business reasons can be extremely problematical. Absent a contractual morals clause, that is.
If an employee is at will, the employer may terminate him or her for any reason or no reason at all, except for a set of narrowly construed bad reasons. Of course, the employee can terminate the relationship too, but the economic disparity between the parties tends to favor the employer on a macro level.
I'm no fan of Urban, but the fact that PV released this makes me actually MORE inclined to believe UM did nothing wrong. They're only a step above Infowars as far as journalism is concerned. And at least I don't believe Alex Jones has a criminal conviction as yet....
Amazing how blogs can go in a direction not anticipated. My comment wasn't intended to question the dismissal of the coach but rather to explore the current social climate which tasks managers with monitoring the personal lives of their employees. Perhaps the employer may have the right to take action relative to their perception of an employee's personal life, but it seems that employers would prefer the legal system to work rather than making them investigator, judge and jury.
This and exactly this. Meyer lied about his knowledge of the situation, but was it his legal responsibility to prosecute this for his employer? He claims to have reported it via "the proper channels", so it would seem that, from a legal perspective, he did his duty.
And what about the police not arresting Smth after the 2015 incident? If they failed in their duty, is it UM's job to protect a woman from his employee? Even if UM fires Smith in 2015, he still can go after his ex wife because there is no legal protection.
I don't know enough about Title IX to know how it applies when the victim is not affiliated with the institution (I assume that Courtney Smith, unlike Shelley Meyer, was not employed at OSU). But geez, without some time of legal action--arrest, charge, restraining order, etc.--what can UM or OSU do?
UM should be taken to task for lying about this. But condemning him for not policing the private life of his employee seems a stretch. But in this climate, my guess is that he gets fired.
He is the face of the university. He installed a huge sign that says respect women. He lied about knowing one of his assistants beat his wife. UM’a wife was in constant co tact with the abused wife and said she was scared for her. Unless you believe his UM’s wife never mentioned any of this to urban, how can you justify keeping him around. Also, his baggage from Florida has to come in to play here. Urban is toast. It’s just a matter of whether he is fired for cause or not
None of those things would matter in a court of law. They all matter in a court of public opinion.
Winning is the most important criteria for a Coach at OSU. Have this and you can turn a blind eye to other things.
Exactly. He fired the guy eventually and did a half assed apology. They will internally think about places like MSU PSU Miss, Baylor, etc and ride it out. Surely there will be no hue and cry from inside the state of Ohio. Football coaches are the highest paid employee in like 35 states, and bball coaches several others.
After the Tressel fiasco, I’m not sure UM will be spared.
I don’t really have an opinion yet on whether he should be fired. Unlike some, I am keeping my pitchfork in the barn for now. And the decision is above my pay grade. I am more interested in the legal questions surrounding this.
I can't see the initials UM without first thinking Michigan. It is very confusing to my feeble mind.
I don’t beleive UM gets fired for this. Football is way to important to OSU to fire the HC for the actions of his subordinate on personal time outside the walls of OSU. He will get suspended for lying but I highly doubt it will last into the competitive part of the schedule.
Which strongly suggests OSU would likely owe him the balance of his contract if he does not voluntarily resign - and another reason UM will most likely not be fired.
Sins of omission based on a controversial application of Title IX may not give OSU what would be required to constitute legally upheld cause,
Has it been reported how much OSU might owe a departing Urban Meyer?
Last edited:
I do not know if it is correct, but one of the commentators on TV said that there is $44 million left on his contract.
It’s not about the lie nor is it directly about the actions of his subordinate. It’s about a manager knowing that one his team members was engaged in criminal behavior and not reporting it.
I disagree that the "current climate" (whatever that means) tasks managers with monitoring the personal lives of employees. I don't think anyone expects Meyer or a manager to actively keep tabs on what employees are doing. It's not a situation where people are saying a manager "should have known" (i.e., placing investigative duty on a manager), but rather that if a manager does in fact know, then there might be some duty to act. It's very possible that Meyer did what he was supposed to by running it up the chain, in which case I doubt anything happens to him. The moral/ethical question of whether he should escape this unscathed is a completely different one. I, personally, would not want a wife beater as a colleague and would appreciate a management team that feels the same way.
You also keep using the legalistic "judge and jury" phrasing. I fail to see how firing an employee for being a wife beater is akin to the manager taking legal action against said wife beater. A manager in that event is simply saying "I do not want to employ someone like you," not sending the person to jail.
Last edited:
OK, I feel I should step in here to, for once, add some insight in an area in which I am (actually) an expert. I have been an employment defense attorney for 15 years. I worked for big law firms for the first half of my career, and have been in-house at corporations since. In both roles, I stood as the advocate and defender of employers, both in lawsuits and, most importantly for this discussion, in preventing them.
It is not an employer's affirmative responsibility to pay any attention at all to the personal lives of its employees. However, when something from an employee's personal life comes to the employer's knowledge, the employer has to make a decision as to how it may affect the company. Let's say, for example, that rumors start in the office that an employee is a spousal abuser - maybe that police were called to the employee's house, or that his wife has a black eye, or whatever combo. This obviously has *nothing* to do with work. But, it does present issues for an employer.
If any employee who is "management level" or above has knowledge of bad acts of another employee - regardless of whether those are actions in the course of one's work or not - the knowledge is imputed to the company, and, thus, the company can be sued if something goes awry. There is a (good) argument to be made that if someone is a spousal abuser (or there is enough rumor in innuendo that one is), that an employer has knowledge that this person is a potential problem in the workplace. *If* something negative happened involving the alleged abuser with a co-worker (not even rising to the level of violence of any sort), the employer could be dragged into court over basically allowing an unsafe work environment to exist by knowingly employing said abuser.
It is all a question of risk. We live in an at-will country as far as employment goes. There need be no arrest, no court case involving this abuser and abuser's spouse, no need to "let the justice system solve it." The employer must make what is often a mild-risk but potential heavy-cost determination. I can tell you that larger employers will tend to just dismiss this alleged abuser rather than deal with the risk and potential bullshit. And I believe that - purely from a defense and risk perspective - to be the correct decision in a general sense.
I am sure I have not addressed this squarely and completely, so please feel free to grill me. It's my job!
It is not an employer's affirmative responsibility to pay any attention at all to the personal lives of its employees. However, when something from an employee's personal life comes to the employer's knowledge, the employer has to make a decision as to how it may affect the company. Let's say, for example, that rumors start in the office that an employee is a spousal abuser - maybe that police were called to the employee's house, or that his wife has a black eye, or whatever combo. This obviously has *nothing* to do with work. But, it does present issues for an employer.
If any employee who is "management level" or above has knowledge of bad acts of another employee - regardless of whether those are actions in the course of one's work or not - the knowledge is imputed to the company, and, thus, the company can be sued if something goes awry. There is a (good) argument to be made that if someone is a spousal abuser (or there is enough rumor in innuendo that one is), that an employer has knowledge that this person is a potential problem in the workplace. *If* something negative happened involving the alleged abuser with a co-worker (not even rising to the level of violence of any sort), the employer could be dragged into court over basically allowing an unsafe work environment to exist by knowingly employing said abuser.
It is all a question of risk. We live in an at-will country as far as employment goes. There need be no arrest, no court case involving this abuser and abuser's spouse, no need to "let the justice system solve it." The employer must make what is often a mild-risk but potential heavy-cost determination. I can tell you that larger employers will tend to just dismiss this alleged abuser rather than deal with the risk and potential bullshit. And I believe that - purely from a defense and risk perspective - to be the correct decision in a general sense.
I am sure I have not addressed this squarely and completely, so please feel free to grill me. It's my job!
This pales dramatically in comparison to what happened at PSU. They were back to normal in what? Two seasons maybe three. We’ll see what happens, but I suspect not much.
Thanks for the added perspective. Would you not agree that from a strictly "interference with the work place" perspective the facts as they have been alleged in the present matter would seem to require an expanded view of just what constitutes the "work place" ? Was the coach creating a problem in the "work place" shared by Urban Meyer as a consequence of his misconduct?
That’s really not the point. At PSU people were fired and I believe also convicted. I am not arguing that OSU’s program will suffer long term from this. That's really irrelevant. The point is that Meyer’s alleged conduct would make it hard for OSU to retain him.
Under the allegations as we know them now, Meyer knew about the allegations and discussed them with Smith. Smith's wife may have even provided physical evidence to Meyer's wife. Meyer told Smith "I'll fire you if I find out you hit her, I swear," or something like that.
Stepping outside of the university football program and back into the corporate life with which I am familiar, let's say an EVP at a company found out that an SVP-level person was allegedly a woman-beater, and that there was even a little "more" than just rumor and innuendo. As the company attorney, I would - and I am generalizing here, as every situation is completely fact-dependent - advise that we seriously, seriously consider terminating the alleged beater's employment, because at this point, the company *has knowledge* that it at least *may* have a dangerous person on its hands, and if anything at all were to happen with anyone else in the company and this alleged beater, the company would be up shit's creek if it knew it had a possible problem child and did zero about it.
Moreover, if the EVP learned this and did not report it up the ladder to HR or to her superior, I'd be inclined to talk about terminating the EVP, too.
Far be it from me to defend a Buckeye.
However, from what I understand:
1) Smith was called in by the AD presumably with Urban's knowledge to discuss the allegations
2) Meyer personally called him out and asked him wtf was going on, and told him he would be fired immediately if the allegations were true
3) Smith told Meyer he never hit his wife
4) The cops let Smith go - we can only presume there was no evidence (as alluded by Smith's comments that records would show what happened), but this begins to corroborate Smith's comments
5) Meyer lied later about no one having told him about the 2015 incident, but later recanted and apologized
I'm usually all for skipping the trial and hanging a Buckeye, but let's not jump to conclusions that Meyer willingly looked the other way here. It seems no charges were filed at the time of the incident and Meyer very well could have believed Smith that nothing criminal had happened.
To this day, Smith is denying hitting his wife and says the police records will support that.
I'm not saying Meyer is innocent (or Smith), but I do know people who have been shamelessly falsely accused by women with no sense of decency who hold a grudge. I was called into a bullshit sexual assault trial myself during college to testify as a witness as to what happened (or more precisely what I did not at all witness - though I was never called to the stand as the judge threw out the case before it got to me), so I know first hand this happens. And another friend of mine was falsely accused of rape at school, and his ex-girlfriend's sorority sister shared how the so called victim knowingly lied to get back at him and admitted it to her sisters, but well after the guy was kicked out of school. I don't know enough about what happened here to hang this Buckeye, and will allow the investigations including any criminal ones play their course before rushing to judgment.
If Smith did hit his wife, and Meyer knew it, then of course he should be fired. I'm not sure that's what happened here yet.
This “trial” will take place in the court of public opinion, in terms of whether Meyer keeps his job (whether he will get his money if he is fired will be a legal matter).
He is the face of the university and he lied about not knowing one of his coaches was abusive to his wife. And kept him on staff for 9 years knowing he abused his wife. No way he keeps his job. Those texts to Shelley Meyer are just too damaging
OSU students will be returning to campus likely before this is resolved. Let’s see what, if anything, they do to express their feelings on the matter....
4) The cops let Smith go - we can only presume there was no evidence (as alluded by Smith's comments that records would show what happened), but this begins to corroborate Smith's comments
That's one thing you could presume, but it's far from the "only" thing. You could just as easily presume that Smith said to the arresting officer, "C'mon man, you know how women are. I barely touched her. I was drunk and things got a little out of hand. Do me a solid here, and I'll get you a couple of 50-yard-line seats and maybe a autographed picture of JT Barrett."
That's one thing you could presume, but it's far from the "only" thing. You could just as easily presume that Smith said to the arresting officer, "C'mon man, you know how women are. I barely touched her. I was drunk and things got a little out of hand. Do me a solid here, and I'll get you a couple of 50-yard-line seats and maybe a autographed picture of JT Barrett."
Does the employer have any exposure for terminating an “at will” employee based on false grounds that would lead to damaged reputation? It would seem a public termination for an unsubstantiated allegation (investigated by the police and where the accuser chose not to press charges) could expose the The OSU to massive litigation. It may be legally fine to fire an “at will” employee for no reason at all, but does that mean it’s okay to fire an employee under false pretenses especially when it leads to a total destruction of reputation (and loss of career)?
Smith was not a middle manager in a boring company job where he was anonymous. He had a very public job and the reason for termination would inevitably become public (unless the separation of employment was secured under an NDA perhaps with a bogus story of the employee leaving for another opportunity).
Somewhat of a conflation of situations above as Smith was almost certainly not at will but under contract. Most likely he was fired for cause regardless of whether or not allegations end up being true (for example, the employment agreements I do for sports execs on the team side have a variety of cause triggers that would be tripped in this situation long before a conviction). Absent a claim for wrongful termination/breach of contract, I think Smith’s recourse in suing OSU would be based in tort...good luck there.
Last edited:
As I stated somewhere else on this board (I think in this thread) and have others, an at-will employer can terminate an employee for any reason they want so long as it is not a constitutionally protected reason. Period. If the employee doesn't like it, the options are to negotiate a term contract that has for-cause provisions (if it's got a length of time the contract last, it's a term contract) or to join a collective bargaining unit.
Otherwise, both employer and employee are free to end the contractual relationship whenever each wishes. The problem, of course, is that the employer is far likelier to have the economic flexibility and resources to replace the employee far more quickly than the employee will find a suitable replacement employer.
No - there would be no exposure if the employer was simply "wrong" as to whether the guy was a wife beater or not. That part doesn't matter.
What if OSU stated “the cause” for termination? Could they be sued if that reason was false?
I’m not suggesting they did not have the right to fire him. Did they have the right to defame him?
