Unanswerable question

[gocatsgo2003]

I don’t deny that CR has an axe to grind. Nor do I champion him as a person.

But you have a dozen former players that acknowledge the hazing, former team managers, Lou’s source. Too much for coincidence.

Guilty people lie all the time. Much rarer for groups of people to coordinate a lie to attack someone, particularly a very popular person. It’s not like PF was DJT.

So combine those accusations with the lack of denials across the thousands of former players and personnel (some speak to PF character but fail to deny the accusations) - that is pretty convincing. That will when every jury that I have ever paneled. So better hope PF has some fantastic defense because he won’t have a jury of apostles.

But, again, none of those guys actually made complaints regarding hazing despite the various potential reporting avenues available (at least according to Fitz’s complaint). It would also not be in NU’s best interest to come out and say “well, actually, there were some previous reports but we didn’t do anything about them.”

The whole crux of the issue is whether or not those questionable acts were technically “hazing” or more “football players doing dumb shit in the locker room.” The biggest thing that seems to have changed was Richardson deciding he wanted to get Fitz fired, potentially exaggerating, then additional disgruntled players feeling empowered to tack on their own lawsuits.

Regardless, the actual underlying events are almost incidental to Fitz’s core claims for breach of contract. The veracity/severity of the underlying events would have more impact on his other claims. While I’m not a lawyer, Fitz’s breach of contract claims seem pretty straightforward — NU’s investigation didn’t show that I knew about hazing and I accepted a 2-week suspension understanding that was the entirety of the punishment, then they turned around and fired me with cause (though not identifying the provision to substantiate the firing) without new information coming to light. That’s pretty textbook breach of contract as I understand it.

 

[IGNORE2]

But, again, none of those guys actually made complaints regarding hazing despite the various potential reporting avenues available (at least according to Fitz’s complaint). It would also not be in NU’s best interest to come out and say “well, actually, there were some previous reports but we didn’t do anything about them.”

The whole crux of the issue is whether or not those questionable acts were technically “hazing” or more “football players doing dumb shit in the locker room.” The biggest thing that seems to have changed was Richardson deciding he wanted to get Fitz fired, potentially exaggerating, then additional disgruntled players feeling empowered to tack on their own lawsuits.

Regardless, the actual underlying events are almost incidental to Fitz’s core claims for breach of contract. The veracity/severity of the underlying events would have more impact on his other claims. While I’m not a lawyer, Fitz’s breach of contract claims seem pretty straightforward — NU’s investigation didn’t show that I knew about hazing and I accepted a 2-week suspension understanding that was the entirety of the punishment, then they turned around and fired me with cause (though not identifying the provision to substantiate the firing) without new information coming to light. That’s pretty textbook breach of contract as I understand it.

I find interesting that you view law, something evolved over time through jurisprudence and interpretation to be textbook but hazing is a vague concept…

Anyway, I hope the discovery process starts soon. Can’t wait for the leaks.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

I find interesting that you view law, something evolved over time through jurisprudence and interpretation to be textbook but hazing is a vague concept…

Anyway, I hope the discovery process starts soon. Can’t wait for the leaks.

You’re a lawyer, right? What am I missing?

 

[curdog]

I find interesting that you view law, something evolved over time through jurisprudence and interpretation to be textbook but hazing is a vague concept…

Anyway, I hope the discovery process starts soon. Can’t wait for the leaks.

What is hazing has been discussed ad nauseum on this board. Just about any forced activity is considered hazing (like forcing freshman to sing fight song or running backs to carry a football with them to class). There is benign forced activity and then there is car wash, shriek claps and whatever else. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

What is hazing has been discussed ad nauseum on this board. Just about any forced activity is considered hazing (like forcing freshman to sing fight song or running backs to carry a football with them to class). There is benign forced activity and then there is car wash, shriek claps and whatever else. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

Because he is a PF hater, always has been. Add in the fuel that he dislikes most posters that are supporting PF as being unjustifiably canned and you have the perfect storm for Bob. Kill two birds with one stone!

 

[IGNORE2]

You’re a lawyer, right? What am I missing?

I am. An education.

 

[IGNORE2]

What is hazing has been discussed ad nauseum on this board. Just about any forced activity is considered hazing (like forcing freshman to sing fight song or running backs to carry a football with them to class). There is benign forced activity and then there is car wash, shriek claps and whatever else. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

The rules are the rules whether you like or not. Or are you advocating that we can all choose to file the rules to the extent we agree with them and without repercussions?

 

[curdog]

The rules are the rules whether you like or not. Or are you advocating that we can all choose to file the rules to the extent we agree with them and without repercussions?

So requiring freshman to sing the fight song is a fireable offense?

 

[IGNORE2]

So requiring freshman to sing the fight song is a fireable offense?

1. If it breaks a rule and
2. Contract says must abide by rules
Then yes.

Your beef is misplaced. Attack the school on the rules. If unsatisfied with the results, then withhold donations or challenge loyalties or whatever.

But I’ll ask again, are you saying that people should only following the rules and laws to the extent they agree with them without repercussions?

I bet the some students would disagree with various drug and alcohol rules. Probably some that disagree writhing grading policies. If we graduate to laws, I take issue with certain tax laws. And all can rationalize their beliefs. So do you promote sanctioned lawlessness? Is this what you teach your kids / grandkids?

 

[gocatsgo2003]

I am. An education.

I was asking for your assessment of Fitz’s claims as a lawyer, especially considering you keep reminding me that my training in that area is lacking. Not exactly surprised you decided to be an asshole about it though.

Fitz’s case seems pretty straightforward to me — we had both written and oral contracts, you broke them the way that you handled the situation. Not a ton of room for interpretation there, no matter the underlying issues that led NU to make its decision. Is that wrong, in your opinion? If so, how?

 

[gocatsgo2003]

1. If it breaks a rule and
2. Contract says must abide by rules
Then yes.

Your beef is misplaced. Attack the school on the rules. If unsatisfied with the results, then withhold donations or challenge loyalties or whatever.

But I’ll ask again, are you saying that people should only following the rules and laws to the extent they agree with them without repercussions?

I bet the some students would disagree with various drug and alcohol rules. Probably some that disagree writhing grading policies. If we graduate to laws, I take issue with certain tax laws. And all can rationalize their beliefs. So do you promote sanctioned lawlessness? Is this what you teach your kids / grandkids?

But isn’t that the whole crux of Fitz’s argument?

Clause (a) under Termination for Cause is pretty straightforward — you commit 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. If Fitz had done any of these directly it would be simple to fire him for cause, but how does that work if NU’s own investigation determined that he didn’t know of any wrongdoing, to say nothing of “deliberate or serious violation?”

Clause (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 basically the same set of rules and laws. This is where it gets tricky, I think… and why I assume Schill used the phrase “should have known“ in his public statements around Fitz’s firing. That said, Fitz and his team can well point back to the investigation that determined he didn’t know of any hazing and the various reporting avenues + training methods referenced in his complaint to argue that any violations couldn’t have been “deliberate.” I suppose there’s more latitude for judgment and interpretation there, but NU sure made its case a lot more difficult with how they handled the sitauction.

 

[IGNORE2]

I was asking for your assessment of Fitz’s claims as a lawyer, especially considering you keep reminding me that my training in that area is lacking. Not exactly surprised you decided to be an asshole about it though.

Fitz’s case seems pretty straightforward to me — we had both written and oral contracts, you broke them the way that you handled the situation. Not a ton of room for interpretation there, no matter the underlying issues that led NU to make its decision. Is that wrong, in your opinion? If so, how?

Oral contract is not cut and dry. Lots of space there. He/she said regarding the terms. Was there a meeting of the minds? Is there Consideration?

PF has his version. NU will have theirs.

Written contract? Have to see what additional evidence comes out. Has NU filed an answer yet? Has PF filed an answer to the lawsuits that name him?

 

[IGNORE2]

But isn’t that the whole crux of Fitz’s argument?

Clause (a) under Termination for Cause is pretty straightforward — you commit 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. If Fitz had done any of these directly it would be simple to fire him for cause, but how does that work if NU’s own investigation determined that he didn’t know of any wrongdoing, to say nothing of “deliberate or serious violation?”

Clause (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 basically the same set of rules and laws. This is where it gets tricky, I think… and why I assume Schill used the phrase “should have known“ in his public statements around Fitz’s firing. That said, Fitz and his team can well point back to the investigation that determined he didn’t know of any hazing and the various reporting avenues + training methods referenced in his complaint to argue that any violations couldn’t have been “deliberate.” I suppose there’s more latitude for judgment and interpretation there, but NU sure made its case a lot more difficult with how they handled the sitauction.

You discuss some of the evidence but lack all of the evidence. What’s in that report? What will be in the next report?

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Oral contract is not cut and dry. Lots of space there. He/she said regarding the terms. Was there a meeting of the minds? Is there Consideration?

PF has his version. NU will have theirs.

Written contract? Have to see what additional evidence comes out. Has NU filed an answer yet? Has PF filed an answer to the lawsuits that name him?

The oral contract argument is supposedly with regard to a meeting between Gragg, Fitz, and NU’s General Counsel Stephanie Graham. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Fitz had representation there, at least his Agent Bryan Harlan. Sounds like there was also some communication back and forth after the fact, especially with respect to Fitz’s editing of the statement and confirmation that the 2-week suspension would be the extent of the punishment (Paragraphs 77 and 112 of the compliant). I suspect that there is documentary evidence to that effect, either e-mail traffic or contemporaneous notes. Paragraph 113 also discusses a phone call between Fitz’s Agent and NU’s General Counsel, so not as if there was simply a misunderstanding.

If Fitz can (or has) produced evidence or testimony that the oral contract was pretty tight and/or memorialized in any way, then that seems pretty straightforward (at least to this non-lawyer ).

The written contract is more technical based on what I can tell, basically saying that NU still hasn’t given Fitz the formal clause under which he was fired for cause without being given the 10-day cure period in clause (c) nor 30-day cure period in clause (d) nor the procedural right to a review with the President and decision within 60 days.

Really all centers on whether or not the oral contract about the 2-week submission is enforceable at all, the written contract portion seems mostly incidental.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

You discuss some of the evidence but lack all of the evidence. What’s in that report? What will be in the next report?

Everyone lacks all the evidence besides NU, because they’ve refused to release the full report to both the general public and Coach Fitz.

The full extent of the public disclosure is an official Executive Summary, which is accessible here: https://news.northwestern.edu/assets/Docs/Executive-Summary-FINAL.pdf

The pertinent section to this discussion reads: “The investigation team did not discover sufficient evidence to believe that coaching staff knew about the ongoing hazing conduct. They determined, however, that there had been significant opportunities to discover and report the hazing conduct.”

Beyond that we know that Fitz has claimed that there were only two official reports of hazing, (1) a complaint in August 2022 that was investigated by both the University and police, then dismissed as false and (2) Richardson’s complaint in November 2022, which sparked the official investigation and subsequent still secret report.

It remains striking to me the lengths to which NU has gone to keep the full report private, seemingly not even sharing the full report with Schill until late in the process. Seems like there’s some very questionable stuff in there that they do not want to be public under any circumstances.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Since you guys want to revisit hazing...

Hazing is defined in the NU Student Code of Conduct. It is also defined by the State of Illinois.
The definitions are significantly different.
I will summarize each.

State of Illinois - hazing requires physical injury. Physical. Not emotional. Not mental. Physical.

Northwestern - anything that humiliates a student, provided that the humiliation is tied to the student's being admitted to or remaining in a club or group. Hazing is (by NU's definition) restricted to conduct related to student organizations, such as fraternities, clubs or intramural teams.

And then there's the definition used by the average person, which fortunately, has no bearing whatsoever.
Basically anything that anybody does to embarrass somebody, regardless of context.

Therefore, because there was no physical injury, the State of Illinois does not call this stuff hazing.
For Northwestern, it was not hazing because the players do not control who is on the team and the varsity football team is definitely not a student organization.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Since you guys want to revisit hazing...

Hazing is defined in the NU Student Code of Conduct. It is also defined by the State of Illinois.
The definitions are significantly different.
I will summarize each.

State of Illinois - hazing requires physical injury. Physical. Not emotional. Not mental. Physical.

Northwestern - anything that humiliates a student, provided that the humiliation is tied to the student's being admitted to or remaining in a club or group. Hazing is (by NU's definition) restricted to conduct related to student organizations, such as fraternities, clubs or intramural teams.

And then there's the definition used by the average person, which fortunately, has no bearing whatsoever.
Basically anything that anybody does to embarrass somebody, regardless of context.

Therefore, because there was no physical injury, the State of Illinois does not call this stuff hazing.
For Northwestern, it was not hazing because the players do not control who is on the team and the varsity football team is definitely not a student organization.

1) That’s a highly technical argument that I don’t think would get you anywhere, probably not in a legal setting and definitely not in a PR setting.

2) It’s also flat out wrong… this is a copy/paste from the NU hazing policy site with emphasis added:

Hazing is Defined As...​

any action taken or situation created, intentionally or unintentionally, whether on or off University premises and whether presented as optional or required, to produce: mental, physical, or emotional discomfort; servitude; degradation; embarrassment; harassment; or ridicule for the purpose of initiation into, affiliation with, or admission to, or as a condition for continued membership in a group, team, or other organization, regardless of an individual’s willingness to participate. Acceptance of or consent to an activity on the part of a new member or individual does not justify an individual, organization, or group’s sponsorship of the activity

Such actions and situations may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Any physical abuse expected of or inflicted upon another, including paddling, tattooing, or branding in any form;
• Any strenuous physical activity expected of or inflicted upon another, including calisthenics or physical training as punishment;
• Creation of excessive fatigue, sleep deprivation, or interference with scholastic activities, including late night work sessions, meetings, or sleepovers;
• Physical and psychological shocks, including lineups, berating, verbal abuse, threats, and name calling;
• Sexual violations or other required, encouraged, or expected sexual activity, whether actual or simulated;
• Prolonged exposure to severe or inclement weather;
• Periods of silence or social isolation;
• Kidnapping, road trips, abandonment, scavenger hunts, or any other involuntary excursions;
• Wearing of uniforms or apparel that is conspicuous and not normally in good taste;
• Engaging in degrading or humiliating games, activities, stunts, or buffoonery; including requiring, encouraging, or expecting individuals to carry, possess, or maintain objects or items;
• Requiring or compelling the consumption of liquid (including alcohol), food, drinks, or other substances;
• Servitude or placing another in a position of servitude, including requiring, encouraging, or expecting a new member to do the tasks of, or to do tasks for, an experienced member, or to address members with honorary or formal titles;
• Taking, withholding, or interfering with an individual’s personal property;
• Falsely leading an individual or individuals to believe that they will be inducted or initiated by participating in particular activities;
• Depriving an individual of any privileges of membership or affiliation to which one is entitled;
• Removing, stealing, taking, or damaging public or private property; and
• Requiring, encouraging, or expecting individuals to participate in activities that are illegal or unlawful or are not consistent with the group’s mission or values or the policies of the University, including the Student Code of Conduct.

Note that that policy was updated in December 2021, would most likely be the set of rules applied in the hazing investigation initiated in November 2022 but perhaps some gray area that previous guidelines should have applied given when the alleged misconduct occurred.

Basically a whole shitload of stuff could well be called “hazing” under NU’s policy while the gray areas are (I) whether or not it was an optional or opt-out situation, where there was no “purpose of initiation into, affiliation with, or admission to, or as a condition for continued membership” and (II) whether Fitz and the staff did enough training and had enough reporting avenues open that they fulfilled their job requirements/duties.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Clause (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”

This only matters if Fitz or an assistant ordered a player to mistreat a teammate.
The STAFF had to commit the violation.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

1) That’s a highly technical argument that I don’t think would get you anywhere, probably not in a legal setting and definitely not in a PR setting.

2) It’s also flat out wrong… this is a copy/paste from the NU hazing policy site with emphasis added:

Hazing is Defined As...​

any action taken or situation created, intentionally or unintentionally, whether on or off University premises and whether presented as optional or required, to produce: mental, physical, or emotional discomfort; servitude; degradation; embarrassment; harassment; or ridicule for the purpose of initiation into, affiliation with, or admission to, or as a condition for continued membership in a group, team, or other organization, regardless of an individual’s willingness to participate. Acceptance of or consent to an activity on the part of a new member or individual does not justify an individual, organization, or group’s sponsorship of the activity

Such actions and situations may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Any physical abuse expected of or inflicted upon another, including paddling, tattooing, or branding in any form;
• Any strenuous physical activity expected of or inflicted upon another, including calisthenics or physical training as punishment;
• Creation of excessive fatigue, sleep deprivation, or interference with scholastic activities, including late night work sessions, meetings, or sleepovers;
• Physical and psychological shocks, including lineups, berating, verbal abuse, threats, and name calling;
• Sexual violations or other required, encouraged, or expected sexual activity, whether actual or simulated;
• Prolonged exposure to severe or inclement weather;
• Periods of silence or social isolation;
• Kidnapping, road trips, abandonment, scavenger hunts, or any other involuntary excursions;
• Wearing of uniforms or apparel that is conspicuous and not normally in good taste;
• Engaging in degrading or humiliating games, activities, stunts, or buffoonery; including requiring, encouraging, or expecting individuals to carry, possess, or maintain objects or items;
• Requiring or compelling the consumption of liquid (including alcohol), food, drinks, or other substances;
• Servitude or placing another in a position of servitude, including requiring, encouraging, or expecting a new member to do the tasks of, or to do tasks for, an experienced member, or to address members with honorary or formal titles;
• Taking, withholding, or interfering with an individual’s personal property;
• Falsely leading an individual or individuals to believe that they will be inducted or initiated by participating in particular activities;
• Depriving an individual of any privileges of membership or affiliation to which one is entitled;
• Removing, stealing, taking, or damaging public or private property; and
• Requiring, encouraging, or expecting individuals to participate in activities that are illegal or unlawful or are not consistent with the group’s mission or values or the policies of the University, including the Student Code of Conduct.

Note that that policy was updated in December 2021, would most likely be the set of rules applied in the hazing investigation initiated in November 2022 but perhaps some gray area that previous guidelines should have applied given when the alleged misconduct occurred.

Basically a whole shitload of stuff could well be called “hazing” under NU’s policy while the gray areas are (I) whether or not it was an optional or opt-out situation, where there was no “purpose of initiation into, affiliation with, or admission to, or as a condition for continued membership” and (II) whether Fitz and the staff did enough training and had enough reporting avenues open that they fulfilled their job requirements/duties.

I appreciate your interest, but I think you are incorrect.

The section that addresses hazing is contained within the section on student organizations.
"Students/organizations are expected to use good judgment to determine the abilities of individual students as they relate to organization activities and requirements. If a healthy team or organization is being created and the values and purpose of the organization are being upheld, chances are the organization will not have to worry about whether or not an activity is hazing"

This is not about varsity athletics, where students have no control over who is on the team. The teams they refer to are intramural teams, clubs, etc... formed and run by students. Hazing is defined to have meaning only in this context.

That distinction should be pretty obvious and it is important in this case.

 

[curdog]

1) That’s a highly technical argument that I don’t think would get you anywhere, probably not in a legal setting and definitely not in a PR setting.

2) It’s also flat out wrong… this is a copy/paste from the NU hazing policy site with emphasis added:

Hazing is Defined As...​

any action taken or situation created, intentionally or unintentionally, whether on or off University premises and whether presented as optional or required, to produce: mental, physical, or emotional discomfort; servitude; degradation; embarrassment; harassment; or ridicule for the purpose of initiation into, affiliation with, or admission to, or as a condition for continued membership in a group, team, or other organization, regardless of an individual’s willingness to participate. Acceptance of or consent to an activity on the part of a new member or individual does not justify an individual, organization, or group’s sponsorship of the activity

Such actions and situations may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Any physical abuse expected of or inflicted upon another, including paddling, tattooing, or branding in any form;
• Any strenuous physical activity expected of or inflicted upon another, including calisthenics or physical training as punishment;
• Creation of excessive fatigue, sleep deprivation, or interference with scholastic activities, including late night work sessions, meetings, or sleepovers;
• Physical and psychological shocks, including lineups, berating, verbal abuse, threats, and name calling;
• Sexual violations or other required, encouraged, or expected sexual activity, whether actual or simulated;
• Prolonged exposure to severe or inclement weather;
• Periods of silence or social isolation;
• Kidnapping, road trips, abandonment, scavenger hunts, or any other involuntary excursions;
• Wearing of uniforms or apparel that is conspicuous and not normally in good taste;
• Engaging in degrading or humiliating games, activities, stunts, or buffoonery; including requiring, encouraging, or expecting individuals to carry, possess, or maintain objects or items;
• Requiring or compelling the consumption of liquid (including alcohol), food, drinks, or other substances;
• Servitude or placing another in a position of servitude, including requiring, encouraging, or expecting a new member to do the tasks of, or to do tasks for, an experienced member, or to address members with honorary or formal titles;
• Taking, withholding, or interfering with an individual’s personal property;
• Falsely leading an individual or individuals to believe that they will be inducted or initiated by participating in particular activities;
• Depriving an individual of any privileges of membership or affiliation to which one is entitled;
• Removing, stealing, taking, or damaging public or private property; and
• Requiring, encouraging, or expecting individuals to participate in activities that are illegal or unlawful or are not consistent with the group’s mission or values or the policies of the University, including the Student Code of Conduct.

Note that that policy was updated in December 2021, would most likely be the set of rules applied in the hazing investigation initiated in November 2022 but perhaps some gray area that previous guidelines should have applied given when the alleged misconduct occurred.

Basically a whole shitload of stuff could well be called “hazing” under NU’s policy while the gray areas are (I) whether or not it was an optional or opt-out situation, where there was no “purpose of initiation into, affiliation with, or admission to, or as a condition for continued membership” and (II) whether Fitz and the staff did enough training and had enough reporting avenues open that they fulfilled their job requirements/duties.

As I have said repeatedly, just about any activities that are deemed a requirement could be considered hazing.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

This only matters if Fitz or an assistant ordered a player to mistreat a teammate.
The STAFF had to commit the violation.

Yes, though the defendants’ argument would probably flow through the coaches seeing and/or hearing about such activities and not reporting with such reporting also being mandatory.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

I appreciate your interest, but I think you are incorrect.

The section that addresses hazing is contained within the section on student organizations.
"Students/organizations are expected to use good judgment to determine the abilities of individual students as they relate to organization activities and requirements. If a healthy team or organization is being created and the values and purpose of the organization are being upheld, chances are the organization will not have to worry about whether or not an activity is hazing"

This is not about varsity athletics, where students have no control over who is on the team. The teams they refer to are intramural teams, clubs, etc... formed and run by students. Hazing is defined to have meaning only in this context.

That distinction should be pretty obvious and it is important in this case.

All I was doing is a copy/paste from NU’s official website with respect to hazing. Either way, while the highly technical argument you’re making may well have merit, I don’t think it is one that NU would have real interest in making publicly because they would get absolutely hammered from a PR perspective. ”Yeah, well, we know that we have this whole hazing thing but it doesn’t apply here. Tough luck, kiddos!”

I also wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Athletic Department has its own hazing policy, which essentially says “yeah, we will do whatever the University says” or has different but similar provisions and isn’t public.

EDIT: Just pulled up the NU student handbook, which repeatedly makes reference to “students” as well as “student organizations.” Doesn’t seem like the delineation is quite as stark as you’d like it to be.

 

[IGNORE2]

The oral contract argument is supposedly with regard to a meeting between Gragg, Fitz, and NU’s General Counsel Stephanie Graham. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Fitz had representation there, at least his Agent Bryan Harlan. Sounds like there was also some communication back and forth after the fact, especially with respect to Fitz’s editing of the statement and confirmation that the 2-week suspension would be the extent of the punishment (Paragraphs 77 and 112 of the compliant). I suspect that there is documentary evidence to that effect, either e-mail traffic or contemporaneous notes. Paragraph 113 also discusses a phone call between Fitz’s Agent and NU’s General Counsel, so not as if there was simply a misunderstanding.

If Fitz can (or has) produced evidence or testimony that the oral contract was pretty tight and/or memorialized in any way, then that seems pretty straightforward (at least to this non-lawyer ).

The written contract is more technical based on what I can tell, basically saying that NU still hasn’t given Fitz the formal clause under which he was fired for cause without being given the 10-day cure period in clause (c) nor 30-day cure period in clause (d) nor the procedural right to a review with the President and decision within 60 days.

Really all centers on whether or not the oral contract about the 2-week submission is enforceable at all, the written contract portion seems mostly incidental.

Even an oral contract requires a meeting of the minds and consideration. Focusing simply on the meeting of the minds, I bet NU will argue that PF’s changes to the statement shows there was no meeting of the minds.

Funny thing, so many stomp the ‘only heard from one side’ as it pertains to the allegations but forget about that concept in PF v NU. As much as dislike Schill, I don’t think he got where he got as an idiot. Same for NU general counsel.

Has NU filed an answer in any of the cases? Has PF? The pleadings tend to be fluff in my experience but still might have some interesting tidbits.

 

[IGNORE2]

This only matters if Fitz or an assistant ordered a player to mistreat a teammate.
The STAFF had to commit the violation.

Correct if I’m wrong, I believe there are two allegations involving staff.

 

[phatcat]

This only matters if Fitz or an assistant ordered a player to mistreat a teammate.
The STAFF had to commit the violation.

"Knew or reasonably should have known "

IFF the athletic trainers were honest and accurate, the coaches should have known.

 

[thewildcat2011]

"Knew or reasonably should have known "

IFF the athletic trainers were honest and accurate, the coaches should have known.

The issue of knowledge in contract interpretation is thorny. There’s no inquiry requirement on “should have known”. So, hard to say that PF should have known something that (allegedly) no one told him about or showed him. He doesn’t have a duty to go to each of the staff members and ask them. Even then, they could have lied to him.

The clause also speaks to violations by members of the staff, not players. NU would likely try to argue that staff members knew, had a duty to report (didn’t), thus giving rise to a violation by the staff member, and PF knew that. It’s fact intensive, so we will see what facts exist. Or, we won’t.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Even an oral contract requires a meeting of the minds and consideration. Focusing simply on the meeting of the minds, I bet NU will argue that PF’s changes to the statement shows there was no meeting of the minds.

Funny thing, so many stomp the ‘only heard from one side’ as it pertains to the allegations but forget about that concept in PF v NU. As much as dislike Schill, I don’t think he got where he got as an idiot. Same for NU general counsel.

Has NU filed an answer in any of the cases? Has PF? The pleadings tend to be fluff in my experience but still might have some interesting tidbits.

Would not NU accepting and publishing Fitz’s altered statement imply acceptance or a “meeting of the minds?” Honestly asking, still not a lawyer.

 

[techtim72]

I suspect Schill heard every variance on the arguments being presented here - as someone suggested it is unlikely he is a fool based on his career plus NU has no shortage of gifted corporate lawyers - yet he did what he did. Why and why did he think that action ultimately would be defensible? All of these arguments are dancing on the head of a pin not knowing whatever Schill knew.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I suspect Schill heard every variance on the arguments being presented here - as someone suggested it is unlikely he is a fool based on his career plus NU has no shortage of gifted corporate lawyers - yet he did what he did. Why and why did he think that action ultimately would be defensible? All of these arguments are dancing on the head of a pin not knowing whatever Schill knew.

I think Schill panicked. Smart people can panic.

 

[HailToPurple]

I think Schill panicked. Smart people can panic.

When a well educated mature person spends a short time talking to a 20 year old student who has an obvious ax to grind and then takes drastic action within hours of that interview without taking the time to think about it and giving full consideration to the ramificaitons of that action it certainly appears to be panic on his part.

There is no reason Schill could not have waited a few days to give the matter more consideration. And certainly to talk to Fitz again.

If his fear was that someone was going to go public with it before he did, then he is a very weak person to be in charge of a university.

 

[IGNORE2]

Would not NU accepting and publishing Fitz’s altered statement imply acceptance or a “meeting of the minds?” Honestly asking, still not a lawyer.

That’s probably one opinion.

 

[NUCat320]

I think Schill panicked. Smart people can panic.

It still boggles my mind that none of the three principals here expected any details to come out. It’s not NKU, you know.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

"Knew or reasonably should have known "

IFF the athletic trainers were honest and accurate, the coaches should have known.

The phrase "Knew or should have known" is only written in Fitzgerald's contract in the case of assistant coaches committing violations.

In other words, if an assistant is breaking NCAA or Northwestern rules and Fitzgerald should have known about it and didn't do anything about it, then he can be terminated for cause.

(if I remember right)

 

[curdog]

Even an oral contract requires a meeting of the minds and consideration. Focusing simply on the meeting of the minds, I bet NU will argue that PF’s changes to the statement shows there was no meeting of the minds.

Funny thing, so many stomp the ‘only heard from one side’ as it pertains to the allegations but forget about that concept in PF v NU. As much as dislike Schill, I don’t think he got where he got as an idiot. Same for NU general counsel.

Has NU filed an answer in any of the cases? Has PF? The pleadings tend to be fluff in my experience but still might have some interesting tidbits.

If Schill delegated the handling of this situation to Gragg, he is an idiot. He also did not give Fitz 10 day written notice before firing for cause, again an idiot. Reversing course from a 2 week suspension to termination (when he could have suspended Fitz pending further due diligence) again an idiot.

Dude needs to be fired into the sun. I saw him at reunion last week and all I could think was what a total clown.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

The phrase "Knew or should have known" is only written in Fitzgerald's contract in the case of assistant coaches committing violations.

In other words, if an assistant is breaking NCAA or Northwestern rules and Fitzgerald should have known about it and didn't do anything about it, then he can be terminated for cause.

(if I remember right)

NU’s argument will/would likely be that the hazing was so well known amongst the team that the staff (including assistant coaches, strength coaches, trainers, etc.) failed in their role as mandatory reporters and Fitz SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that was the case. Seems a bit of a stretch to me after NU’s own investigation apparently showed insufficient evidence that the coaching staff knew about the hazing, but it’s the only plausible argument I could see.

For what it’s worth, the pertinent clause from Fitz’s complaint reads:

The University may terminate this Agreement at any time for cause if… (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.

Also for what it’s worth, this is the Reporting requirement of the NU Hazing policy (emphasis added):

Reporting ​

An individual who makes a timely good faith report of hazing and/ or participates in good faith in an investigation will not be subject to disciplinary action by the University for conduct or policy violation(s) related to and revealed in the report or investigation (i.e. underage consumption of alcohol or use of drugs), unless the University determines that the violation was serious and/or placed the health or safety of others at risk. The University may follow up with good faith participants in an informal manner. This provision may also apply to student organizations/groups making a report of hazing involving individual members.

Failure of an individual in a leadership role or position of power to address and/or report an act of hazing committed against another individual may also be considered an abuse of power and a violation of this policy. Silent participation in the presence of hazing are not neutral acts; they are violations of this policy.

Any violation of this policy should be reported to the Dean of Students Office (847-491-8430), the Office of Community Standards (847-491-4582), or online via NUhelp at www.northwestern.edu/ hazing-prevention/reporting/index.html

Individuals, as well as groups of students and student organizations, may face disciplinary sanctions (up to and including removal from the University) for acts of hazing. Hazing activities may also violate the Illinois Hazing Act, 720 ILCS §5/12C50, which carries criminal penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment and a $25,000 fine.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

NU’s argument will/would likely be that the hazing was so well known amongst the team that the staff (including assistant coaches, strength coaches, trainers, etc.) failed in their role as mandatory reporters and Fitz SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that was the case. Seems a bit of a stretch to me after NU’s own investigation apparently showed insufficient evidence that the coaching staff knew about the hazing, but it’s the only plausible argument I could see.

For what it’s worth, the pertinent clause from Fitz’s complaint reads:

The University may terminate this Agreement at any time for cause if… (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.

Also for what it’s worth, this is the Reporting requirement of the NU Hazing policy (emphasis added):

Reporting ​

An individual who makes a timely good faith report of hazing and/ or participates in good faith in an investigation will not be subject to disciplinary action by the University for conduct or policy violation(s) related to and revealed in the report or investigation (i.e. underage consumption of alcohol or use of drugs), unless the University determines that the violation was serious and/or placed the health or safety of others at risk. The University may follow up with good faith participants in an informal manner. This provision may also apply to student organizations/groups making a report of hazing involving individual members.

Failure of an individual in a leadership role or position of power to address and/or report an act of hazing committed against another individual may also be considered an abuse of power and a violation of this policy. Silent participation in the presence of hazing are not neutral acts; they are violations of this policy.

Any violation of this policy should be reported to the Dean of Students Office (847-491-8430), the Office of Community Standards (847-491-4582), or online via NUhelp at www.northwestern.edu/ hazing-prevention/reporting/index.html

Individuals, as well as groups of students and student organizations, may face disciplinary sanctions (up to and including removal from the University) for acts of hazing. Hazing activities may also violate the Illinois Hazing Act, 720 ILCS §5/12C50, which carries criminal penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment and a $25,000 fine.

Regarding Fitzgerald's contract - I don't see where there is any violation being committed by an assistant coach or member of Fitzgerald's staff. Unless, of course, an assistant is ordering the players to do abusive things to each other. Or participating in the abuse.

Regarding reporting of hazing, I can see where this would apply to students. But even in that part you excerpted, they make it pretty clear they are talking about student organizations. That first paragraph is only about individuals being given clemency if they report "hazing" in their group.

The part you put in bold text is targeting fraternity officers (and the like). Its the student handbook - it can't possibly apply to employees of the school. Even if NU wants to claim Fitzgerald violated school policy - that policy had better be written somewhere other than the Student Code of Conduct. The fact that Fitzgerald had a separate contract makes such claims more difficult, I would guess.

 

[GrandRapidsCatFan]

The rules are the rules whether you like or not. Or are you advocating that we can all choose to file the rules to the extent we agree with them and without repercussions?

This has become a very popular and high-profile stance in American politics. Rugged individualism wouldn't have it any other way

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Regarding Fitzgerald's contract - I don't see where there is any violation being committed by an assistant coach or member of Fitzgerald's staff. Unless, of course, an assistant is ordering the players to do abusive things to each other. Or participating in the abuse.

Regarding reporting of hazing, I can see where this would apply to students. But even in that part you excerpted, they make it pretty clear they are talking about student organizations. That first paragraph is only about individuals being given clemency if they report "hazing" in their group.

The part you put in bold text is targeting fraternity officers (and the like). Its the student handbook - it can't possibly apply to employees of the school. Even if NU wants to claim Fitzgerald violated school policy - that policy had better be written somewhere other than the Student Code of Conduct. The fact that Fitzgerald had a separate contract makes such claims more difficult, I would guess.

As mentioned before, I’m working on the assumption that NU Athletics either has its own similar anti-hazing policy or simply incorporates the general NU policy by reference.

The crux of a lot of your argument is that the NU policy covers only student organizations and does not apply to varsity athletic teams. That’s… not a realistic basis, in my opinion.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

As mentioned before, I’m working on the assumption that NU Athletics either has its own similar anti-hazing policy or simply incorporates the general NU policy by reference.

The crux of a lot of your argument is that the NU policy covers only student organizations and does not apply to varsity athletic teams. That’s… not a realistic basis, in my opinion.

Well, more specifically, the definition of hazing that is written in the Student Code of Conduct is the only thing that matters and it only applies to students who are members of a group controlled by students.

Otherwise if a girl publicly humiliates her boyfriend by loudly berating him in front of a group of people, she is hazing him and subject to punishment by the university. Not only that, all the bystanders would also be guilty of hazing, unless they report the incident. Obviously not the case.

Hazing can only occur within the context of a group, but the group cannot be random.

If the group isn't controlled by students, it is controlled by the university. Examples of that would be "in a classroom setting." You cannot be "hazed" in class because the teacher controls the class. But if you are trying to join a fraternity and they demand that you go to your Physics class and drop your pants in the middle of the classroom or you aren't getting into the frat - thats hazing.

Here is item #10 from page 9 of the Student Handbook

"Students are free to form, join, and participate in any group for intellectual, religious, social, economic, political, or cultural purposes." (obviously not varsity athletics - you can't just join the team. Noteworthy that "athletics" is not one of the purposes)

Its quite clear when the hazing policies apply and when they don't, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Well, more specifically, the definition of hazing that is written in the Student Code of Conduct is the only thing that matters and it only applies to students who are members of a group controlled by students.

Otherwise if a girl publicly humiliates her boyfriend by loudly berating him in front of a group of people, she is hazing him and subject to punishment by the university. Not only that, all the bystanders would also be guilty of hazing, unless they report the incident. Obviously not the case.

Hazing can only occur within the context of a group, but the group cannot be random.

If the group isn't controlled by students, it is controlled by the university. Examples of that would be "in a classroom setting." You cannot be "hazed" in class because the teacher controls the class. But if you are trying to join a fraternity and they demand that you go to your Physics class and drop your pants in the middle of the classroom or you aren't getting into the frat - thats hazing.

Here is item #10 from page 9 of the Student Handbook

"Students are free to form, join, and participate in any group for intellectual, religious, social, economic, political, or cultural purposes." (obviously not varsity athletics - you can't just join the team. Noteworthy that "athletics" is not one of the purposes)

Its quite clear when the hazing policies apply and when they don't, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Dude… do you really not think that NU Athletics has a hazing policy as well, just that it isn’t available to the general public?

Either way, Paragraph 62 of Fitz’s complaint describes an annual meeting that “included a review of Northwestern’s hazing policy” and required every player to sign “a form acknowledging that they read and understood Northwestern’s anti-hazing policy and agreed to report violations of that policy to the Dean of Students or the Office of Judicial Affairs.”

On plain reading alone, sure as shit seems like the general NU policy was the governing policy even by Fitz’s own complaint. Your attempt to delineate between “student organizations” and “varsity teams” is just bullshit.