Unanswerable question
- Thread starter IGNORE2
- Start date
Come on man, you can do better than that.
You just stated that you think NU athletics has its own hazing policy.
That may be true, but, obviously, that would prove my point perfectly (because it would be a separate policy).
On the other hand, if all NU does is have the football players sign something that says they've read the "Anti-hazing policy" and that policy is contained in the Student Handbook, then we're back to "it applies to them as students, just as it applies to other students - in the context of student organizations."
It may not seem important, because Fitzgerald's lawsuit is about breach of contract, but ultimately the only chance NU has in that case is to prove that there was systemic "hazing" going on, that Fitzgerald knew about it and didn't stop it. Even that might not be enough.
Last edited:
Nah, gonna let this one marinate some more.
RULES ARE RULES AND YOU RUIN EVERYTHING. BE CONSISTENT!!!!!
(I’m kidding. Go with the flow. You’re doing great.)
You’re stretching this to an indefensible degree. It’s pretty clear that:
- There is a hazing policy that applies to Northwestern’s football team
- The team was routinely trained on that policy, even being made to sign attestations that they had read and understood the policy, so we know that there is a policy even if we can’t pull it up on Google
- It is most likely that the general Northwestern anti-hazing policy was the governing policy
Because it’s a super granular discussion about an issue that’s front and center for Northwestern’s football program?
Consider this - if PF’s highly capable attorney agrees with your interpretation, the complaint would plead, even in the alternative, that no applicable hazing policy existed.
If there was ever an award given to a post for the most number of times that thread has gone around and around and around and around in circles this one would win the prize hands down.
Sorry. Not even in the top 10
Yes, we'll have to see what Northwestern comes back with vs Fitzgerald.
It is still a breach of contract case.
My understanding is the NU will have to present a defense as to why they fired Fitzgerald for cause.
How much do you want to bet that defense will not include “there was no relevant/applicable hazing policy?”
NU will certainly claim that football players were breaking some university policy, presumably their "anti-hazing" policy. Whether that policy applies to the football team is a different question, as we've discussed.
But it probably won't get that far.
The case filed by Fitzgerald's attorneys is about breach of employment contract.
NU has to come up with a valid reason to have fired Fitzgerald for cause.
The contract spells out the conditions that warrant termination for cause.
a) Fitzgerald deliberately commits a serious violation of a law, regulation, rule etc and that violation reflects adversely on Northwestern, including being sanctioned or placed on probation by the NCAA or Big Ten.
b) Fitzgerald knew or should have known that an assistant coach had committed a serious violation.
c) Fitzgerald fails to perform his duties as Head Football Coach, as defined by the Vice President for Athletics & Recreation. If NU gives written notice of a violation, Fitzgerald will have 10 days to fix it.
d) Fitzgerald commits repeated violations of the contract, NU provides written notice of the violations and Fitzgerald doesn't address the violation within 30 days.
e) Fitzgerald engages in moral turpitude.
f) Fitzgerald stops showing up to work, except due to disability or illness and other circumstances.
g) Fitzgerald seeks prohibited outside employment.
In "c" we don't know what duties are assigned to the Head Football Coach as defined by the Vice President for Athletics & Recreation. It might say "Coach is liable for everything each player does." But it really doesn't matter because NU violated the agreement by not giving Fitzgerald written notice and 10 days to fix it - or arguably a solution was already implemented. Either way, "c" is eliminated.
That leaves NU arguing that Fitzgerald or an assistant coach deliberately committed a serious violation. These appear to be written to address criminal activity, recruiting violations and other things that govern college football.
"He should have known there was hazing going on" doesn't come close to "deliberately committing a serious violation."
Lastly, Fitzgerald's attorneys present another legal argument - that he and Gragg entered into an oral agreement and both Fitzgerald and NU agreed to the terms - including a 2 week suspension. Schill then breached the oral contract.
Both of Fitzgerald's legal theories seem quite solid, so they probably won't need to argue that the hazing policy was written for student organizations only. It may come up during the defamation claims.
Since Fitz was never given a written notice or an opportunity to fix the problem, it seems to me the only possibility would have to be (b), that one of Fitz's assistants had committed a serious violation. One of Lou's sources seems to be an ex-staff-member who said that "running" was well-known within the program. So maybe NU will leverage Lou's source to claim that staff knew about running and were acting to give Fitz plausible deniability about it.
I don't think that will fly, because of all the reporting mechanisms and exit interviews and the like that were available to students. If they had reported hazing through these channels, then it would be a slam-dunk to claim that Fitz was aware of the alleged behavior. I strongly suspect that Lou's source is a disgruntled ex-staff member, but that is of course just conjecture. Another ex-staff member, Hank, is on the record as NOT being aware of any such hazing activities.
Doesn’t matter. Fitz is going to get a ton of money. People that think he won’t are fools.
Not gonna give up this particular bone are you, despite how flatly dumb the position is?
Fine. You win. Congratulations.
Oh, and it seems pretty clear that NU’s position will be (b) — member(s) of the staff should have known about the hazing due to how well-known it was around the program, then failed in their reporting requirements. Fitz can be fired for cause whether it was him or a member of his staff that should have reported.
I happen to agree that Fitz’s breach of contract claims seem pretty straightforward… but your position that anti-hazing policies wouldn’t apply in this instance is just ludicrous.
What do you suppose are the implications to Hank saying he knew about the hazing?
Agreed… though the certainty with which Fitz makes his claims in the compliant makes me think there are plenty of “receipts” — e-mails, multiple conversations between himself, his agent, Gragg, NU General Counsel, etc. MAAYYYBBBBBEEEEEEE NU could open somewhat of a gap in the “came to mutual agreement,” but I would be very surprised.
If cases went solely by the complaints, or the answers, litigation would be sooooo boring. I would not hold your breathe on allegations made in the complaint. Otherwise, you must also be drooling at the prospects all those former players enjoy based on those complaints…
I’m fully aware that complaints are only one side of the story. Just gotta think that some of the strong assertions Fitz makes wouldn’t even be made in the first place if he doesn’t have any receipts.
From the NU Student Handbook
"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."
If anybody can explain how "running" fits this description, please have at it.
The rules were written for student organizations, like fraternities.
Less name-calling, more logical thinking, please.
"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."
If anybody can explain how "running" fits this description, please have at it.
The rules were written for student organizations, like fraternities.
Less name-calling, more logical thinking, please.
In that theory, same applies to the lawsuits brought by the former players. Both are written by the lawyers based on the ‘evidence’ at hand. So if you think much about the PF complaint, then those allegations from the former players must have some receipts too.
I’ve said many times that I think questionable things happened in the locker room, but it’s not as clear-cut that that constitutes widespread hazing as many on these boards contend.
He’s gone, he’s not coming back and all the lawsuits will play out independent of your thumping. But by means, reach out to the parties and let them know how your keen legal analysis has solved their matter in controversy and assess damages.
Meanwhile, seems like the rest of us, including the lawyers, respectfully disagree.
Not sure how that is responsive. All the legal complaints have pointed and saucy allegations. All were written by lawyers. All are equal in the eyes of the law. So if you put much weight behind the allegations in one, why would you not hold the others with the same respect?
Also, I have said there are many undisclosed facts and breach of contract, oral or written, is not as clear cut as many on these boards contend without the absent facts from the defendants.
I think (a) and (b) are really about serious violations from a criminal, NCAA or Big Ten perspective. Recruiting, gambling, punching a reporter, acts committed by the head coach or assistant. It does seem strange that Fitzgerald could be terminated for cause if an assistant robs a bank.
(c) is written as a catch-all for Fitzgerald specifically (not his assistants). Anything and everything that goes into the job description of Head Football Coach at Northwestern falls here. It is noteworthy that the contract never addresses conduct by the guys on the team - my belief is that this is all captured by the job description, in a separate document, referenced in (c).
I don't think any logical person would believe that Fitzgerald could be fired for cause if one of his assistant coaches got drunk and started doing naked pushups in the sorority quad.
Nothing is clear cut as many on these boards contend. Nice, we actually agree on something Bob!
Because, at least to this non-lawyer, a breach of contract claim is a very different ballgame from the players’ claims (which I believe are mostly negligence).
That’s not the contention. A legal complaint filed with the court is a legal complaint. Both drafted by lawyers. So unless you are suggesting the various plaintiff attorneys are intellectual midgets that lucked their way through law school, the bar and the subsequent success that distinguishes them from all the other plaintiff lawyers, then the only reason to diminish those legal documents is the same reason take everything said by accusers, sources, team managers as BS and make great assumptions on behalf of PF.
While I understand the psychosis behind it, doesn’t change the fact that outside the NU environment, nobody is going to make those same leaps.
The complaints are all one sided pleadings and worthless for fact finding. There are lots of facts still undisclosed. Lots of witnessed to be deposed. And zero chance that NU loses across the board.
I’m guessing no answers have been filed yet in any of the cases which means all must have filed motions to dismiss which is pretty standard. Let’s see if anything gets thrown out.
NU may very well seek to settle all claims. They will lose lots of money in order to make this go away.
Maybe. Maybe the player cases end with a non-monetary settlement. Maybe PF loses. Many outcomes are possible.
The NU administration has repeatedly demonstrated that they are pansies in every sense of the word. They will pay up!
Similar threads
