College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

[jerphisch]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

Buy you are equating what the law requires with what OSU (the employer) may require.

I am absolutely correct in stating that nothing in the law requires Meyer to report this. If you can find something in Ohio law to the contrary, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

As I said in my prior posts, employers can adopt policies or positions, or make decisions to fire employees who engage in bad behavior outside the workplace if they think it puts them in a bad light. That's the whole point of the OSU policies. They adopt those policies so that if they think the behavior of the assistant coach wife abuser, or the head coach who knows about but says nothing, brings shame to the University, they can fire that coach and then defend the breach of contract or other claim by say, "we had a policy." But the University can just as easily decide it doesn't want to fire the coach, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

No one is arguing anything about what the law requires. We are pointing out that Meyer is going to be fired for being a POS because tOSU has specific policies in place that say don't be a POS.

 

[Handyman]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

Why should he have to fire him? The only reason he "has" to fire him is if he thinks it reflects poorly on him or the University. Are employers required to fire all "wife beaters?"

Required? No. But seeing as Meyer makes it a point to emphasize that he teaches his players how to respect women it kinda seems like it would be important.

Plus his contract (and his wife's) required him to report all of this which is why he is now in CYA mode. The second the wife said he told Meyer's wife about the abuse the Meyers' were in trouble. They could have been fired for cause meaning he loses the rest of the money.

It isnt about the law...no one is saying Meyer should be charged. IT is about the policies of the school. He wont be fired though because football matters too much. The school will back him up that he reported it even though that will make them look bad.

 

[unofan]

Why should he have to fire him? The only reason he "has" to fire him is if he thinks it reflects poorly on him or the University. Are employers required to fire all "wife beaters?"

You don't think continuing to employ a wife beater is de facto reflecting poorly on the employer?

 

[alfablue]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

Buy you are equating what the law requires with what OSU (the employer) may require.

I am absolutely correct in stating that nothing in the law requires Meyer to report this. If you can find something in Ohio law to the contrary, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

As I said in my prior posts, employers can adopt policies or positions, or make decisions to fire employees who engage in bad behavior outside the workplace if they think it puts them in a bad light. That's the whole point of the OSU policies. They adopt those policies so that if they think the behavior of the assistant coach wife abuser, or the head coach who knows about but says nothing, brings shame to the University, they can fire that coach and then defend the breach of contract or other claim by say, "we had a policy." But the University can just as easily decide it doesn't want to fire the coach, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

No, I am not- I was speculating, just like you were, on what Ohio law was. I didn't know one way or another if he was legally required to report. And I don't think you do either.

And, for the most part, that became moot when I looked up OSU's policies, and found that they have a LOT of bearing to fire him. And if they don't, for the sake of having a good football program, that's a sad way to brush off your own policies.

If the president of OSU wants to stand in front of the press, and answer that question, well, that will be interesting.

I never claimed that Meyer broke any rules. And I have clearly pointed out that the very worst that will happen to him is getting fired. If he knew that his assistant choked his wife, and hit his wife, and clearly violated university policy, and did nothing about it- then I have no problem of him losing his job.

If they do nothing, and people start to look at OSU like they do PSU, well, they have do deal with that. And it's sad to me that we, as a society, value entertainment that much. That is all football is- entertainment.

 

[Deleted member 3166]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

https://twitter.com/AriWasserman/status/1026585725066792961?s=19

 

[busterman62]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

No, I am not- I was speculating, just like you were, on what Ohio law was. I didn't know one way or another if he was legally required to report. And I don't think you do either.

And, for the most part, that became moot when I looked up OSU's policies, and found that they have a LOT of bearing to fire him. And if they don't, for the sake of having a good football program, that's a sad way to brush off your own policies.

If the president of OSU wants to stand in front of the press, and answer that question, well, that will be interesting.

I never claimed that Meyer broke any rules. And I have clearly pointed out that the very worst that will happen to him is getting fired. If he knew that his assistant choked his wife, and hit his wife, and clearly violated university policy, and did nothing about it- then I have no problem of him losing his job.

If they do nothing, and people start to look at OSU like they do PSU, well, they have do deal with that. And it's sad to me that we, as a society, value entertainment that much. That is all football is- entertainment.

I certainly don't want to defend Meyer but.......the policies you have sited relate to the "campus" of tOSU. Policy 7.05 is titled "Workplace Violence" and the Sexual Misconduct Policy clearly states:

This policy applies to alleged sexual misconduct that takes place on university property or at universitysponsored events, regardless of their location

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that one worth his/her fee could shoot a few holes in your theory that Urban violated these policies. I would however bet the farm that, in all likelihood, he has a morals clause that they can utilize if they choose to.

 

[SJHovey]

You don't think continuing to employ a wife beater is de facto reflecting poorly on the employer?

Generally speaking, no. For certain jobs, of course. If the accused drives forklift for Home Depot, does (or should) anyone care? If you’re working as a local prosecuting attorney it probably matters greatly to the employer. I suspect more of us fall in the former than the latter.

 

[MavHockey14]

Huh?

Unless someone deleted a post I’m not sure what you’re referring to?

Same..

 

[MavHockey14]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

Why should he have to fire him? The only reason he "has" to fire him is if he thinks it reflects poorly on him or the University. Are employers required to fire all "wife beaters?"

It’s putting winning ahead of doing the right thing. A coach is going home and abusing his wife, and Meyer knows about multiple allegations of this, and lies about it, and only now admits he knew as it became public due to McMurphy’s story.

Urban Meyer enabled an abuser — Coach Smith was given the reward of a healthy salary and the ability to coach, all while not being punished for beating his wife. He made that behavior okay as their was no consequence.

Urban Meyer preaches respect for women, yet knowingly allows a domestic violence abuser stay on his staff and coach 18-22 year olds? Had some of his closest confidants reach out to the vicious and urge to not press charges?

It’s disgusting behavior by Meyer and he should be fired. Winning a **** game shouldn’t be put ahead of the safety of a woman in her home.

 

[LynahFan]

Generally speaking, no. For certain jobs, of course. If the accused drives forklift for Home Depot, does (or should) anyone care? If you’re working as a local prosecuting attorney it probably matters greatly to the employer. I suspect more of us fall in the former than the latter.

Be glad you don't work at my hypothetical Home Depot - I would absolutely fire any abuser I knew about, in any job. Why take the risk that those violent tendencies might spill over to the workplace someday? It's a lot easier to find a new forklift driver than to deal with years of lawsuits over my negligence in keeping a known sociopath in the workplace. No way that guy is so awesome at driving a forklift that it is worth the risk.

 

[alfablue]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

I certainly don't want to defend Meyer but.......the policies you have sited relate to the "campus" of tOSU. Policy 7.05 is titled "Workplace Violence" and the Sexual Misconduct Policy clearly states:

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that one worth his/her fee could shoot a few holes in your theory that Urban violated these policies. I would however bet the farm that, in all likelihood, he has a morals clause that they can utilize if they choose to.

There is an explicit section called "Domestic Violence", which I quoted. I'm not sure how one can conclude that domestic violence that on off campus is technically ok based on that wording. And in there, it also points out that there's an "Employee Duty to Report" which has specific rules. That's all in this document- https://hr.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/policy115.pdf

Given how many years it seems that Meyer knew this guys was abusing his wife, including at Florida, and he STILL hired him, and kept him on the staff- after another it was reported to another university employee who also did nothing (Meyers wife), well....

 

[SJHovey]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

Be glad you don't work at my hypothetical Home Depot - I would absolutely fire any abuser I knew about, in any job. Why take the risk that those violent tendencies might spill over to the workplace someday? It's a lot easier to find a new forklift driver than to deal with years of lawsuits over my negligence in keeping a known sociopath in the workplace. No way that guy is so awesome at driving a forklift that it is worth the risk.

I don't doubt there are a few employers who think like you do. However, by and large I doubt most in the situation of my hypothetical Home Depot would act the same way.

Personally, I just disagree with your thinking on this, even though I understand the rationale. First, I don't think your Home Depot faces any increased risk of liability just because your employee engaged in domestic violence. If there are example out there of employers being held liable for some sort of wrongful hiring or wrongful retention claim because they didn't fire an employee who abused his wife and later became violent in the work place, I'd like to see it. If the guy punches a customer, I agree with you. But, if outside the workplace he is accused of abusing his wife, I don't think most courts would make that stretch, but I could be wrong.

Second, I don't think it's good for society to think that way. Do we then just declare that all perpetrators of domestic violence are unemployable? We've kind of done that with felons and where has that gotten us? We've only just begun to realize the wrongful thinking associated with refusing to hire convicted felons. Do we want to double down on that mistake?

Yeah, if there is a connection to the job, I understand it. You obviously can't expect to continue in your job as a marital counselor if you are found guilty of spousal abuse. But what does it really have to do with driving a forklift? If a guy is convicted of felony theft for stealing thousands of dollars, sure you don't hire him for the bookkeeper's position at your company. But should you refuse to hire him to pour asphalt on a road crew?

These perpetrators need to be punished by the criminal justice system. Making the same mistake we do with felons and branding them with the scarlet letter goes too far, imho.

 

[Handyman]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

I certainly don't want to defend Meyer but.......the policies you have sited relate to the "campus" of tOSU. Policy 7.05 is titled "Workplace Violence" and the Sexual Misconduct Policy clearly states:

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that one worth his/her fee could shoot a few holes in your theory that Urban violated these policies. I would however bet the farm that, in all likelihood, he has a morals clause that they can utilize if they choose to.

It has been reported by plenty that the policy states Meyer had to report it no matter where it happened. That is why he changed his story and now says he did report it even though at Big Ten Media Day he said no such thing. It could have taken place in Antarctica but if he knew it was his job to tell the school.

Now the question is, why did he have this in his contract to begin with? Does every tOSU coach have it in their contract or was it specific to Meyer? That brings about more questions...

 

[Handyman]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

I don't doubt there are a few employers who think like you do. However, by and large I doubt most in the situation of my hypothetical Home Depot would act the same way.

Personally, I just disagree with your thinking on this, even though I understand the rationale. First, I don't think your Home Depot faces any increased risk of liability just because your employee engaged in domestic violence. If there are example out there of employers being held liable for some sort of wrongful hiring or wrongful retention claim because they didn't fire an employee who abused his wife and later became violent in the work place, I'd like to see it. If the guy punches a customer, I agree with you. But, if outside the workplace he is accused of abusing his wife, I don't think most courts would make that stretch, but I could be wrong.

Second, I don't think it's good for society to think that way. Do we then just declare that all perpetrators of domestic violence are unemployable? We've kind of done that with felons and where has that gotten us? We've only just begun to realize the wrongful thinking associated with refusing to hire convicted felons. Do we want to double down on that mistake?

Yeah, if there is a connection to the job, I understand it. You obviously can't expect to continue in your job as a marital counselor if you are found guilty of spousal abuse. But what does it really have to do with driving a forklift? If a guy is convicted of felony theft for stealing thousands of dollars, sure you don't hire him for the bookkeeper's position at your company. But should you refuse to hire him to pour asphalt on a road crew?

These perpetrators need to be punished by the criminal justice system. Making the same mistake we do with felons and branding them with the scarlet letter goes too far, imho.

Agreed unless the spouse also works for me at Home Depot. Blackballing anyone for spousal abuse is going to make things worse overall not better. The abusers would certainly never seek help since they are screwed either way.

The only caveat being if say Home Depot is making a big push in the media to show they are anti-spousal abuse or something like that then you gotta fire the guy. Otherwise as long as he isnt doing anything at work you should probably let him be.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

It has been reported by plenty that the policy states Meyer had to report it no matter where it happened.

What is he to report though - that there was an allegation of abuse?

 

[Handyman]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

What is he to report though - that there was an allegation of abuse?

From what I can tell yes. I dont know why, but I would guess because of the previous incident involving said coach. tOSU also had Meyer's wife under the same restriction in her contract if I read right. When the story broke she knew and didnt report it put them both in a bad spot. (again if I read the story correctly) That is why his story changed, firing for cause became a legit possibility.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

From what I can tell yes. I dont know why, but I would guess because of the previous incident involving said coach. tOSU also had Meyer's wife under the same restriction in her contract if I read right. When the story broke she knew and didnt report it put them both in a bad spot. (again if I read the story correctly) That is why his story changed, firing for cause became a legit possibility.

I see. Thanks.

 

[LynahFan]

Personally, I just disagree with your thinking on this, even though I understand the rationale. First, I don't think your Home Depot faces any increased risk of liability just because your employee engaged in domestic violence. If there are example out there of employers being held liable for some sort of wrongful hiring or wrongful retention claim because they didn't fire an employee who abused his wife and later became violent in the work place, I'd like to see it. If the guy punches a customer, I agree with you. But, if outside the workplace he is accused of abusing his wife, I don't think most courts would make that stretch, but I could be wrong.

Here's a general statement with one case citation: https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/violence-in-the-workplace-why-employers-are-caught-in-the-middle.html

When violence strikes a workplace, a company is likely to be faced with any one of a number of potential claims. When the perpetrator is an employee, likely claims against an employer include negligent hiring or negligent retention. Under Pennsylvania law, an employer may be liable for the violent acts of its employees if the employer knew or should have known that the employee had a "dangerous propensity for violence."*Coath v. Jones, 277 Pa. Super, 479, 419 A.2d 1249, 1250 (1980). Often, when an employee has a criminal history, a history of drug abuse or a history of workplace violence in current or former employment, an employer will be found negligent in hiring or retaining the employee.

 

[SJHovey]

Here's a general statement with one case citation: https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/violence-in-the-workplace-why-employers-are-caught-in-the-middle.html

When violence strikes a workplace, a company is likely to be faced with any one of a number of potential claims. When the perpetrator is an employee, likely claims against an employer include negligent hiring or negligent retention. Under Pennsylvania law, an employer may be liable for the violent acts of its employees if the employer knew or should have known that the employee had a "dangerous propensity for violence."*Coath v. Jones, 277 Pa. Super, 479, 419 A.2d 1249, 1250 (1980). Often, when an employee has a criminal history, a history of drug abuse or a history of workplace violence in current or former employment, an employer will be found negligent in hiring or retaining the employee.

I’ve heard nothing about workplace violence with this coach. If he has that history then OSU clearly has a risk if they continue to employ. The domestic violence was not work related.
So that leaves us with the second part of your post, “criminal history.”

First, are accusations but no convictions “criminal history?” Second, I believe it has to be related to create liability. If the employee has a criminal history of theft but then rapes someone in your workplace is that negligent retention? I don’t think so. Domestic violence is a very unique crime and I’m unaware of any studies that suggest it predisposes you to other violent crimes.

 

[alfablue]

Re: College Football 2017-18: Now with more CTE!

I’ve heard nothing about workplace violence with this coach. If he has that history then OSU clearly has a risk if they continue to employ. The domestic violence was not work related.
So that leaves us with the second part of your post, “criminal history.”

First, are accusations but no convictions “criminal history?” Second, I believe it has to be related to create liability. If the employee has a criminal history of theft but then rapes someone in your workplace is that negligent retention? I don’t think so. Domestic violence is a very unique crime and I’m unaware of any studies that suggest it predisposes you to other violent crimes.

If you read the OSU policy, you would have noted that you don't have to have a conviction to face the policy. Nor does the policy state that the domestic violence had to be on campus to it to be covered- although some seem to bring that up.

If this tangent is just being brought up as a "general" idea, one should note that the nominal workplace rules are overruled by OSU specific ones, particularly ones that anyone signed into their contract.

On the country in general thinking- if you have a known domestic abuser in your ranks, doesn't that also make the workplace a little more hostile to the gender that is being abused? If you know that a co-worker is abusing their spouse, don't you think you would be hesitant to talk to them, and the odds of that person being verbally abusive would be higher? If anything is learned from the "Me Too" movement, it should be that harassment should not be tolerated, anywhere. Need to change the culture so that domestic abusers are less likely to abuse, since they know that society will not tolerate that kind of behavior. So lets not dance around the thinking that it's a bad idea to fire abusers if they are "nice" at work, and fix the real problem of abuse.