USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Miller article
- Thread starter 2Bladedskates
- Start date
Sean Pickett
2009 NCAA Champions
Re: Miller article
Sean
Yes, it was. Now I have to watch the movie again.By the way................ This was a funny post
Sean
pokechecker
Banned
Re: Miller article
piling on,
that's what they are counting on, simple minds drawing the wrong conclusion
facts are too difficult for many people to comprehend, they cannot connect the dots
keep it simple so simple minds can understand and arrive at their own delusion
piling on,
that's what they are counting on, simple minds drawing the wrong conclusion
facts are too difficult for many people to comprehend, they cannot connect the dots
keep it simple so simple minds can understand and arrive at their own delusion
Leather helmet
New member
Re: Miller article
What does it mean to have a contract, if one side or the other can't walk away after fulfilling the terms? Miller wasn't fired, just non-renewed. Does this legal interpretation mean I have to fork over for another 10 car washes when my original deal is done?
What does it mean to have a contract, if one side or the other can't walk away after fulfilling the terms? Miller wasn't fired, just non-renewed. Does this legal interpretation mean I have to fork over for another 10 car washes when my original deal is done?
Re: Miller article
I believe with teachers there are times when non-renewal is interpreted as firing for legal purposes such as this. But a D1 coaching position is not similar. One would like to think that the school has an option to not renew a coaches contract.
It's also pretty common knowledge that, as 2Blades put it, "royal pains in the A**es for years" get on thin ice when they stop winning championships. I think Berlo's mistake was he didn't want to call her "A R P I T A" publicly and assumed he was free to not renew her contract and just say it was for budgetary reasons.
I think UMD is more vulnerable on hostile work environment grounds than for the non-renewal. But it also should be acknowledged that it is easier to call someone a "dyke" when the target themselves are a walking hostile work environment, however inappropriate the term may be.
I believe with teachers there are times when non-renewal is interpreted as firing for legal purposes such as this. But a D1 coaching position is not similar. One would like to think that the school has an option to not renew a coaches contract.
It's also pretty common knowledge that, as 2Blades put it, "royal pains in the A**es for years" get on thin ice when they stop winning championships. I think Berlo's mistake was he didn't want to call her "A R P I T A" publicly and assumed he was free to not renew her contract and just say it was for budgetary reasons.
I think UMD is more vulnerable on hostile work environment grounds than for the non-renewal. But it also should be acknowledged that it is easier to call someone a "dyke" when the target themselves are a walking hostile work environment, however inappropriate the term may be.
Blackbeard
Well-known member
They (Berlo & Black) should have just gone with the classic and very vague, "We've decided to go in a different direction." This situation doesn't make either of them look too bright at all. Dunce caps for them both!
Last edited:
Re: Miller article
There is a logical explanation for this, though I have no idea whether or not this was actually Miller's thinking. Given that the school had previously refused to investigate her complaints and otherwise seemed indifferent to whether there was a hostile environment, it's possible that Miller didn't trust that they were actually conducting a serious investigation tasked with finding the truth and putting an end to any impropriety that they found, but rather that the administration was using the opening of a sham investigation as a way of letting alleged perpetrators that Miller was complaining about them. This is reinforced by Miller's claim that she didn't want an investigation and that the administration didn't inform her that they were opening one, which, if true, would be an odd way to run one.
This is pretty much the problem with all of the analysis on this forum. It proceeds from the assumption that Miller is acting in bad faith, and then uses the very incomplete information contained in the linked article to justify that assumption. None of us really has any idea what happened.
It's also worth noting that the judge has made it pretty clear that he's going to disregard some of the allegations not because he thinks they don't have merit, but simply because they would need to be filed in state court rather than federal.
There is a logical explanation for this, though I have no idea whether or not this was actually Miller's thinking. Given that the school had previously refused to investigate her complaints and otherwise seemed indifferent to whether there was a hostile environment, it's possible that Miller didn't trust that they were actually conducting a serious investigation tasked with finding the truth and putting an end to any impropriety that they found, but rather that the administration was using the opening of a sham investigation as a way of letting alleged perpetrators that Miller was complaining about them. This is reinforced by Miller's claim that she didn't want an investigation and that the administration didn't inform her that they were opening one, which, if true, would be an odd way to run one.
This is pretty much the problem with all of the analysis on this forum. It proceeds from the assumption that Miller is acting in bad faith, and then uses the very incomplete information contained in the linked article to justify that assumption. None of us really has any idea what happened.
It's also worth noting that the judge has made it pretty clear that he's going to disregard some of the allegations not because he thinks they don't have merit, but simply because they would need to be filed in state court rather than federal.
Re: Miller article
As for the fact that Miller's contract wasn't renewed rather than her being fired, that changes things but doesn't eliminate it as a question. She had the job, and she clearly wanted to keep the job, so at a minimum, she needed to be treated like an applicant for the job. UMD's actions make it clear that she wasn't even considered for renewal, and so their reasons are relevant. This is where their bogus initial explanation doesn't do them any favors; it weakens their credibility when they are asked now why they rejected her.
It's easy for us to sit her and say that they didn't want her back because she was abrasive and difficult to deal with. It may not be so easy for UMD to say that in court and under oath. I haven't been following this story closely enough to know whether Miller's performance evaluations have been brought up, but if they show a history of her supervisors saying that she was a good employee, they don't have a lot of room to come back now and claim that it was her personality that led them to let her go. So, they may not have a good story to tell to refute Miller's claims of discrimination.
As for the fact that Miller's contract wasn't renewed rather than her being fired, that changes things but doesn't eliminate it as a question. She had the job, and she clearly wanted to keep the job, so at a minimum, she needed to be treated like an applicant for the job. UMD's actions make it clear that she wasn't even considered for renewal, and so their reasons are relevant. This is where their bogus initial explanation doesn't do them any favors; it weakens their credibility when they are asked now why they rejected her.
It's easy for us to sit her and say that they didn't want her back because she was abrasive and difficult to deal with. It may not be so easy for UMD to say that in court and under oath. I haven't been following this story closely enough to know whether Miller's performance evaluations have been brought up, but if they show a history of her supervisors saying that she was a good employee, they don't have a lot of room to come back now and claim that it was her personality that led them to let her go. So, they may not have a good story to tell to refute Miller's claims of discrimination.
Re: Miller article
Don't bet on this. Penn State just lost a lawsuit to Mike McQueary. He was also not fired, just not given a new contract by a new head coach. He sued under Whistleblower statutes and won a multi-million dollar award. Again, he wasn't fired, just wasn't given a new contract by Bill O'Brien when he became head coach. Who knows what judges and the US courts will decide on anything anymore...
Don't bet on this. Penn State just lost a lawsuit to Mike McQueary. He was also not fired, just not given a new contract by a new head coach. He sued under Whistleblower statutes and won a multi-million dollar award. Again, he wasn't fired, just wasn't given a new contract by Bill O'Brien when he became head coach. Who knows what judges and the US courts will decide on anything anymore...