A flimsy lawsuit experience

[diggerfoot]

In the early seventies National Geographic wrote an article about Eric Ryback, an alleged hiker extraordinaire with "lungs of leather and legs of steel," for his hike on the Pacific Crest Trail. In 1977 I hiked the Pacific Crest Trail with the 1975 guidebook in hand. The introductory material for that guide cast aspersions on Ryback's achievement, impugning his hiking reputation.

While on the trail I was sent the latest, 1977 edition of the guidebook. In the introductory material it mentioned that since the previous edition came out Ryback and his attorneys filed a 3 million dollar lawsuit against Wilderness Press (keep in mind this was in 1977). When Wilderness Press revealed the evidence they had that he skipped sections of the trail the lawsuit was simply dropped, with no promises or compromises made. As a side note, I spoke to someone during that hike that had given Ryback a ride.

During the hike I just went on I ran into people with impressive hiking achievements, all done since 2,000. They had met Ryback and, not knowing anything of this past history, thought he was of tremendous character.

Anyways, one can hope that this is a similarly misguided lawsuit from a person who otherwise appears to be of good character, and that being dropped is one possible outcome.

 

[Wonkster]

... As a side note, I spoke to someone during that hike that had given Ryback a ride...

I know nothing of this famous episode in the annals of hiking, but when I hear stories like this I'm reminded that although Babe Ruth's legendary "called" home run in the 1932 World Series took place at Wrigley Field in Chicago, about a quarter of a million fans later claimed to have witnessed it.

Wrigley Field's capacity was something like 40,000 at the time.

 

[JS]

Anyways, one can hope that this is a similarly misguided lawsuit from a person who otherwise appears to be of good character, and that being dropped is one possible outcome.

Certainly, as regards Geno, it's a possible outcome. There are several other possibilities for an outcome favorable (legally if not personally) to him, including that the case won't be pursued in a new court if it's dismissed in New York State court on jurisdictional grounds.

I took the liberty, Kirk, of changing your headline, as the original seemed to imply some development in the actual case.

Most people take note of the accusation of personal impropriety on Geno's part in 2009. That and the naming of him as the first-named defendant, and the introduction of the case to the defendants via a kamikaze filing and media campaign, say that his part in the case is that of a pressure point. The plaintiff had some curious things to say about him trying to demonstrate control that sounded like a good deal of attitude is present here as well.

But the case trying to demonstrate a tort by Geno against the plaintiff indeed seems flimsy. Proving the incident, then proving he did something years later in relation to her work assignment, then proving whatever he did had a significant effect, then proving he lacked a proper motive for doing it strikes me as a group of bridges too far.

This is really a suit against the USA/NBA on gender discrimination grounds, with Geno included to make a splash and for whatever the plaintiff's referenced "control" issues are.

It's not about 2009, but about now -- a reassignment in her employment that she doesn't like. Nasty to drag Geno into it with a blaze of reputation-damaging publicity, but I suppose she really does think he caused the reassignment and is convinced that whatever comments, for example, he may have made about things she did during his practices, were unjustified and ill-motivated.

Thus she doesn't mind naming him in the manner she did, but is really trying to pursue a glass ceiling case against her employer. According to reports, her last promotion was in 2005, four years before the alleged "incident." Her attorney cites complimentary remarks from her boss in 2006, and one assumes if he had anything more recent we'd hear about it.

So on the "real" lawsuit, we shall see. The most damage Geno's going to incur, IMO, has already happened and is unlikely to get any worse. I think it likely the legal side of it will go away one way or the other, without him forking over a dime. The other side of it will linger like a bad odor but, we can hope, will similarly fade in pungency in time.

 

[schmendrick]

Reminds me of the April 2012 anonymously sourced ESPN report that had Saints GM Mickey Loomis wiretapping the Superdome from 2002-04 to eavesdrop on opposing coaches. He came out guns blazing, not only denying the allegations but welcoming a full investigation.

Not an exactly analogy, since there was no lawsuit involved. Still, since then, no follow-up--indeed nary a peep--except for some mention of the source being a disgruntled ex-employee.

 

[JACKofallTrades]

On Ryback...

I still have a paperback (71) of his book "The High Adventures of ER." I think the N Geo piece was taken (in part) from it. I've hiked a lot of the AT, and was planning on hiking the PCrest (parts in Wash & Oregon... Mt Shuksan, Adams, etc) in the late 70's. I didn't even know they had put out any official guides that early. I still have loads of Nat Geodetic Survey maps from those areas. But I never got the time (many weeks) to do it though... employment was the major reason.

Ryback tells how he arrested a fall (early-on) on a snowy-icy steep slope. Some years later I (ironically) had the same thing happen to me (stupidly) coming down Tuckerman's Ravine in (very early) spring. It's amazing how fast you accelerate when you slip, fall, & slide down ice on a 40% grade. I think Ryback hurt his leg but I was luckier. But it was only blind luck I didn't fall into a crevasse & get myself killed.

I'd never heard of his controversy. But Ryback was very young & no doubt had people & legal types (the publishing world) pushing that issue for him. Even if he skipped some sections, it was still a great story, especially for hiker types. He opened the door to LOTs of (future) hikers. Through-hiking the AT was pretty rare in the 50's & 60's... it grew to hundreds & hundreds in the 70's & 80's. (BTW, it reminds me a bit of people who criticized Bear Grylls for taking a night off (not sleeping onsite) on a few of his episodes... big deal, it's NOT some dopey reality show, it's made to educate, inform, entertain & inspire people, especially youngsters.)

I have no idea of the character of the plaintiff in this recent suit. The fact she's a lawyer isn't (necessarily) a good thing for her IMO. Some of the biggest crooks in the world are lawyers. (A person's occupation as NOTHING to do with their character, anymore than their race or sex does). Anyone who's seen people (both men & women... but women can be worse IMHO) sue people at work, know how screwed up some of their thought process can be. I've seen 24-carat-gold nutcases... otherwise "normal" people, sue a boss or fellow employee for the most inane (or convoluted) "reasons".

 

[UConnCat]

Thus she doesn't mind naming him in the manner she did, but is really trying to pursue a glass ceiling case against her employer. According to reports, her last promotion was in 2005, four years before the alleged "incident." Her attorney cites complimentary remarks from her boss in 2006, and one assumes if he had anything more recent we'd hear about it.

In paragraph 35, the complaint asserts that in 2011 plaintiff was told by her immediate supervisor (Mr. Robinson) that the former VP of Security for the NBA, Mr Tolbert, had "rejected," "erased" and rewritten negative evaluations of the plaintiff and submitted them under Mr. Robinson's name. The complaint goes on to assert that Mr. Robinson did not object to these actions because Mr. Tolbert was his immediate supervisor.

So, I guess there are some negative evaluations in her NBA personnel file. Also, according to paragraph 31, Mr. Tolbert is the only named NBA executive to whom the plaintiff reported the alleged incident with Geno after returning from Russia. (The complaint asserts that other unnamed "senior managers" were also told about the incident. Also, as an aside, Tolbert is no longer with the NBA and was reportedly the subject of a sexual harassment claim and settlement.) If Tolbert denies being told about the incident, would this denial be consistent with his erasing and rewriting her evaluations?

Another curious part of the complaint are the assertions that Carol Callan was "used" by Geno to send messages to the plaintiff. The word "used" appears in the complaint. Carol Callan is the Director of the Women's National Team and I highly doubt Geno would or could "use" her to do anything she didn't want or feel a need to do. The tone of this complaint towards Carol Callan is truly offensive.

 

[Icebear]

Another curious part of the complaint are the assertions that Carol Callan was "used" by Geno to send messages to the plaintiff. The word "used" appears in the complaint. Carol Callan is the Director of the Women's National Team and I highly doubt Geno would or could "use" her to do anything she didn't want or feel a need to do. The tone of this complaint towards Carol Callan is truly offensive.

That word "used" may only indicate going through proper channels. Geno had no direct relationship to the NBA. He was accountable to USA Basketball. Logically, he might simply have reported any potential issues to Callan for her to execute according to USA Basketball's standard operating procedures and contract with the NBA.

 

[UConnCat]

That word "used" may only indicate going through proper channels. Geno had no direct relationship to the NBA. He was accountable to USA Basketball. Logically, he might simply have reported any potential issues to Callan for her to execute according to USA Basketball's standard operating procedures and contract with the NBA.

That's not how I interpreted the use of the word in the complaint. Implicit in the language used (no pun intended) is that Geno was the one calling the shots and Carol Callan was merely a messenger for his ridiculous, controlling and vindictive requests. In fact, the complaint refers to Carol Callan as the "Travel Director." Right, Carol Callan just makes travel arrangements for the Women's National Team. Here's what the complaint states:

33. ...The Plaintiff ... was informed by USA Basketball Travel Director, Carol Callan, that Coach Auriemma did not want her to wear the baseball cap. Despite finding the request ridiculous, Plaintiff nonetheless complied without question.

34. During the second trip, Auriemma used Callan once again to send a "you're not welcome here" message through her colleague Rachel Shannon, who told Plaintiff that Auriemma wanted her to stop encouraging the players while they were playing....

 

[pinotbear]

Not to be picky, but I haven't seen any reference to her passing the bar exam anywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I don't think she's a lawyer. She may have graduated from law school, but that doesn't make you a lawyer.

 

[2ndCity]

I know nothing of this famous episode in the annals of hiking, but when I hear stories like this I'm reminded that although Babe Ruth's legendary "called" home run in the 1932 World Series took place at Wrigley Field in Chicago, about a quarter of a million fans later claimed to have witnessed it.
Wrigley Field's capacity was something like 40,000 at the time.

Don't mean to quibble, but after adding an upper deck in 1927, Wrigley Field's capacity grew to where
it now seats 41,158 other win-starved, miserable fans like me.

 

[Icebear]

That's not how I interpreted the use of the word in the complaint. Implicit in the language used (no pun intended) is that Geno was the one calling the shots and Carol Callan was merely a messenger for his ridiculous, controlling and vindictive requests. In fact, the complaint refers to Carol Callan as the "Travel Director." Right, Carol Callan just makes travel arrangements for the Women's National Team. Here's what the complaint states:

33. ...The Plaintiff ... was informed by USA Basketball Travel Director, Carol Callan, that Coach Auriemma did not want her to wear the baseball cap. Despite finding the request ridiculous, Plaintiff nonetheless complied without question.

34. During the second trip, Auriemma used Callan once again to send a "you're not welcome here" message through her colleague Rachel Shannon, who told Plaintiff that Auriemma wanted her to stop encouraging the players while they were playing....

I was pointing out that the use of the term is ambiguous at best and simply suggesting an alternative reading.

 

[Wonkster]

Don't mean to quibble, but after adding an upper deck in 1927, Wrigley Field's capacity grew to where it now seats 41,158 other win-starved, miserable fans like me.

Quibble away. Chew some Wrigley gum while you're quibbling.

Your argument is with the Wikipedia article on Wrigley Field, which has a long section on seating capacity over the years. The list shows many alterations in seating capacity after 1927, starting as soon as 1928, when it was bumped to 40,000 for the next decade.

 

[diggerfoot]

I know nothing of this famous episode in the annals of hiking, but when I hear stories like this I'm reminded that although Babe Ruth's legendary "called" home run in the 1932 World Series took place at Wrigley Field in Chicago, about a quarter of a million fans later claimed to have witnessed it.

Wrigley Field's capacity was something like 40,000 at the time.

Perhaps I should add that the people I talked to were just normal folk, so to speak, from the rural Trinity Alps section of the trail. They knew little about the young Pacific Crest Trail and nothing about Ryback other than he was the guy who came through that was having some kind of trouble that led to them giving him a ride.

 

[diggerfoot]

On Ryback...

I still have a paperback (71) of his book "The High Adventures of ER." I think the N Geo piece was taken (in part) from it. I've hiked a lot of the AT, and was planning on hiking the PCrest (parts in Wash & Oregon... Mt Shuksan, Adams, etc) in the late 70's. I didn't even know they had put out any official guides that early. I still have loads of Nat Geodetic Survey maps from those areas. But I never got the time (many weeks) to do it though... employment was the major reason.

Ryback tells how he arrested a fall (early-on) on a snowy-icy steep slope. Some years later I (ironically) had the same thing happen to me (stupidly) coming down Tuckerman's Ravine in (very early) spring. It's amazing how fast you accelerate when you slip, fall, & slide down ice on a 40% grade. I think Ryback hurt his leg but I was luckier. But it was only blind luck I didn't fall into a crevasse & get myself killed.

I'd never heard of his controversy. But Ryback was very young & no doubt had people & legal types (the publishing world) pushing that issue for him. Even if he skipped some sections, it was still a great story, especially for hiker types. He opened the door to LOTs of (future) hikers. Through-hiking the AT was pretty rare in the 50's & 60's... it grew to hundreds & hundreds in the 70's & 80's. (BTW, it reminds me a bit of people who criticized Bear Grylls for taking a night off (not sleeping onsite) on a few of his episodes... big deal, it's NOT some dopey reality show, it's made to educate, inform, entertain & inspire people, especially youngsters.)

I have no idea of the character of the plaintiff in this recent suit. The fact she's a lawyer isn't (necessarily) a good thing for her IMO. Some of the biggest crooks in the world are lawyers. (A person's occupation as NOTHING to do with their character, anymore than their race or sex does). Anyone who's seen people (both men & women... but women can be worse IMHO) sue people at work, know how screwed up some of their thought process can be. I've seen 24-carat-gold nutcases... otherwise "normal" people, sue a boss or fellow employee for the most inane (or convoluted) "reasons".

I'm not sure how much the book you referenced was responsible for an increased flow of thru-hikers. My first thru-hike of the AT was in 1975 and at the time I never heard of it. I believe that is true for most of the thru-hikers I spent a good deal of time with that year. Though one thing I'm foggy on, and perhaps you can clarify for me, is the matter of timing. You cited the book at '71. I had thought Ryback allegedly (though not in reality) completed the Triple Crown in 1972. Does the book not include (I've never read it) mention of all of the Big Three?

You are probably aware of the oft-repeated phrase in long distance hiking: "walk your own walk." There is a tendency to get elitist about how a trail should be hiked, and that phrase in expanded version means: "everybody is different, never mind how someone else is tackling their own journey, just be true to your own." I think I'm pretty good at accepting, even encouraging, all different types of hiking: long mileage, short mileage; heavy weight, ultralight weight; white, blue or even yellow blazing. Different types of journeys bring different types of tremendous value to different types of people. However, I don't think much of people not being true to their own journey, as is clearly the case when someone has to lie about what they did. Of course, Ryback gained a small measure of fame and fortune in that manner; perhaps that was what his real journey was about after all.

Having said that, I don't doubt that Eric Ryback is basically a person of good character, except for this particular situation. Like I said, that gives me hope that another person of alleged good character can let work ambition corrupt her in similar fashion.

Um, I hate to do this to a fellow backpacker, but since I'm replying I might as well express what went through the mind of many who read your comment. Your last paragraph contradicts itself two separate times, though perhaps your use of icons was to underscore that as humor. Excuse me for not being perceptive enough to be certain of the difference.

 

[diggerfoot]

Certainly, as regards Geno, it's a possible outcome. There are several other possibilities for an outcome favorable (legally if not personally) to him, including that the case won't be pursued in a new court if it's dismissed in New York State court on jurisdictional grounds.

I took the liberty, Kirk, of changing your headline, as the original seemed to imply some development in the actual case.

Most people take note of the accusation of personal impropriety on Geno's part in 2009. That and the naming of him as the first-named defendant, and the introduction of the case to the defendants via a kamikaze filing and media campaign, say that his part in the case is that of a pressure point. The plaintiff had some curious things to say about him trying to demonstrate control that sounded like a good deal of attitude is present here as well.

But the case trying to demonstrate a tort by Geno against the plaintiff indeed seems flimsy. Proving the incident, then proving he did something years later in relation to her work assignment, then proving whatever he did had a significant effect, then proving he lacked a proper motive for doing it strikes me as a group of bridges too far.

This is really a suit against the USA/NBA on gender discrimination grounds, with Geno included to make a splash and for whatever the plaintiff's referenced "control" issues are.

It's not about 2009, but about now -- a reassignment in her employment that she doesn't like. Nasty to drag Geno into it with a blaze of reputation-damaging publicity, but I suppose she really does think he caused the reassignment and is convinced that whatever comments, for example, he may have made about things she did during his practices, were unjustified and ill-motivated.

Thus she doesn't mind naming him in the manner she did, but is really trying to pursue a glass ceiling case against her employer. According to reports, her last promotion was in 2005, four years before the alleged "incident." Her attorney cites complimentary remarks from her boss in 2006, and one assumes if he had anything more recent we'd hear about it.

So on the "real" lawsuit, we shall see. The most damage Geno's going to incur, IMO, has already happened and is unlikely to get any worse. I think it likely the legal side of it will go away one way or the other, without him forking over a dime. The other side of it will linger like a bad odor but, we can hope, will similarly fade in pungency in time.

Thanks for correcting my title. (See I'm still sucking up).