Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="8893, post: 2726094, member: 93"]
Nope. Not what I said.

Long ago when I first explained the legal theory you said you thought it was an interesting take. It’s not something to agree or disagree with. It’s a potential strategy that depends on the facts.

We still don’t know the facts, or at least I don’t. But all I have said is that when you fire someone for one thing but say that you fired them for something else, that CAN give rise to legal claims stemming from pretext.

One of those claims is breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing, which would depend on other factors as well, such as what they knew, when they knew it and what they did about it. How they have treated others who are similarly situated could also play a factor.

I think the word “cause” implies that there was actually a causal relationship and he seems to agree that the cause was the poor performance, not the other things being cited.

I don’t know if it would be successful here but it is a valid legal theory.

Taking JC’s statement for what it suggested seemed to help confirm that he was fired for performance and that the decision was made long before the end of the season, that is all.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

First name of men's bb coach