Dawn suing Mizzou AD

[shizam]

Did we sue Tennessee over their comments about Maya or were we unable to because they did it behind closed doors like cowards. Have to give the Mizz AD credit for doing it in public....
That being said... Anyone have the game on the internet for us to watch? I would love to see the crowd again. From what I remember seeing the crowd was very loud and non to pleasant. I will not say I agree with the assessment but I will not say it is without merit either.

Have people heard the AD’s radio appearance? It was done in a very low key manner and tone. This by itself doesn’t change anything but you can tell by his tone he wasn’t out of control and emotional. I think the AD is going to come out fine. He sounded very reasonable and without malice which doesn’t change his words but shows he wasn’t out to get her. I think he believes she actually did contribute to the situation.

 

[UConnNick]

I stand by my original post, a frivolous lawsuit.

Staley is a public figure. It is much tougher to prove a defamation case against a public figure because the burden of proof is much higher. You have to prove malice and a total disregard for the truth. What makes it even tougher is proving that she suffered some economic consequences due to her reputation being besmirched. She's not about to lose her job, and she's certainly not going to be able to prove she would not get another job because of it, so exactly how has she been harmed? I don't have anything against her. She's an Olympian, great coach, has a great program, and pulled herself off the mean streets of Philly, but this comes off as though she's a five year old kid who didn't like getting sand kicked in her face at the playground.

 

[BiscuitEater]

Think NEITHER side got the message after .. 'The SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey issued a statement on the matter on Feb. 1, saying: “I have had discussions with athletics directors at both institutions. Competition among SEC teams is highly intense but can never compromise the expectation of respect between our institutions.'

MIZ AD didn't back down or retract and got popped with a $25K fine. Dawn didn't back down and filed suit. Stankey then popped USCe with a "mandated a Conference office-led review of South Carolina’s game management procedures and visiting team security."

 

[UConnNick]

In addition to being part of common parlance, "frivolous" is a legal term of art. If you are using it as the latter , I'm afraid you are mistaken. A frivolous lawsuit is one filed with no factual basis for the allegations. Filing a frivolous action can lead to sanctions being imposed on both the plaintiff and her attorney (which is why the attorney's reputation for probity matters. A lawyer who values his/her reputation is not inclined to file a frivolous suit). In this case, if Dawn did not intentionally create the atmosphere described by the AD, she has a factual basis for the second element of her claim. With respect to her allegation that the AD knew that his statement was false, or acted in reckless disregard for the truth, the court will of necessity require little by way of factual basis at the outset of the litigation . That is because the third element turns on the defendant's mindset, something that is virtually impossible for a plaintiff to know or show directly. Discovery may turn up damning comments by the AD, or facts from which the requisite mindset can be inferred. Or maybe not. I think that the complaint alleges enough to get in the door under the circumstances, hence is not frivolous. Dawn's motivations for bringing the lawsuit are legally irrelevant. That said, it strikes me that seeking an apology is morally a better reason than seeking revenge. As is seeking to reform a broken system. Finally, one of the social functions of injury to reputation cases is that they provide a public mechanism for assessing and deciding how members of a society ought to treat one another. That is something to be valued, not sneered at.

Most if not all states have a rule of civil procedure which gives judges the right to throw out cases on the grounds of being determined as frivolous. Some may provide for sanctions against the attorney(s) involved for filing the case. As a practical matter, judges almost never invoke the rule because it puts them in the position of summarily deciding a case has no merit without any proof being offered or heard. They are much more inclined to let the cases proceed. They can always rule on a case at hearing prior to a trial if either or both sides file for a summary judgment, and that gives the losing side the right to appeal the decision.

In a case such as this one, it wouldn't surprise me if one or both sides do file for a SJ, and the judge might be inclined to throw it out, but give them the opportunity to get locked in a room until a settlement can be hammered out. If both sides agree to a settlement, they'll put a gag order on it so nobody gets to make public statements about it after the fact, and everybody moves on.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Most if not all states have a rule of civil procedure which gives judges the right to throw out cases on the grounds of being determined as frivolous. Some may provide for sanctions against the attorney(s) involved for filing the case. As a practical matter, judges almost never invoke the rule because it puts them in the position of summarily deciding a case has no merit without any proof being offered or heard. They are much more inclined to let the cases proceed. They can always rule on a case at hearing prior to a trial if either or both sides file for a summary judgment, and that gives the losing side the right to appeal the decision.

In a case such as this one, it wouldn't surprise me if one or both sides do file for a SJ, and the judge might be inclined to throw it out, but give them the opportunity to get locked in a room until a settlement can be hammered out. If both sides agree to a settlement, they'll put a gag order on it so nobody gets to make public statements about it after the fact, and everybody moves on.

If I have a dream tonight that I'm back in the courtroom, standing in font of a judge, with no clothes on I'll be coming for you and Crossover!

 

[Crossover]

If I have a dream tonight that I'm back in the courtroom, standing in font of a judge, with no clothes on I'll be coming for you and Crossover!

Ah yes, that dream. Am having flashbacks . Retirement is a good thing.

 

[UConnNick]

If I have a dream tonight that I'm back in the courtroom, standing in font of a judge, with no clothes on I'll be coming for you and Crossover!

Ah yes, that dream. Am having flashbacks . Retirement is a good thing.

You're the lucky ones. Some of us are still stuck having to fight these wars.

 

[shizam]

The problem is that the lawsuit is more about principal than anything thus the meager $75,000. As stated in the lawsuit all Dawn wanted was a retraction and/or apology for an unfounded accusation. If the Mizz could prove it, his arrogance would not have let him sit on said proof. Obviously, he was given a chance by the SEC commissioner and did not hence the $25,000 fine. I am African American and words and accusations like these normally come to often and go unpunished which cuts a little deeper especially when it involves this particular racial epithet and spitting which is the lowest form of degradation possible imo. This accusation was reported on the ESPN crawler, USA today, Washington Post, and in New York Times. I am sorry that Dawn will not just move on but frankly, I don't think she should. As I stated, what he said about an African American woman whose team in majority African American cuts deep and unless you have been where she has been and built your life around her service to country and the game of basketball, you cannot relate. No she will not just go away and shut up. If nothing else, the judge or proceedings will at least establish no proof of his insane accusations that I feel were meant to endure himself to his fanbase, yet in a very foolish and irresponsible way.

I’m glad she is filing if we can get specifics from the Mizzou AD on what he thinks she did.

 

[CL82]

Win or lose, Dawn isn't going to get what she wants and she might, in fact, make things worse. You can't bully, legislate, or preach someone into tolerance or respect. This lawsuit may be one of principal for Dawn, but to everyone but South Carolina fans she looks petty and petulant.

Sure she is. She is sending a very clear and unequivocal message that she isn't going to sit quietly if you accuse her of racism. If she took the high road and said nothing, some would take it as a tacit acknowledgement that there was some truth in the accusation. I applaud her for choosing not to be quietly victimized.

 

[Centerstream]

I’m glad she is filing if we can get specifics from the Mizzou AD on what he thinks she did.

Oh, that's a good reason to waste the court's time...

 

[BigBird]

One additional thing that may have been overlooked is the nature of the event. It was the performance of an entertainment event, in this case basketball. Dawn Staley is an actor in that event. As such, the words of a critic, no matter how harsh or even unfair are protected speech. We don’t see movie studios suing over unfavorable reviews. There is a sound legal reason for this.

It seems to me that the only way forward for Staley is to prove that before the remarks were uttered, Stankey disclosed to a third person that he intended to smear her, truth be damned. Otherwise, what we have here is a just another public performance that played to a very bad review.

As another “by the way,” in some states, the party who wins a civil suit can collect legal fees from the loser. Something else for Staley to consider.

 

[UConnNick]

One additional thing that may have been overlooked is the nature of the event. It was the performance of an entertainment event, in this case basketball. Dawn Staley is an actor in that event. As such, the words of a critic, no matter how harsh or even unfair are protected speech. We don’t see movie studios suing over unfavorable reviews. There is a sound legal reason for this.

It seems to me that the only way forward for Staley is to prove that before the remarks were uttered, Stankey disclosed to a third person that he intended to smear her, truth be damned. Otherwise, what we have here is a just another public performance that played to a very bad review.

As another “by the way,” in some states, the party who wins a civil suit can collect legal fees from the loser. Something else for Staley to consider.

She's got the bucks, so I suppose she can be frivilous with them if she wants to be. Other than making a public spectacle out of it, if that's her only goal, her odds of winning are not good. I think the SEC may pressure both sides to settle this matter and not drag it through a protracted legal battle, for the good of the entire conference.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Sure she is. She is sending a very clear and unequivocal message that she isn't going to sit quietly if you accuse her of racism. If she took the high road and said nothing, some would take it as a tacit acknowledgement that there was some truth in the accusation. I applaud her for choosing not to be quietly victimized.

I don’t think she was accused of racism personally.

 

[sharris952]

I think most on here who have otherwise biased view against Dawn are not seeing the point. I highly doubt that the Mizzou Ad could get or seek damages given the clear audio of his assertions. All he needed to do was give the retraction for lack of proof or produce the proof. For all the legal heads on this board, consider that South Carolina had already submitted a review of its game procedures to the SEC, prior to the meeting of the AD's so that statement was a political one to maintain a neutral relationship. There will also be implied lack of proof due to the 25k fine already levied by the commissioner, especially since this will be heard in State Court. If for nothing else, this will most likely deter Sterk or any other ADs from being this reckless in the future. Think of it this way so we can put away our "everything dawn does irritates me bias.a" Saying Geno is a jerk or arrogant is one thing but saying he promoted an atmosphere to call his players an Italian or other epithet that is used in poor circles to decribe girls that represent the majority of his Uconn team would invoke another type of emotion. Then if you try to get a conclusion and the person basically thumbs their nose at it, what would Geno do. He speaks his mind and Dawn and Muffet, all coaches from Philadelphia don't just let ignorance ride on by.

 

[CL82]

I don’t think she was accused of racism personally.

Mmm, I guess. She was accused of promoting an atmosphere of racism.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Mmm, I guess. She was accused of promoting an atmosphere of racism.

I don’t think she was accused of that either.

I think the AD said her comments created and/or promoted an unhealthy environment.

I do not think the comment could be fairly understood to be accusing her of promoting racial slurs or spitting.

 

[Biff]

This has been beaten to death but there's one opinion I'd like to add that I don't think has been said (but I haven't gone back and re-read the 5 pages)

If I were in the SC administration, I would have first tried to get the administration and the coach aligned and unified in their position. If that position was to proceed with some type of legal action, I would have thought the administration would want to deflect the matter from the head coach (to allow her to proceed in doing her job, especially at tournament time) and would have had the legal challenge issued by the athletic department.

By having her file on her own, after the conversations and actions already taken by the league and the administrations of the two schools, it not only can be a distraction to Dawn while she is supposed to be preparing her team for league and NCAA tournament play, it also implies that The School administration and Dawn are not completely aligned on the matter. I think that the best recourse however would be for the athletic departments of both schools to clear up the issue and avoid intra-league legal actions.

Overall, in the end, the most important outcome of all of this is not an apology or victory in a court case but rather a fair and safe environment for sports competition for all teams and competitors.

That really should be the end game.

 

[CL82]

I don’t think she was accused of that either.

I think the AD said her comments created and/or promoted an unhealthy environment.

I do not think the comment could be fairly understood to be accusing her of promoting racial slurs or spitting.

Hmm, that wasn't my impression. Apparently, from the complaint, it wasn't Coach Staley's either:

Let's take a look at what he actually said:

Sterk, who attended the game, subsequently went on Columbia, Mo., radio station KTGR and said, “We had players spit on and called the n-word and things like that,” Sterk said. “I mean, it was not a good environment, and unfortunately I think Coach Staley promoted that kind of atmosphere. And it’s unfortunate that she felt she had to do that.”

LINK

I think that's a bit stronger merely saying she promoted "an unhealthy environment."

 

[HopJim]

Hmm, that wasn't my impression. Apparently, from the complaint, it wasn't Coach Staley's either:

Let's take a look at what he actually said:
LINK

I think that's a bit stronger merely saying she promoted "an unhealthy environment."

While this event had the potential for a positive outcome, how its been managed is unfortunate. Any time we can reduce or eliminate racial or safety issues, normally worth the time. Wonder who gave Dawn advice to sue since its unlikely a public figure would be found guilty without clear intent to use false info. Rarely happens so the focus has evolved to Dawn against the world, not how to stop stupid comments and crowd action.

 

[CL82]

While this event had the potential for a positive outcome, how its been managed is unfortunate. Any time we can reduce or eliminate racial or safety issues, normally worth the time. Wonder who gave Dawn advice to sue since its unlikely a public figure would be found guilty without clear intent to use false info. Rarely happens so the focus has evolved to Dawn against the world, not how to stop stupid comments and crowd action.

Tough to make Dawn the villain here in my opinion. Sterk's comments were insulting, inflammatory and possible slanderous. Maybe that's the place to start if we are going to be critical?

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Hmm, that wasn't my impression. Apparently, from the complaint, it wasn't Coach Staley's either:

Let's take a look at what he actually said:
LINK

I think that's a bit stronger merely saying she promoted "an unhealthy environment."

Staley's impression of what was intended is not the legal standard. Nor should it be.

What Sterk actually said was this:

"It wasn't a great atmosphere. It was really kind of unhealthy if you will," Sterk explained on KTGR radio, via ESPN. "We had players spit on and called the N-word and things like that. It was not a good environment. And unfortunately I think Coach Staley promoted that kind of atmosphere, and it's unfortunate that she felt she had to do that."


Now, you can either take that as his suggesting that Staley literally encouraged the fans to use racial slurs and spit on players or you can take it as suggesting that her actions before the game were inflammatory and that the actions of certain fans were examples of what happened as a result.

I personally think the first interpretation is pretty far fetched, but I've seen enough comments to know its something that actual people believe. Still, it doesn't make any sense to suggest that Dawn Staley was specifically promoting racism or spitting.

I think the second interpretation is pretty obviously what he meant. I happen to think it is still very unfair and that he should have apologized or clarified the statement out of expedience, if nothing else. But pretty clearly on the Missouri side, people were not particularly happy with the way that Coach Staley strongly insinuated that Missouri plays dirty and that the officials had been responsible for the first win. Add in an in game altercation plus female students reporting that they had been spit on and heard racial slurs, plus which was by all accounts an overall unfriendly crowd and you sort of get it.

I just wish they could stop posturing and get on with being reasonable people.

I hope Missouri apologizes. If not, I hope Coach's lawsuit is dismissed immediately. It's a really poor use of the court system.

 

[CL82]

Staley's impression of what was intended is not the legal standard. Nor should it be.

What Sterk actually said was this:

"It wasn't a great atmosphere. It was really kind of unhealthy if you will," Sterk explained on KTGR radio, via ESPN. "We had players spit on and called the N-word and things like that. It was not a good environment. And unfortunately I think Coach Staley promoted that kind of atmosphere, and it's unfortunate that she felt she had to do that."


Now, you can either take that as his suggesting that Staley literally encouraged the fans to use racial slurs and spit on players or you can take it as suggesting that her actions before the game were inflammatory and that the actions of certain fans were examples of what happened as a result.

I personally think the first interpretation is pretty far fetched, but I've seen enough comments to know its something that actual people believe. Still, it doesn't make any sense to suggest that Dawn Staley was specifically promoting racism or spitting.

I think the second interpretation is pretty obviously what he meant. I happen to think it is still very unfair and that he should have apologized or clarified the statement out of expedience, if nothing else. But pretty clearly on the Missouri side, people were not particularly happy with the way that Coach Staley strongly insinuated that Missouri plays dirty and that the officials had been responsible for the first win. Add in an in game altercation plus female students reporting that they had been spit on and heard racial slurs, plus which was by all accounts an overall unfriendly crowd and you sort of get it.

I just wish they could stop posturing and get on with being reasonable people.

I hope Missouri apologizes. If not, I hope Coach's lawsuit is dismissed immediately. It's a really poor use of the court system.

So you are suggesting that Sterk unintentionally made a comment that could easily be interpreted as Staley promoting an atmosphere of racism? So why wouldn't he issue a statement clarifying that position? Problem solved right? His refusal to do so makes that interpretation ring pretty hollow.

Note that USC and Stately went first to the league to ask for a retraction, which was refused by Sterk, before going to the courts.

Sorry, this isn't on Staley in the least. Sterk can make it go away today, if he wanted to.

 

[HuskyNan]

I think most on here who have otherwise biased view against Dawn are not seeing the point. I highly doubt that the Mizzou Ad could get or seek damages given the clear audio of his assertions. All he needed to do was give the retraction for lack of proof or produce the proof. For all the legal heads on this board, consider that South Carolina had already submitted a review of its game procedures to the SEC, prior to the meeting of the AD's so that statement was a political one to maintain a neutral relationship. There will also be implied lack of proof due to the 25k fine already levied by the commissioner, especially since this will be heard in State Court. If for nothing else, this will most likely deter Sterk or any other ADs from being this reckless in the future. Think of it this way so we can put away our "everything dawn does irritates me bias.a" Saying Geno is a jerk or arrogant is one thing but saying he promoted an atmosphere to call his players an Italian or other epithet that is used in poor circles to decribe girls that represent the majority of his Uconn team would invoke another type of emotion. Then if you try to get a conclusion and the person basically thumbs their nose at it, what would Geno do. He speaks his mind and Dawn and Muffet, all coaches from Philadelphia don't just let ignorance ride on by.

You are misinterpreting comment that disapprove of the lawsuit as disapproval of Dawn herself. I like Dawn, I just think this lawsuit is ill-advised.

Look, we root for Geno. For the last few decades we’ve seen him do all kinds of things that makes us roll our eyes or even cringe. We took him to task for those things but that doesn’t mean we don’t like or respect him as a coach and as a human being.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

So you are suggesting that Sterk unintentionally made a comment that could easily be interpreted as Staley promoting an atmosphere of racism? So why wouldn't he issue a statement clarifying that position? Problem solved right? His refusal to do so makes that interpretation ring pretty hollow.

Note that USC and Stately went first to the league to ask for a retraction, which was refused by Sterk, before going to the courts.

Sorry, this isn't on Staley in the least. Sterk can make it go away today, if he wanted to.

Yes. I think that it’s probable that the AD did not intend to suggest that Staley was encouraging racism or spitting. I think it’s also probable that he was speaking off the cuff on a local talk show and wasn’t intending on making a national statement.

I don’t have any idea why he wouldn’t have clarified the statement. That’s what anyone would have advised him to do but I think maybe it turned into a pissing contest and maybe he has his reasons rooted in local politics.

I think he has handled it pretty unprofessionally and foolishly. When you are a face of a university getting sued for defamation over a petty series of events, it is a pretty good sign you are screwing up.

 

[BigBird]

So you are suggesting that Sterk unintentionally made a comment that could easily be interpreted as Staley promoting an atmosphere of racism? So why wouldn't he issue a statement clarifying that position? Problem solved right? His refusal to do so makes that interpretation ring pretty hollow...

“No further statement on advice of legal counsel.” There’s one good reason for you. Once the suit is filed, you keep your mouth shut.

 

[CL82]

“No further statement on advice of legal counsel.” There’s one good reason for you. Once the suit is filed, you keep your mouth shut.

The suit was filed subsequent to his refusal to retract or clarify the statement.

 

[BigBird]

The suit was filed subsequent to his refusal to retract or clarify the statement.

Fair enough. But at the place where we stand at this moment, it’s still true. “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

My guess is that Mizzou believes strongly in its view -and- knows that Staley has no shot in court. So, they elect to stand pat. That both sides have failed to impress us with their petulance means nothing to them, no matter that it’s a waste of time, money, and energy better used elsewhere.

 

[CL82]

Fair enough. But at the place where we stand at this moment, it’s still true. “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

Mmm, Miranda warning so not really relevant to a civil case but yeah, I guess. Look, it is no big deal to have counsel hammer out a mutually acceptable statement. Sterk is apparently refusing since Staley has indicated that she would accept one. Enjoy the legal fees Mizzou.

 

[BigBird]

Mmm, Miranda warning so not really relevant to a civil case but yeah, I guess. Look, it is no big deal to have counsel hammer out a mutually acceptable statement. Sterk is apparently refusing since Staley has indicated that she would accept one. Enjoy the legal fees Mizzou.

I was being semi-sarcastic with Miranda. But in fact, any public statement could be used in court, civil or otherwise.

 

[BigBird]

... Look, it is no big deal to have counsel hammer out a mutually acceptable statement. Sterk is apparently refusing since Staley has indicated that she would accept one...

We agree. Please note that I am not defending the AD. What I have said, both directly and indirectly, is that this is a silly case that will never get to a jury, nor should it.