Muffet continues her anti-Geno smear campaign
- Thread starter Plebe
- Start date
- Status
huskeynut
Leader of the Band
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 7,400
- Reaction Score
- 31,764
Sad commentary by Muffet. These types of statements started showing up a few years ago. This stuff does not serve Muffet, ND or women's basketball well - my opinion.
While I can appreciate Muffet's coaching ability, this type of rhetoric will never get my support.
While I can appreciate Muffet's coaching ability, this type of rhetoric will never get my support.
oldude
bamboo lover
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2016
- Messages
- 18,891
- Reaction Score
- 175,120
That’s correct, but males are not a “protected class.” Also, where exactly is the discrimination here?
RockyMTblue2
Don't Look Up!
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 23,187
- Reaction Score
- 104,478
"I'm not going to debate you Jerry." But:
"Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex.
Discrimination against an individual because of gender identity, including transgender status, or because of sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII."
***********
An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of sex, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a certain sex and is not job-related or necessary to the operation of the business. "
Sex-Based Discrimination [EEOC Guidelines]
"For sex discrimination to be illegal, it has to involve different treatment that negatively affects the terms or conditions of employment. Unlawful sex discrimination occurs when an employer treats an applicant or employee differently and less favorably because of his or her sex or gender or because the person is affiliated with an organization or group that is associated with a particular sex. Sex discrimination includes treating an employee or an applicant differently based on sex stereotypes or because he or she does not conform to traditional notions of femininity or masculinity. Sex discrimination also includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment may also include offensive remarks made about women or men in general. "
Sex Discrimination At Work | Equal Rights Advocates
Texas Man Wins Sexual Harassment Case Against Female Boss: Jury Awards James Gist $567K In Pam Matranga Case [PHOTO]
Anthony Griffin, Gist’s attorney, told the Houston Chronicle that the jury awarded Gist $200,000 more than he was seeking in damages. He also said the jury’s decision showed that gender didn’t play a role in the case.
“They rejected this whole notion that you get away with [sexual harassment] because you are a female," Griffin said. The attorney blamed Galveston County for not doing enough to stop Matranga’s behavior, noting that she was known to pull her shirt over her deputies’ heads (Matranga admitted to the behavior at trial but denied doing it to Griffin) and often made off-color jokes.
"It was about sex, and it was about power," Griffin told the Galveston County Daily News about the case. “The only way she could engage in such conduct is because of that badge on her blouse."
It would be a strange law that said woman are entitled to this protection but men are not. Pink, purple, black, chartreuse or white.
Damn @oldude I'm going to have a nightmare tonight. I'm standing at my counsel table and addressing the court and I'm not wearing a tie! The horror.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction Score
- 5,318
This would be reserve discrimination then if you claim that men are not a "protected class" Anytime you use something like race, sex, or age to promote one individual over another it is discrimination. Alan Bakke v UC Davis muddied the waters around affirmative action, but did come out and claim that his rights were violated according to the 14th Amendment when they refused to admit him.
oldude
bamboo lover
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2016
- Messages
- 18,891
- Reaction Score
- 175,120
I’m not suggesting that such lawsuits are not possible. It’s simply that they are very difficult to prove, and in this instance there is no basis for a lawsuit. No one has “standing” to my knowledge to bring a lawsuit under Title VII.
Furthermore, Title VII lawsuits are typically restricted to organizations that employ 15 people or more. The WBB staff at ND consists of 4 full time employees plus a grad assistant. If someone were going to bring a reverse discrimination lawsuit they would have to enlarge it to the entire ND athletic department, or the University as a whole. When you consider the makeup of the ND coaching staffs for football, MBB, baseball, etc. it would be impossible to make a case that ND systematically discriminated against male coaches.
CL82
NCAA Woman's Basketball National Champions
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 61,568
- Reaction Score
- 235,259
I've posted it before, but I think that Muffet realizes but for Geno, she'd likely be the winningest active coach in basketball. I think that stings a little. I think she was going for brand thing and it Geno kind of shot it down a bit, so she doubled down. I think @UConnCat has it right. Geno should laugh it off saying, "well I don't know some pretty great leaders have come out Connecticut. I think Diana or Sue might not agree that they aren't outstanding leaders. My philosophy has always been that I treat my players like basketball players. It seems to have worked out pretty well for them so far."
Last edited:
oldude
bamboo lover
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2016
- Messages
- 18,891
- Reaction Score
- 175,120
No disagreement that such cases can be brought, but in the absence of a “protected class” they are much harder to prove. As I also point out, there is no specific example of discrimination here, no one has standing to bring suit and Title VII lawsuits are typically restricted to organizations of 15 employees or more.
What we do agree on is that MM’s comments were dumb and inappropriate. If we started suing every time someone makes a dumb remark, there would be little time left to accomplish much of anything else.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
- Messages
- 9,876
- Reaction Score
- 29,420
Is the reverse discrimination aspect of this (Muffet's own personal affirmative action campaign?) much ado about nothing? Who exactly is it that would/could bring such suit? Is there a male who applied for an assistant coaching position and was not interviewed because he was male?
the Q
Yowie Wowie. We’re gonna have so much fun here
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2017
- Messages
- 7,019
- Reaction Score
- 11,239
The university of notre dame employs a lot more than 15 people
oldude
bamboo lover
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2016
- Messages
- 18,891
- Reaction Score
- 175,120
Yes, and how many of them are men? In order to prove systematic reverse discrimination a plaintiff would have to prove that ND’s discriminatory hiring practices extended well beyond WBB. So, for example, how many women coaches are employed on Brian Kelly’s staff at ND?
As I said to Rocky, MM’s comments were dumb and inappropriate. That does not make them the basis for a lawsuit.
RockyMTblue2
Don't Look Up!
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 23,187
- Reaction Score
- 104,478
Of course you need an aggrieved party to have a law suit. She's just announcing she intends to illegally discriminate at every opportunity. This makes her an intemperate fool as she panders to an audience who eats this stuff up.
And Swin doesn't think she can run an NBA front office department....
oldude
bamboo lover
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2016
- Messages
- 18,891
- Reaction Score
- 175,120
You raise an interesting point. Who exactly is MM’s audience when she makes such nonsensical comments? Is there a treasure trove of WBB recruits that believe men are the enemy. In the era of Me Too, does she feel likes she’s aligning herself with a movement?
I tend to think that MM is a bit insecure and Geno drives her crazy, combined with the fact that she sometimes lacks a “filter” when she speaks. As a result, she doesn’t always consider the ramifications of her comments like when she complained that Stewie was named the NPOY over her player, or after UConn demolished #1 ND in South Bend 3 seasons back, she complained about the discrepancy in foul calls.
MM needs to hire a public relations firm to work with her. There is absolutely nothing wrong with advocating for more women’s coaches in college sports. But the next time MM raises the issue perhaps she can start by praising the efforts of a more positive example of a long time WBB HC that has never ever hired a male assistant coach, something that even MM can not claim.
Of course I’m speaking of the short Italian guy in Storrs. So I expect the next time this subject comes up, MM will praise Geno for his 100% commitment to hiring only women assistant coaches. I also expect hell to freeze over...
RockyMTblue2
Don't Look Up!
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 23,187
- Reaction Score
- 104,478
I suspect you are right and that a lot of her utterances originate here. She has doubled down on this particular theme and maybe she thinks it is a recruiting tool. She should have said it just once and had ND's HR Dept. all over her with an advisory written caution. Should a male ever apply to work with her and be turned down he could make her squirm some. Maybe Coach Jumper should apply for her next opening!
RockyMTblue2
Don't Look Up!
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 23,187
- Reaction Score
- 104,478
You are conflating two things. Gender is a protected class. Protected Classes under Anti-Discrimination Laws
But in EEOC and state agencies in hiring and promotion cases particularly there is a rebuttable presumption of discrimination that arises from a showing of available position, application, qualification for the position and not getting it that they apply to certain categories they deem needing this protection.
But, I'm done. We might get booted you know!
CL82
NCAA Woman's Basketball National Champions
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 61,568
- Reaction Score
- 235,259
Mmm, I think she knows exactly what she's saying. Her comments are calculated to to give her an advantage. Now I'm not saying that she always gets that calculation right.
the Q
Yowie Wowie. We’re gonna have so much fun here
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2017
- Messages
- 7,019
- Reaction Score
- 11,239
Worked last. Two teams with male coaches got absolutely hosed.
RockyMTblue2
Don't Look Up!
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 23,187
- Reaction Score
- 104,478
Actually ... no. The 15 or more is a jurisdictional threshold, but you can prove a discriminatory practice in a small unit and have that intent attributed to the employer, because , of course, the discriminator is an agent of the university.
Okay, okay ... I'm done. I suspect I'll dream tonight that I'm naked in the court room and that I enrolled in a course I forgot about and the final is today! Ever had that one? My sequel to that horror is I try to go to the Registrar's Office to get out of the course and I can't find the Registrar's office.
Hey, that would make a great OT summer topic: Your "favorite" repetitive nightmares! ... Damn, where is my locker?
CamrnCrz1974
Good Guy for a Dookie
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction Score
- 12,348
@RockyMTblue2 did an incredible job of explaining the background of employment discrimination law and certain jurisdictional prerequisites. Here is my supplement to @RockyMTblue2 's commentary.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an unlawful employment practice for employers subject to the Act to discriminate against any individual with respect to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of that person’s race, color, sex, religion, and national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The statute also prohibits segregating or limiting employees/applicants based on one of the mentioned protected categories in any way that deprives them of employment opportunities. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2).
An employee/claimant in an employment discrimination case can proceed under two theories of discrimination: “disparate treatment and disparate impact.” Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 609 (1993)).
Disparate treatment claims must proceed along the lines of the praxis laid out by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and its progeny.
Under a disparate treatment theory, claims of sex discrimination based on circumstantial evidence are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework:
Once a claimant establishes a prima facie case, the employer must provide a legitimate explanation for its decision (the adverse employment action) that is non-discriminatory.
If the employer demonstrates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, the employee/claimant can prove discrimination only if he/she can demonstrate this proffered reason is actually pretext for discrimination. Beck v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 99, 506 F.3d 874, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1028 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
The overall burden of proof for the employee/claimant in disparate treatment employment discrimination claims is by a preponderance of the evidence.
Other Statutory Requirements & Issues
Title VII does not provide a cause of action against supervisors or individual employees. Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir. 1993).
In terms of numerosity requirement, Title VII requires 15 or more employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks during the current or preceding calendar year, as does the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A). By contrast, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) has a threshold requirement of 20 or more employees for 20 calendar weeks during either the year in which the alleged discriminatory act occurred or the preceding year. 29 U.S.C. § 630(b).
Finally, Title VII (and employment discrimination statutes) prohibit claims by applicants/employees against employers --- not independent contractors, not subdivisions or departments, etc. In general, a department/division of an employer is a non-jural entity. As examples, departments and subordinate entities of municipalities, counties, and towns are not separate legal entities or bodies and do not have the capacity to sue or be sued, absent specific statutory authority to do so. So an employee wanting to bring a claim of sex discrimination resulting from employment with the Phoenix Police Department would properly bring the claim against the City of Phoenix, not PPD -- the City is the employer; PPD is a department and a subpart of the City of Phoenix, not a separate entity for purposes of suit.
@oldude , any employment discrimination claim would be against the university (Notre Dame) under employment discrimination statutes, not the ND WBB program or the ND Athletic Department, as the "employer"/entity is Notre Dame. As such, the numerosity threshold would easily be met.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an unlawful employment practice for employers subject to the Act to discriminate against any individual with respect to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of that person’s race, color, sex, religion, and national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The statute also prohibits segregating or limiting employees/applicants based on one of the mentioned protected categories in any way that deprives them of employment opportunities. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2).
An employee/claimant in an employment discrimination case can proceed under two theories of discrimination: “disparate treatment and disparate impact.” Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 609 (1993)).
“Disparate treatment is demonstrated when the employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of [a protected characteristic].” Id. (internal marks and quotation marks omitted).
“Disparate impact” is demonstrated when “employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups . . . fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.” Pottenger v. Potlatch Corp., 329 F.3d 740, 749 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, an employee/claimaint attempts to demonstrate that specific practices (and not the cumulative effect of the employer's selection practices) have adverse effects on a protected group. Examples of relatively recent case law in this area include lifting/physical requirements discriminating on the basis of sex or criminal background processes discriminating on the basis of race.
Disparate treatment claims must proceed along the lines of the praxis laid out by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and its progeny.
Under a disparate treatment theory, claims of sex discrimination based on circumstantial evidence are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework:
- An employee must carry the initial burden to establish a prima facie case that creates an inference of discrimination.
- If the employee has justified a presumption of discrimination, an inference of discrimination arises and the burden shifts to the employer to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action.
- If the employer does so, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove that the employer's explanation is a pretext for discrimination.
- He/she was a member of a protected class;
- He/she was performing his/her job satisfactorily or was qualified for a position sought;
- He/she was discharged or otherwise suffered an adverse employment action; and
- Similarly-situated individuals outside his/herr protected class were treated more favorably or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to an inference of discrimination.
Once a claimant establishes a prima facie case, the employer must provide a legitimate explanation for its decision (the adverse employment action) that is non-discriminatory.
If the employer demonstrates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, the employee/claimant can prove discrimination only if he/she can demonstrate this proffered reason is actually pretext for discrimination. Beck v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 99, 506 F.3d 874, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1028 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
The overall burden of proof for the employee/claimant in disparate treatment employment discrimination claims is by a preponderance of the evidence.
Other Statutory Requirements & Issues
Title VII does not provide a cause of action against supervisors or individual employees. Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir. 1993).
In terms of numerosity requirement, Title VII requires 15 or more employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks during the current or preceding calendar year, as does the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A). By contrast, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) has a threshold requirement of 20 or more employees for 20 calendar weeks during either the year in which the alleged discriminatory act occurred or the preceding year. 29 U.S.C. § 630(b).
Finally, Title VII (and employment discrimination statutes) prohibit claims by applicants/employees against employers --- not independent contractors, not subdivisions or departments, etc. In general, a department/division of an employer is a non-jural entity. As examples, departments and subordinate entities of municipalities, counties, and towns are not separate legal entities or bodies and do not have the capacity to sue or be sued, absent specific statutory authority to do so. So an employee wanting to bring a claim of sex discrimination resulting from employment with the Phoenix Police Department would properly bring the claim against the City of Phoenix, not PPD -- the City is the employer; PPD is a department and a subpart of the City of Phoenix, not a separate entity for purposes of suit.
@oldude , any employment discrimination claim would be against the university (Notre Dame) under employment discrimination statutes, not the ND WBB program or the ND Athletic Department, as the "employer"/entity is Notre Dame. As such, the numerosity threshold would easily be met.
nwhoopfan
hopeless West Coast homer
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2017
- Messages
- 32,733
- Reaction Score
- 64,666
Blue Huskie
Transhumanist Consultant
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 5,398
- Reaction Score
- 17,208
I never thought Muffett had such a huge chip on her shoulder. I can't help but think it gets in the way of her enjoyment of life. Too bad.
Plebe
La verdad no peca pero incomoda
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2016
- Messages
- 20,020
- Reaction Score
- 73,877
And on the topic of leadership material, how many of Muffet's former players have gone on to be head coaches? I seriously can't think of a single one.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
- Messages
- 420
- Reaction Score
- 764
Megan Duffy.
Plebe
La verdad no peca pero incomoda
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2016
- Messages
- 20,020
- Reaction Score
- 73,877
Is that it? One?
She's been head-coaching longer than Geno, for cryin' out loud.
- Status