Penny Toler Sues the Sparks...bad stuff

[j66kicker]

Former Sparks GM says reason for her firing (profanity-laden tirade after a game) wasn't the real reason: Retaliation after she complained about multiple inappropriate relationships within the organization, including Agler and a player - yikes.

Ex-Sparks GM Toler files suit against WNBA team

Former Los Angeles Sparks general manager Penny Toler is suing the WNBA team, saying she was fired for raising complaints about inappropriate sexual relationships involving the team president and a managing partner, not for using a racial slur.

www.espn.com

 

[nwhoopfan]

 

[triaddukefan]

 

[WestCoast]

Was wondering why Agler would leave the Sparks to coach another WNBA team that likely would not be as competitive. It would appear that Toler knows some dirt and is willing to share. The player who allegedly had the affair with Agler wasn't named. My guess is that there is plenty of speculation in LA as to who the player is.

 

[Plebe]

Toler knows where the bodies are buried and she ain't playin'.

And everyone's going under the bus. I just skimmed the article but lost track of all the shenanigans and who did what.

She goes after Agler good. Says he not only had a sexual relationship with an unnamed player, but:

"Toler said the former coach's "sexually predatory conduct caused certain Sparks players to complain that he made them uncomfortable, and compelled other Sparks players to leave the team altogether." Agler eventually resigned and is currently coaching Dallas."​

​

Another curious tidbit mentioned in passing: Toler was looking to trade Candace Parker, but says she was blocked by (paraphrasing here) one knucklehead who was sleeping with another knucklehead who was close to Parker.

 

[j66kicker]

Toler knows where the bodies are buried and she ain't playin

Well, she's sorta playin:

Toler said the former coach's "sexually predatory conduct caused certain Sparks players to complain that he made them uncomfortable, and compelled other Sparks players to leave the team altogether." Agler eventually resigned and is currently coaching Dallas. [Lucky Katie Lou & Karlie, huh? Ewwww...]

Said she didn't want to damage the Sparks' reputation, but had no choice to sue after talks on her getting pay she thought she was owed, and to clear her name, went nowhere.

 

[willtalk]

Toler knows where the bodies are buried and she ain't playin'.

And everyone's going under the bus. I just skimmed the article but lost track of all the shenanigans and who did what.

She goes after Agler good. Says he not only had a sexual relationship with an unnamed player, but:

"Toler said the former coach's "sexually predatory conduct caused certain Sparks players to complain that he made them uncomfortable, and compelled other Sparks players to leave the team altogether." Agler eventually resigned and is currently coaching Dallas."​

​

Another curious tidbit mentioned in passing: Toler was looking to trade Candace Parker, but says she was blocked by (paraphrasing here) one knucklehead who was sleeping with another knucklehead who was close to Parker.

It certainly explains some things. Especially why Parker was still on the team. She should have been traded a couple years ago.

So was Agler grabbing, hugging and sniffing players hair?

 

[WestCoast]

It certainly explains some things. Especially why Parker was still on the team. She should have been traded a couple years ago.

So was Agler grabbing, hugging and sniffing players hair?

Toler alleges Agler's actions were more "predatory" than that, but neither Agler's name nor the name of the player have been released.

 

[willtalk]

To help put the allegations of the suit into a better context, a poster ( who I believe is a lawyer) points out the wording used in the complaint does not make Tolar accountable for the truth of her allegations. The words used are " on information and belief " in other words things she has heard. This protects her from being charged with purgery if those allegations are not true. She is not swearing to their truthfulness. He also stated that lawyers often use those terms to enter exaggerations usually when they are looking for leverage for out of court settlements. And that is what Tolar wants -- the money she feels the Sparks owe her.

 

[JordyG]

To help put the allegations of the suit into a better context, a poster ( who I believe is a lawyer) points out the wording used in the complaint does not make Tolar accountable for the truth of her allegations. The words used are " on information and belief " in other words things she has heard. This protects her from being charged with purgery if those allegations are not true. She is not swearing to their truthfulness. He also stated that lawyers often use those terms to enter exaggerations usually when they are looking for leverage for out of court settlements. And that is what Tolar wants -- the money she feels the Sparks owe her.

The phrasing also protects her from slander and defamation.

 

[ShmiCO]

Ewwww...

You put my reaction into words... and one word was all it took!

 

[Bajan Best]

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

To help put the allegations of the suit into a better context, a poster ( who I believe is a lawyer) points out the wording used in the complaint does not make Tolar accountable for the truth of her allegations. The words used are " on information and belief " in other words things she has heard. This protects her from being charged with purgery if those allegations are not true. She is not swearing to their truthfulness. He also stated that lawyers often use those terms to enter exaggerations usually when they are looking for leverage for out of court settlements. And that is what Tolar wants -- the money she feels the Sparks owe her.

A few salient discussion points (general points, not specifically speaking to Penny Toler’s allegations or applicable California law)…

Allegedly defamatory statements are protected by absolute or qualified privileges, including under the following circumstances:

1. quasi-judicial, judicial or administrative proceedings;
2. legislative proceedings;
3. executive proceedings;
4. interest in the matter allegedly being investigated;
5. the recipient of the allegedly defamatory information or some other third person had some interest in the matter allegedly being investigated; and
6. the allegedly defamatory statements were of public interest.

In other words, parties are generally immune (based on privilege protection) from liability for allegedly defamatory statements made in quasi-judicial, judicial or administrative proceedings, which would include pleadings, such as Penny Toler’s Complaint.

In addition, Rule 11(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires an attorney who signs a complaint to certify that to the best of his/her “knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances”:

1. The lawsuit is not being brought for any improper purpose;
2. The claims and contentions in the complaint are warranted by existing law; and
3. The factual contentions have evidentiary support

If an attorney does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), he/she may be subject to sanctions. State rules of civil procedure have their own versions of Rule 11.

 

[YSRFrisbee]

@CamrnCrz1974 , I liked that post because it took a lot of time and effort on your part

(and I understood very little of it lol)

 

[TheFarmFan]

FWIW, "on information and belief" is also what someone states in a pleading in which they seek, during discovery, to obtain evidence that the statements are in fact true. Another reason her attorney likely included unsupported allegations in the complaint is in an attempt to make Agler's alleged affair a legally salient issue such that in order to defend the suit, the Sparks would have to turn over any evidence that documents proof of such an affair during discovery. Then the truth of those allegations would be triable facts at summary judgment or if the case went to a jury trial, which means all of that information would come to light, and Agler's affair would be dragged through the media. Absolutely an incentive to settle, even if it might turn out, in the end, to be either loosely true or loosely legally relevant to her firing.