Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CamrnCrz1974, post: 3220017, member: 1052"] [USER=6927]@Plebe[/USER] , thank you for sharing this link. As someone who practices labor and employment law (and who has done so for government agencies that have classified service/covered employees and an administrative appellate mechanism for disciplinary actions), I wanted to add a few thoughts. Regarding the potential legal arguments for Williams/WNBPA, SI Legal Expert Michael McCann states: This goes back to one of the points that I have made on Rebkell and in discussions with friends. A criminal conviction is not the same process as an administrative disciplinary action in the workplace, nor does it have nearly the same burden of proof. In the criminal context, it is possible that Williams may not be convicted on any or all of the criminal charges. Perhaps witnesses refuse to testify. Maybe there was a procedural defect. Perhaps the government-obtained physical evidence was obtained improperly/illegally/under coercion, thus making any after-acquired evidence "fruit of the poisonous tree" and inadmissible. Or maybe a jury simply finds Williams to be a more credible witness, should the case proceed to trial. Even if Williams is found to be "not guilty," that does not mean she is "innocent." A "not guilty" criminal verdict simply means that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to the tribunal. In the administrative discipline process, I have always suggested that investigations have specific categories of terminology for their findings, pertaining to the specific allegations: -- unfounded, exonerated, unresolved, or sustained. This is how I define (generally speaking) those terms. [TABLE] [TR] [TD][CENTER][B]TERM[/B][/CENTER][/TD] [TD][CENTER][B]DEFINITION[/B][/CENTER][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] Unfounded[/TD] [TD] It is found the reported misconduct (or conduct) or behavior did not occur or did not occur as alleged [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] Exonerated[/TD] [TD] The incident occurred, but the conduct or behavior was lawful and proper. [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] Unresolved[/TD] [TD] There is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation. [CENTER]– OR –[/CENTER] The inquiry into this allegation is inactivated pending development of further information. [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] Sustained[/TD] [TD] The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable conclusion the alleged misconduct/inappropriate behavior occurred. [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] For Williams to be "innocent" (using the word from the article linked above) -- which means the allegations would be unfounded in the administrative context and she could thus avoid any punishment -- she must have an argument akin to: "[I]I was not there (or it was not me). Here is indisputable proof that I was nowhere in the vicinity of the residence where this incident took place on that date/time or at any point relevant to the allegations involved here.[/I]" An employer can impose an administrative disciplinary action, irrespective of whether there is a conviction in the criminal context. The issue is whether an employee engaged in the underlying conduct (or there is reasonable evidence to demonstrate that he/she did) and whether that conduct violates the employer's policies or employee handbook provisions. In other words, a "sustained" allegation in the administrative context can occur before the criminal proceedings have taken place or reached a conclusion, or it can occur even if there is a "not guilty" finding in the criminal proceedings. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,422

Messages: 4,395,702

Members: 10,209

Latest member: gemini*trvl