Started By
Message
OleMiss Made it Clear All Employees Would Comply w/ Contract
Posted on 8/12/17 at 5:47 am
Posted on 8/12/17 at 5:47 am
2
Posted on 8/12/17 at 6:37 am to BourreTheDog
Solid blind link
Posted on 8/12/17 at 6:44 am to BourreTheDog
quote:
The University further agrees to direct members of the control groups for the Foundation and for UM not to make any statement relative to Nutt’s tenure as an employee that may damage or harm Nutt’s reputation as a football coach.”
Here's some Law 101 for you:
As long as Ole Miss made the directive above, then they are in compliance with the terms of the contract. Their obligation is fulfilled and they don't have any liability.
If the subjects of that paragraph then go on to say whatever they want (because America) about Nutt, then Mars is welcome to sue those individuals for slander. Which is almost impossible to prove a tort when directed against a public person.
But the University of Mississippi, who Mars is suing, can easily claim it did as it agreed to do.
So I'm not sure this qualifies as "Blowing sky high" any more than it has already blown. So to speak.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 6:57 am to No Colors
Phone conversations between Bjork and Media regarding Nutt being primary cause of NOA defines Breach of Contract.
Go run to daddy and get talking point 2. Mars wants blood.
Go run to daddy and get talking point 2. Mars wants blood.
This post was edited on 8/12/17 at 6:59 am
Posted on 8/12/17 at 7:12 am to No Colors
quote:
then go on to say whatever they want (because America) about Nutt
Nice one. Made me chuckle.
Dont know the law, but all sounds legit and logical to me. Hard for a company to control that, but in todays world I don't get confident the common sense prevails.
So how would om prove they gave that directive though? Email sent out? In the employee handbook?
Posted on 8/12/17 at 7:24 am to TOSOV
As I read it, Bjork is part of the 'Control Group' that was to monitor and abide. If they have calls to/by Bjork w/ media coinciding with the release of media blitz blaming Nutt, it's a breach of contract.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 7:30 am to No Colors
I doubt a judge would gut the contract so easily. It is very arguable that the intent, at least of Nutt, was that Ole Miss would not make disparaging comments. I don't think a court will play "gotcha" like Ole Miss is trying to do. A literal interpretation of a contract that leads to absurd results will not fly when a reasonable interpretation is available. And in that case the language is construed against the drafter if the drafter's interpretation is absurd.
Saying that employees of Ole Miss were free to make disparaging comments without consequence, as employees of the university, as long as they had been told, wink, wink, not to make disparaging comments, seems pretty absurd. Keep in mind this is not about slander or libel. Truth is not at issue. That is important because even true statements that would harm Nutt's coaching opportunities would be prohibited. An employee who made a true statement could not be successfully sued for defamation, even if the comment is disparaging.
Imagine that Ole Miss's lawyer told the chancellor, "You should not make disparaging statements about Nutt. I have fulfilled our contractual duty by telling you this. By the way, if you do say anything, as long as it is truthful, neither you or the university has any liability, simply because I told you not to say anything disparaging." This is exactly what Ole Miss is saying that the contract allows them to do. If that is not absurd, I am not sure what absurd looks like.
Saying that employees of Ole Miss were free to make disparaging comments without consequence, as employees of the university, as long as they had been told, wink, wink, not to make disparaging comments, seems pretty absurd. Keep in mind this is not about slander or libel. Truth is not at issue. That is important because even true statements that would harm Nutt's coaching opportunities would be prohibited. An employee who made a true statement could not be successfully sued for defamation, even if the comment is disparaging.
Imagine that Ole Miss's lawyer told the chancellor, "You should not make disparaging statements about Nutt. I have fulfilled our contractual duty by telling you this. By the way, if you do say anything, as long as it is truthful, neither you or the university has any liability, simply because I told you not to say anything disparaging." This is exactly what Ole Miss is saying that the contract allows them to do. If that is not absurd, I am not sure what absurd looks like.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 7:32 am to tigerinridgeland
Except ole miss explicitly refused to include a non disparagement clause so there is no way to claim that was the intent of this section
Posted on 8/12/17 at 7:40 am to Dixie.Reb
Ole Miss has to live with the consequences of the language it chose to use. The university policy is clear that at least control group members were not to make disparaging comments. If control group members made disparaging comments, they violated university policy. It will be a difficult argument to make that employees were free to violate policy of the university in disparaging Nutt without any liability to the university.
At this point, Mars has a very defensible position. He may not prevail, but to dismiss it out of hand is foolish.
At this point, Mars has a very defensible position. He may not prevail, but to dismiss it out of hand is foolish.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 7:58 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
The university policy is clear that at least control group members were not to make disparaging comments.
That's not what it says. It says the University was obligated to instruct the members not to make the comments.
But unless there was another paragraph where the University agreed to accept liability if those members chose to ignore its directives, then the case against the University is weak at best. Seems like Nutt should be suing Freeze and Bjork, not Ole Miss.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 8:10 am to Dixie.Reb
Ole Miss declined the language proposed by Nutt's lawyers. That is different from explicitly refusal of a nondisparagement clause. They did agree to nondisparagement language in the contract, just not the language that Nutt wanted initially. In contract negotiations, sometimes deliberately ambiguous language is used because the parties can't agree on more precise language. They agree to a more ambiguous wording so the deal can be struck. Both sides want a deal and aren't willing to forgo it because of some aspects they can't agree on. They take a risk with ambiguity so each side has an arguable position if things go badly later, hoping it will not go badly later.
Unfortunately, here it went badly because certain employees of Ole Miss either crossed the line or came so close to the line tnat it was almost certain to expose the university to serious litigation. The sad thing for Ole Miss, is that if the administrators had not been asleep at the wheel, this could have been avoided with careful wording in acknowledging violations occurred under Nutt's term as coach, but that the university did not believe him to be responsible or at fault. A defense of Nutt personally, as they did for Freeze, would have been all that was needed. A clarification regarding Nutt made early on would have ended this mess . Instead they just keep digging the hole deeper.
Unfortunately, here it went badly because certain employees of Ole Miss either crossed the line or came so close to the line tnat it was almost certain to expose the university to serious litigation. The sad thing for Ole Miss, is that if the administrators had not been asleep at the wheel, this could have been avoided with careful wording in acknowledging violations occurred under Nutt's term as coach, but that the university did not believe him to be responsible or at fault. A defense of Nutt personally, as they did for Freeze, would have been all that was needed. A clarification regarding Nutt made early on would have ended this mess . Instead they just keep digging the hole deeper.
This post was edited on 8/12/17 at 8:18 am
Posted on 8/12/17 at 8:15 am to No Colors
You are trying to construe the contract in a way that really makes it pointless. That is not a favored way to interpret contracts. The language makes it clear what the policy is. It seems absurd to say that the policy was to tell someone not to do something, but you are free to violate the instructions if you want to because it really doesn't mean anything if you do not follow instructions.
This post was edited on 8/12/17 at 8:19 am
Posted on 8/12/17 at 8:23 am to BourreTheDog
quote:
As I read it, Bjork is part of the 'Control Group' that was to monitor and abide. If they have calls to/by Bjork w/ media coinciding with the release of media blitz blaming Nutt, it's a breach of contract.
Ha. Thanks. Yeah soooo back to calls.
I was having a convo yesterday with a colleague about someone who is becoming dramatic, and may be leaving the company. Burning bridges out the door too. So we were wondering what could be said if someone in the industry asked us about the person if they applied there. I guess HR is the one obligated to stick to just confirming employment, and can the company get in trouble if we said something or implied that it wouldn't be a good move.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 8:46 am to TOSOV
quote:
I was having a convo yesterday with a colleague about someone who is becoming dramatic, and may be leaving the company. Burning bridges out the door too. So we were wondering what could be said if someone in the industry asked us about the person if they applied there. I guess HR is the one obligated to stick to just confirming employment, and can the company get in trouble if we said something or implied that it wouldn't be a good move.
Best to let HR follow the law.
What you are wanting to do is what got ole Miss in this mess with the NCAA.
Before making someone look bad, always make 1000% sure that they don't know anything about the skeletons in your closet.
Always better to part on good terms and go separate ways.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 8:55 am to D500MAG
Ole Miss has fulfilled the non-disparagement clause. None of those people listed have bashed Nutt at any time. Case is over...Will be thrown out of refiled.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 8:57 am to Dixie.Reb
quote:
Dixie.Reb
Great user name....
Posted on 8/12/17 at 9:02 am to GreyReb
Then you all don't have anything to worry about....you can stop spending all your time defending the confederate university on message boards. :-}
Posted on 8/12/17 at 9:24 am to GreyReb
In the meantime the school is spending thousands and thousands of dollars on a suit that could have been avoided, and looked bad while doing it. Even if Ole Miss technically didn't violate the contract, and that is by no means certain, they violated the spirit of the agreement. And that is obvious to everyone, but a few folks who see the world only through red and blue glasses.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 9:50 am to D500MAG
quote:
Best to let HR follow the law.
What you are wanting to do is what got ole Miss in this mess with the NCAA.
Before making someone look bad, always make 1000% sure that they don't know anything about the skeletons in your closet.
Always better to part on good terms and go separate ways.
Ohhhh trust me I agree. It was more if asked on the DL by someone else, and you really didnt say anything bad just not something good. Which was taken that way. it's happened to me before, but I was positive about the person that was asked about. It was disguised in a "hey I ran into so and so at a conf the other week. Didnt realize they were with yall a bit back. Etc etc" and I said something like "yeah solid person, was good to work with on projects, etc etc." and some other stuff. Then the person was working there a few weeks later. Ha!! Which was great to hear. Now I wonder what happens if I said the upset like "glad he's gone". Ha!!
And for the record...I got nothing in my closet to worry about. Ha! My last internal promotion my biggest negative from my old mgr to the new one was that I try to take on to much, and cause myself to be stretched out. As I try to get stuff done, cause no one else does. And I self reported to my new mgr that I'm on our IT depts bad list as I was on my 3rd laptop. Ha!!
Ohhhh and some would say I'm the office whore as I chat with all, but I'm strict to the "dont shite where you eat" policy. Though I could have a few ladies I could report to HR for trying to push that personal policy. Ha!!
Posted on 8/12/17 at 1:14 pm to No Colors
quote:
As long as Ole Miss made the directive above, then they are in compliance with the terms of the contract. Their obligation is fulfilled and they don't have any liability.
Here is some Law 102 for you.
You could not be more wrong. Ole Miss broke the terms of the contract.
Nutt will won again.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News