More Bull shit: Detroit news doing huge expose on Dantonio Blackwell and sex scandal.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Just saying the Detroit Media has their own bag of bullshit too.

Sounds like some deflecting whataboutism to me.

I like to think of it as critical thinking and questioning everything.

My score card: MSU leadership sucks straight across the board and they get an F-
Detroit Media: Terrible and I give them a D+

I can hold two thoughts and still weigh in on this story.

DWags wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Correct. I think his culpability has been established. But, he certainly should face additional scrutiny for being part of a subverted admissions process.

Maybe this goes on all the time with admissions. I don't know.

All this, if true, can be brought up in other threads about MSU. But could one of you guys explain to me how this is related to Blackwell not getting a one year contract renewed? I’ve lost the connection.

It's not. They're trying to force a settlement by trying the case in the media. This has been asked and answered about 10000000000000 times by now.

DWags wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Correct. I think his culpability has been established. But, he certainly should face additional scrutiny for being part of a subverted admissions process.

Maybe this goes on all the time with admissions. I don't know.

All this, if true, can be brought up in other threads about MSU. But could one of you guys explain to me how this is related to Blackwell not getting a one year contract renewed? I’ve lost the connection.

As i mentioned earlier, don’t really care about the lawsuit. It’s being talked about because it was in the article you posted.

DWags wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:


As i mentioned earlier, don’t really care about the lawsuit. It’s being talked about because it was in the article you posted.

I think that’s what Blackwell is counting on.  But I’m guessing the judge won’t be as easily distracted as we are by shiny objects.  

he most certainly will ask for a jury trial, but OK.

EDIT: unless there is substantial evidence i haven't heard of, MSU may well get this dismissed before trial.

Banks2Mason wrote:

duffy munn wrote:I'm going to say it again just because it pisses me off. Unbelievable that a guy who openly obstructed a rape investigation has the nerve to sue for wrongful termination when he wasn't even terminated.

Saddest part is I'm starting to think he has a chance of winning.

It's beyond fucked up.

no. he doesn't have "a chance of winning."

that's why he's trying the case in the press.

MSU has eaten loads of shit already. knowing their dumbass PR team, they'll settle NOW and both pay AND eat the bad press.

I sure hope you are right abut the first part and wrong about the second.

duffy munn wrote:

Banks2Mason wrote:

no. he doesn't have "a chance of winning."

that's why he's trying the case in the press.

MSU has eaten loads of shit already. knowing their dumbass PR team, they'll settle NOW and both pay AND eat the bad press.

I sure hope you are right abut the first part and wrong about the second.

wrongful termination suits almost never succeed. it's a nearly impossible bar for an at-will employee unless you somehow have emails where someone said "hey let's fire that guy bc he's black/muslim/christian/gay" etc.

and before anyone starts in on this, non renewal of a contract has been ruled to be an "adverse employment action" so it doesn't matter that he wasn't "fired." go to TOB if you want to bitch about that some more.

Banks2Mason wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

I sure hope you are right abut the first part and wrong about the second.

wrongful termination suits almost never succeed. it's a nearly impossible bar for an at-will employee unless you somehow have emails where someone said "hey let's fire that guy bc he's black/muslim/christian/gay" etc.

and before anyone starts in on this, non renewal of a contract has been ruled to be an "adverse employment action" so it doesn't matter that he wasn't "fired." go to TOB if you want to bitch about that some more.

Well, I learned something new today.

Sounds like employment law run amok.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Banks2Mason wrote:

wrongful termination suits almost never succeed. it's a nearly impossible bar for an at-will employee unless you somehow have emails where someone said "hey let's fire that guy bc he's black/muslim/christian/gay" etc.

and before anyone starts in on this, non renewal of a contract has been ruled to be an "adverse employment action" so it doesn't matter that he wasn't "fired." go to TOB if you want to bitch about that some more.

Well, I learned something new today.

Sounds like employment law run amok.

far from it. stop listening to the right wing "lawsuit abuse" crowd.

an adverse employment action is step one of about 5000000 you have to affirmatively prove. like i said, it's almost impossible without a smoking gun (which blackwell does not have, btw).

Banks2Mason wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

I sure hope you are right abut the first part and wrong about the second.

wrongful termination suits almost never succeed. it's a nearly impossible bar for an at-will employee unless you somehow have emails where someone said "hey let's fire that guy bc he's black/muslim/christian/gay" etc.

and before anyone starts in on this, non renewal of a contract has been ruled to be an "adverse employment action" so it doesn't matter that he wasn't "fired." go to TOB if you want to bitch about that some more.

Thanks for the info. Now are there any laws against releasing depositions like the stuff that has been leaked to the press?

DWags wrote:

Banks2Mason wrote:

wrongful termination suits almost never succeed. it's a nearly impossible bar for an at-will employee unless you somehow have emails where someone said "hey let's fire that guy bc he's black/muslim/christian/gay" etc.

and before anyone starts in on this, non renewal of a contract has been ruled to be an "adverse employment action" so it doesn't matter that he wasn't "fired." go to TOB if you want to bitch about that some more.

Sorry I'm slow here.  But if it's been ruled an "adverse employment action" doesn't he have cause to sue?  I'm lost I guess.

anyone can sue for anything at any time. you don't have to have "cause."

i'll try to layman's terms this the best i can. to win on wrongful termination in MI, you have to show:

1) adverse employment action. this is very easy. could be something as small as cutting your OT hours or break time.

2) that it was done illegally. E.g., because of race, age, sex, whistleblowing ,etc.

3) AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT ONE: the employer gets to give a legit reason why they did it. AND IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE THE REAL REASON. E.g., you were late two days in 2015 so we fired you. This generally ends it (especially for at-will employees) because no one has a spotless employment record.

4) then the plaintiff (and this is nearly impossible without the aforementioned smoking gun) has to affirmatively prove that the reason(s) offered by the employer were bullshit. this is very hard.

the reason this is being dragged out is because numbers 3 and 4 are questions of fact for a jury and generally can't be dismissed prior to discovery. that's why everyone and their brother from MSU is being dragged in for a deposition.

duffy munn wrote:

Banks2Mason wrote:

wrongful termination suits almost never succeed. it's a nearly impossible bar for an at-will employee unless you somehow have emails where someone said "hey let's fire that guy bc he's black/muslim/christian/gay" etc.

and before anyone starts in on this, non renewal of a contract has been ruled to be an "adverse employment action" so it doesn't matter that he wasn't "fired." go to TOB if you want to bitch about that some more.

Thanks for the info. Now are there any laws against releasing depositions like the stuff that has been leaked to the press?

blackwell's lawyers have already been sanctioned for doing exactly that. personally, i'd hold them in contempt at this point but i'm not the judge and MD's lawyers may not want to make even more of a scene.

IMO there are 2 things that Blackwell (and his attorneys) are trying to accomplish with this media show:

- he feels like he was let go as a sacrificial lamb, and it pissed him off. So he wants to get even.
- he'd like a settlement, because he wants more cash, and using dog & pony show and manipulating the media is an attempt to get MSU to pay up for him to shut up
- part of Blackwell getting even is him hurting MSU football recuiting, because that was his gig (okay that's 3 things)

The media are all like lap dogs eating this shit up, I haven't looked but I have to believe that BSPN is all over it; or they are holding it to run the story nationally when it does the most damage they can to the program and to Coach D

Banks2Mason doing work in this thread. Very informative. As someone who has only barely been following this, I appreciate it.

Cameron wrote:Banks2Mason doing work in this thread. Very informative. As someone who has only barely been following this, I appreciate it.

at least posters here can read.

every time this case gets brought up on TOB, like 15 idiots keep screaming "BUT HE WASN'T EVEN FIRED #MAGA #NRA4EVER"

Cameron wrote:Banks2Mason doing work in this thread. Very informative. As someone who has only barely been following this, I appreciate it.

Seconded

kingstonlake wrote:

Cameron wrote:Banks2Mason doing work in this thread. Very informative. As someone who has only barely been following this, I appreciate it.

Seconded

totally agree. that dude is fuckin awesome.

This article (from 11/13/18) covers a few things related to their grounds:

Mark Dantonio, others, sued by Michigan State's former recruiting director

The lawsuit says Blackwell's former bosses overreacted and "ran roughshod" over his constitutional rights in an effort to demonstrate that Michigan State did not tolerate "cover-ups" in the immediate wake of the abuse scandal involving former university doctor Larry Nassar. Blackwell's attorney said Michigan State ended its relationship with Blackwell because he exercised his Fifth Amendment right while not participating in interviews about a sexual abuse allegation made against three former Spartan football players.

Blackwell said he was denied an opportunity to share his side of the story with any of his bosses before or after he was suspended. The lawsuit includes a copy of his Michigan State contract that states he should be granted an opportunity to speak with the athletic director before he is disciplined.

Fett argued that even though Blackwell's contract with Michigan State had expired, Blackwell still has grounds to sue because it is illegal not to renew a contract on the basis of discriminating against an employee for exercising any of his or her rights laid out in the U.S. Constitution.

Trying to remember if I’ve screamed “constitutional rights!” in any job dismissal in my younger years....

DWags wrote:

NigelUno wrote:This article (from 11/13/18) covers a few things related to their grounds:

Mark Dantonio, others, sued by Michigan State's former recruiting director

The constitution gives you the right to cover up a crime. Wow.

It does if your name is...

Nah. Won't say it.

It gives you the right not to talk (if charged with a crime). I don't think it can be used with some twisted logic to justify not reporting stuff as part of your job.

NigelUno wrote:This article (from 11/13/18) covers a few things related to their grounds:

Mark Dantonio, others, sued by Michigan State's former recruiting director

The lawsuit says Blackwell's former bosses overreacted and "ran roughshod" over his constitutional rights in an effort to demonstrate that Michigan State did not tolerate "cover-ups" in the immediate wake of the abuse scandal involving former university doctor Larry Nassar. Blackwell's attorney said Michigan State ended its relationship with Blackwell because he exercised his Fifth Amendment right while not participating in interviews about a sexual abuse allegation made against three former Spartan football players.

Blackwell said he was denied an opportunity to share his side of the story with any of his bosses before or after he was suspended. The lawsuit includes a copy of his Michigan State contract that states he should be granted an opportunity to speak with the athletic director before he is disciplined.

Fett argued that even though Blackwell's contract with Michigan State had expired, Blackwell still has grounds to sue because it is illegal not to renew a contract on the basis of discriminating against an employee for exercising any of his or her rights laid out in the U.S. Constitution.

Should be granted or shall be granted? I'd have to believe that someone knows the difference in a court of law.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

NigelUno wrote:This article (from 11/13/18) covers a few things related to their grounds:

Mark Dantonio, others, sued by Michigan State's former recruiting director

Should be granted or shall be granted? I'd have to believe that someone knows the difference in a court of law.

I'd guess those are the reporter's words and not the language in the actual contract. I'd also guess it's a standard clause in most contracts.

NigelUno wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Should be granted or shall be granted? I'd have to believe that someone knows the difference in a court of law.

I'd guess those are the reporter's words and not the language in the actual contract.  I'd also guess it's a standard clause in most contracts.

law school sucked and i really don't want to go further down this road, but the short story is that public universities (like MSU) are "state actors" under the law, which essentially means they're a government entity and required to follow the constitution.

for a simple example, you can't sue Speedway because they fired you for expressing your Nazi beliefs loudly and proudly at work. MSU, on the other hand, would be subject 1A requirements (this is a VERY simple example that has much more complicated issues, but the point stands). another common example is abject morons claiming that their first amendment rights were violated when they got banned by a fucking message board or something.

i'd personally advocate that big time college ADs shouldn't be subject to the state actor requirements but to my knowledge such a case hasn't been argued or decided.

there are also title IX issues and i'm virtually clueless on that. there are specific lawyers for that stuff.

Paying college athletes above the board would help in reducing the leverage street agents have in the recruiting and hiring process. Would they still be doing shady shit on the side? Of course. But a standard stipend or severance package upon leaving or while attending the school might be good enough in some kids eyes do push aside these “agents” in influencing where kids go to school.

Banks2Mason wrote:

duffy munn wrote:

I sure hope you are right abut the first part and wrong about the second.

wrongful termination suits almost never succeed. it's a nearly impossible bar for an at-will employee unless you somehow have emails where someone said "hey let's fire that guy bc he's black/muslim/christian/gay" etc.

and before anyone starts in on this, non renewal of a contract has been ruled to be an "adverse employment action" so it doesn't matter that he wasn't "fired." go to TOB if you want to bitch about that some more.

Are you referring to a case which involved the WhistleBlower Protection Act?

Good post Kingston, so what was this Blackwell characters job anyway? He knew all the kids and since we pay him he helps funnel the kids to MSU?

I know people role their eyes when I say this but seriously if we'd just cheat I think we'd see better results. Under the table payments, bagmen etc. Look at the Fraud 5 we call out their cheating all the time but what kind of penalty did they really pay? Their fan base still loves those memories and I'd bet good money those banners end up in the rafters again some day. The wins aren't in the books but I'm not sure anyone really gives a shit. Same with this Houston Astros stuff. I saw a LA Times article whining about how the Dodgers got cheated out of a World Series. Guess what? Their was a parade in Houston and LA got a cry baby op-ed. Which of the two would you rather have?

NigelUno wrote:

Banks2Mason wrote:

wrongful termination suits almost never succeed. it's a nearly impossible bar for an at-will employee unless you somehow have emails where someone said "hey let's fire that guy bc he's black/muslim/christian/gay" etc.

and before anyone starts in on this, non renewal of a contract has been ruled to be an "adverse employment action" so it doesn't matter that he wasn't "fired." go to TOB if you want to bitch about that some more.

Are you referring to a case which involved the WhistleBlower Protection Act?  

that's a federal statute and doesn't have anything to do w Blackwell's claim. in fact, he's basically saying the opposite.

as i've repeatedly said, the "adverse employment action" part of a wrongful termination claim is essentially pointless. people need to get over the fact that he wasn't "fired." it's irrelevant.

I am not a lawyer. Don’t play on message boards.

Question for lawyers who defend clients.

Although MSU is in a position to respond or put out their version of events, paper trails, meeting schedules etc, would you advise your client to respond or wait until it’s time to go to court and put Blackwell on the stand and on the record.

At this point I wouldn’t be shocked to hear that Blackwell went all 5th Amendment rather than answer questions from MSU’s legal representation challenging his version of events and reasons for not getting his (Blackwell’s ) contract renewed.

Blackwell’s lawyer doesn’t have a stellar record in court. I agree with DWags and others that Blackwell’s motivation is the hope MSU will settle and more doable, lock MSU football recruiting out of the PSL and Metro Detroit for a decade or more.

GRR Spartan wrote:I am not a lawyer. Don’t play on message boards.

Question for lawyers who defend clients.

Although MSU is in a position to respond or put out their version of events, paper trails, meeting schedules etc, would you advise your client to respond or wait until it’s time to go to court and put Blackwell on the stand and on the record.

At this point I wouldn’t be shocked to hear that Blackwell went all 5th Amendment rather than answer questions from MSU’s legal representation challenging his version of events and reasons for not getting his (Blackwell’s ) contract renewed.

Blackwell’s lawyer doesn’t have a stellar record in court. I agree with DWags and others that Blackwell’s motivation is the hope MSU will settle and more doable, lock MSU football recruiting out of the PSL and Metro Detroit for a decade or more.

MD and MSU have real lawyers and not billboard level jackasses like Blackwell.

Their plan obviously was and is to force MD to settle. His claim is virtually impossible to win on in an actual case unless there is huge evidence that somehow hasn't been made public, which is unlikely given his lawyer's behavior.

Actual good lawyers (like MD must have) don't try cases in the public and generally remain silent and let the process play out. That's what they're doing here. Whether you agree with that from a PR perspective is another story.

All of that said, MD is the client and the course of action is ultimately his call. I don't know the man, but I assume he probably told them to be professional and let it play out legally and not in the press.

Banks2Mason wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Are you referring to a case which involved the WhistleBlower Protection Act?  

that's a federal statute and doesn't have anything to do w Blackwell's claim. in fact, he's basically saying the opposite.

as i've repeatedly said, the "adverse employment action" part of a wrongful termination claim is essentially pointless. people need to get over the fact that he wasn't "fired." it's irrelevant.

I understand that the WPA doesn't have anything to do with Blackwell's claim.

But there was a case in Michigan in which the courts ruled on "adverse employment action" regarding an employee whose contract was not renewed (and that case also involved the WPA)...and whether that constituted adverse employment action.

I don't think it's necessarily irrelevant that he wasn't fired (while under contract). I'm guessing that was a legal strategy that MSU used to (possibly) avoid a wrongful termination suit (which obviously didn't work).

I guess it could be irrelevant in that he still filed a lawsuit (if that's what you mean).

I think his case might be stronger if he was fired while under contract (depending on the terms of his contract and what it said regarding mediation or meeting with the AD).

NigelUno wrote:

Banks2Mason wrote:

that's a federal statute and doesn't have anything to do w Blackwell's claim. in fact, he's basically saying the opposite.

as i've repeatedly said, the "adverse employment action" part of a wrongful termination claim is essentially pointless. people need to get over the fact that he wasn't "fired." it's irrelevant.

I understand that the WPA doesn't have anything to do with Blackwell's claim.

But there was a case in Michigan in which the courts ruled on "adverse employment action" regarding an employee whose contract was not renewed (and that case also involved the WPA)...and whether that constituted adverse employment action.

I don't think it's necessarily irrelevant that he wasn't fired (while under contract).  I'm guessing that was a legal strategy that MSU used to (possibly) avoid a wrongful termination suit (which obviously didn't work).

I guess it could be irrelevant in that he still filed a lawsuit (if that's what you mean).  

I think his case might be stronger if he was fired while under contract (depending on the terms of his contract and what it said regarding mediation or meeting with the AD).  

It's very difficult to get a wrongful termination case dismissed before discovery. To establish a prima facie case, you basically just have to show an adverse employment action (which Blackwell probably could, even if you disregard the firing v. nonrenewal issue) and ALLEGE it was done illegally. It's very easy to do both and he did it.

The reason people don't do it all the time is because (1) it's tough to win, which any lawyer will tell you and (2) employers worth suing have lawyers and insurance for this kind of stuff and are more than willing to litigate.

This happening because MD/MSU have deep pockets, Blackwell's lawyer is a greedy amoral publicity hound, and the Nassar thing. I 100% believe that this suit would never even have been filed if the Nassar thing didn't exist.

I guess the mediator or judge will rule on whether either situation is relevant to the case. One thing I’m willing to bet on is Robertson attended MSU and Blackwell is a scumbag. If I had to guess I’d guess both sides are trying to establish patterns of behavior and decision making that support each other’s argument while making the other one look bad. It’s a court case. I honestly can’t see why any of this comes as a surprise. They’re ugly.