Heres a question about my boy steve phillips who was fired today

[wayne1218]

What you don't get is that the Lawyers representing them will take the case contingency . And they both can drag it out.

Monte, i'm willing to bet somewhere in their contracts that there was something written about this. Especially since the Harold Reynolds fiasco. He was fired and didn't sue. I'm sure there was a reason for that and i'm sure ESPN covered their ass before firing these 2 as well.

[musclemann]

I feel sorry for Phillips wife, she probably doesnt know what A2M is and doesnt understand why he would get with that fatty over her

Probably because his old lady never did that for him either.

Hell I know some of my buddies who cant even get laid by their wives unless its a special occasion and dont even mention a bj!

Where do I get in line to sign up for that kind of marriage?

[BettorsChat]

Monte, i'm willing to bet somewhere in their contracts that there was something written about this. Especially since the Harold Reynolds fiasco. He was fired and didn't sue. I'm sure there was a reason for that and i'm sure ESPN covered their ass before firing these 2 as well.

Could be, but that doesn't mean a Lawyer wouldn't try. ESPN has deep pockets thus some Attorney might think easy settlement and easy cash.

[musclemann]

When you get to do the A2M it can be for a price!!!

While its the freaky deak, it can cost you a pretty penny. lol

im with you j.c he must have had her doing some crazy shit man...............

[BettorsChat]

im with you j.c he must have had her doing some crazy shit man...............

He's a pervert and a sex addict IMO.

[kbsooner21]

He's a pervert and a sex addict IMO.

So how many phone calls have you made since you found out the news? Sitting outside his house perhaps? Waiting your turn?

[KazDog]

You're both wrong as there's always a way for a Lawyer to find grounds to file a Lawsuit. No the question is can they win? Or will it get thrown out by the Judge which then in turn the other side could ask for Attorney fee's etc. for a frivolous Lawsuit.

Zero? Are you kidding me. His chances would be low, but how much is ESPN willing to spend fighting him vs. just paying him some money to shut the fuck up.

Nah. He has zero chance of winning and most attorney's wouldn't even take the case. They sign a very explicit contract with ESPN and sorry to say, those contracts are binding. This would be a joke of a lawsuit. Did he have an affair with a subordinate? Yes. Did he sign a contract stating he wouldn't do damage to the reputation of ESPN? Yes. Did he have a history of inappropriate behavior with female employees like with the Mets and now ESPN? Yes. There's ZERO chance of winning or even getting an attorney to sign on. He didn't sue the Mets and he won't try and sue ESPN.

Now she on the other hand, could have a lawsuit. Propositioned by a superior in the workplace, and then fired. Yeah. Lawsuit

My brother is one of the best labor attorney's in Calif. If you'd like, I can have him explain the law to you. When I asked him if Philips has a case against ESPN, he reply was, absolutely NOT! Nada. Zilch. And he's read the ESPN employee contract. He said it's terminology is very nasty. And employees sign those before they ever work there. ESPN definitely covers their asses. Just ask Harold Reynolds, Woody Paige, etc....

KAZ

[vols fan]

He would be fine if he were George Bush and ordered the first preemptive war killing thousands of innocent people!


KAZ

Last I checked they and us are still dying under your man also!!!!!!!!

[Guns]

Nah. He has zero chance of winning and most attorney's wouldn't even take the case. They sign a very explicit contract with ESPN and sorry to say, those contracts are binding. This would be a joke of a lawsuit. Did he have an affair with a subordinate? Yes. Did he sign a contract stating he wouldn't do damage to the reputation of ESPN? Yes. Did he have a history of inappropriate behavior with female employees like with the Mets and now ESPN? Yes. There's ZERO chance of winning or even getting an attorney to sign on. He didn't sue the Mets and he won't try and sue ESPN.

Now she on the other hand, could have a lawsuit. Propositioned by a superior in the workplace, and then fired. Yeah. Lawsuit

My brother is one of the best labor attorney's in Calif. If you'd like, I can have him explain the law to you. When I asked him if Philips has a case against ESPN, he reply was, absolutely NOT! Nada. Zilch. And he's read the ESPN employee contract. He said it's terminology is very nasty. And employees sign those before they ever work there. ESPN definitely covers their asses. Just ask Harold Reynolds, Woody Paige, etc....

KAZ

Everyone has a case, It is what turns up in discovery that scares everyone. Phillips is in a rehab facility getting treatment for an addiction. The worst thing he could do is file a lawsuit to uncover more skeletons in his closet.

ESPN on the other hand would not want a lawsuit due to the negative publicity. They may be 100% clean, but during discovery, a lot of issues that ESPN would not want want publicized could surface. If the case was not tossed early, ESPN would offer a settlement.

There would be attorneys lined up to take his case. They would probably lose, but to say there isn't a case is naive.

[KazDog]

Everyone has a case, It is what turns up in discovery that scares everyone. Phillips is in a rehab facility getting treatment for an addiction. The worst thing he could do is file a lawsuit to uncover more skeletons in his closet.

ESPN on the other hand would not want a lawsuit due to the negative publicity. They may be 100% clean, but during discovery, a lot of issues that ESPN would not want want publicized could surface. If the case was not tossed early, ESPN would offer a settlement.

There would be attorneys lined up to take his case. They would probably lose, but to say there isn't a case is naive.

When I say "he has no case" I mean he wouldn't win a lawsuit against ESPN for this. Sure, he can try, but there isn't anything he can sue for. Everyone thinks they have a case when they get fired. It's not that easy to win and most do not. Most attorney's would not line up for a case that has little chance of winning.

KAZ

[KazDog]

Last I checked they and us are still dying under your man also!!!!!!!!

Kind of like locking the barn door after the horses have been let out. Don't you think? It's not easy to just pull out at this juncture bro. I think you'll see a steady deployment in the near future.

KAZ

[vols fan]

Kind of like locking the barn door after the horses have been let out. Don't you think? It's not easy to just pull out at this juncture bro. I think you'll see a steady deployment in the near future.

KAZ

I think your fixing to see an increase in troops.Carry on though, we both share different views.This ain't the place

[vols fan]

He's a pervert and a sex addict IMO.

Your 0-2 in those opinions.He's a fucking DRUNK if you ask me.He would have to be to fuck her ass.
She's a two bagger IMO.You wear one on your own head just in case hers falls off

[KazDog]

Here's my brother's response after reading a little of what Frank and I were discussing....He also said that it would take a 2 hour decertation to fully explain the law in this case. He gave the Reader ****** version....


If the 2 have an affair, can't fire one and not the other- however, if he does have the authority, power, supervision, then it is a problem.
I imagine ESPN has a no hanky panky policy. In CA it is enforceable- in other states not as much.
Question always is discrimination- if they fire him and not her it is gender based discrimination. At will is useless in CA and other states if the termination is discriminatory or based on retaliatory motives (i.e. whistle blower statutes). If the guy had a supervisory role or a position of authority over the female, he could be terminated and not have much of a lawsuit.

If an employee has written contract for a specified term (this would not be an at-will contract) you generally can only terminate for cause. Question is whether this conduct constitutes cause (again, does it violate the policies and procedures.) Practically, it doesn't matter- if there is a contract typically damages are limited to the value of the contract and not future lost income, emotional distress, etc.

There you have it in a nutshell.



KAZ

[vols fan]

There you have it in a nutshell. My brother got all the brains
KAZ

For once I agree with you