Harold Reynolds Fired

[RynoRules]

I am in the industry - I am a labor and employment attny on the management side.

 

A company like ESPN - with a ton of resources and rumors of a sexually hostile atmosphere (see ESPN: The Uncensored History) - very likely had a long list of complaints against HR and warned him at least once to cease this sort of behavior. Moreover, ifthey knew he was engaging in these acts and did not take prompt remedial action, they would be liable for his conduct. Accordingly, it is likely that HR got a fair shake but was unale to correct his own behavior.

 

If ESPN outed him with an official statement, however, they would be asking for greater troubles. If I were their attny, I would have told them only to say he doesn't work here anymore, and that's it.

[Soul]

I am in the industry - I am a labor and employment attny on the management side.

 

A company like ESPN - with a ton of resources and rumors of a sexually hostile atmosphere (see ESPN: The Uncensored History) - very likely had a long list of complaints against HR and warned him at least once to cease this sort of behavior. Moreover, ifthey knew he was engaging in these acts and did not take prompt remedial action, they would be liable for his conduct. Accordingly, it is likely that HR got a fair shake but was unale to correct his own behavior.

 

If ESPN outed him with an official statement, however, they would be asking for greater troubles. If I were their attny, I would have told them only to say he doesn't work here anymore, and that's it.

 

That doesn't sound like it follows logically. A company under a ton of pressure---as you claim ESPN might be---would be ripe to skip steps in the process, not the other way around.

 

At any rate this is all very speculative.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I am in the industry - I am a labor and employment attny on the management side.

 

A company like ESPN - with a ton of resources and rumors of a sexually hostile atmosphere (see ESPN: The Uncensored History) - very likely had a long list of complaints against HR and warned him at least once to cease this sort of behavior. Moreover, ifthey knew he was engaging in these acts and did not take prompt remedial action, they would be liable for his conduct. Accordingly, it is likely that HR got a fair shake but was unale to correct his own behavior.

 

If ESPN outed him with an official statement, however, they would be asking for greater troubles. If I were their attny, I would have told them only to say he doesn't work here anymore, and that's it.

 

That doesn't sound like it follows logically. A company under a ton of pressure---as you claim ESPN might be---would be ripe to skip steps in the process, not the other way around.

 

At any rate this is all very speculative.

 

How so? ESPN has to cover their behinds regarding both parties. If they investigate, find something, and retain HR, THEY get sued. If they fire him because one time he hugged someone and somebody else blows it out of proportion, THEY get sued. I'm no lawyer, but punitive damages suck.

[RynoRules]

I am in the industry - I am a labor and employment attny on the management side.

 

A company like ESPN - with a ton of resources and rumors of a sexually hostile atmosphere (see ESPN: The Uncensored History) - very likely had a long list of complaints against HR and warned him at least once to cease this sort of behavior. Moreover, ifthey knew he was engaging in these acts and did not take prompt remedial action, they would be liable for his conduct. Accordingly, it is likely that HR got a fair shake but was unale to correct his own behavior.

 

If ESPN outed him with an official statement, however, they would be asking for greater troubles. If I were their attny, I would have told them only to say he doesn't work here anymore, and that's it.

 

That doesn't sound like it follows logically. A company under a ton of pressure---as you claim ESPN might be---would be ripe to skip steps in the process, not the other way around.

 

At any rate this is all very speculative.

 

Your are completely incorrect.

 

The legal standard that all employers subject to Title VII are required to follow demands a thorough and prompt investigation and documentation thereof. If they know what they are doing - and I have no reason to believethey do not - they took each of these steps and determined that they had evidence of inappropriate behavior justifying a termination.

 

It is also very likely that Reynolds had an employment contract that defined conditions under which he could be terminated (known as "cause"). If so, ESPN had to be even more careful, b/c Reynolds was not simply "at-will" (meaning he could be terminated for any reason or no reason at all, so long as the discharge is not based on his membership in a protected class; i.e., illegal discrimination).

 

EDIT:

 

But feel free to do your own research. Start with the Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, a 1986 Supreme Court case that establishes that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, and go on from there.

[Soul]

I am in the industry - I am a labor and employment attny on the management side.

 

A company like ESPN - with a ton of resources and rumors of a sexually hostile atmosphere (see ESPN: The Uncensored History) - very likely had a long list of complaints against HR and warned him at least once to cease this sort of behavior. Moreover, ifthey knew he was engaging in these acts and did not take prompt remedial action, they would be liable for his conduct. Accordingly, it is likely that HR got a fair shake but was unale to correct his own behavior.

 

If ESPN outed him with an official statement, however, they would be asking for greater troubles. If I were their attny, I would have told them only to say he doesn't work here anymore, and that's it.

 

That doesn't sound like it follows logically. A company under a ton of pressure---as you claim ESPN might be---would be ripe to skip steps in the process, not the other way around.

 

At any rate this is all very speculative.

 

Your are completely incorrect.

 

The legal standard that all employers subject to Title VII are required to follow demands a thorough and prompt investigation and documentation thereof. If they know what they are doing - and I have no reason to believethey do not - they took each of these steps and determined that they had evidence of inappropriate behavior justifying a termination.

 

It is also very likely that Reynolds had an employment contract that defined conditions under which he could be terminated (known as "cause"). If so, ESPN had to be even more careful, b/c Reynolds was not simply "at-will" (meaning he could be terminated for any reason or no reason at all, so long as the discharge is not based on his membership in a protected class; i.e., illegal discrimination).

 

EDIT:

 

But feel free to do your own research. Start with the Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, a 1986 Supreme Court case that establishes that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, and go on from there.

 

If everyone followed procedure and process, you'd be out of a job Mr. Lawyer.

[RynoRules]

Thats true, but part of why I have a job is to advise employers on scenarios like the one that apparently took place here. if lawyers like me were involved (and I'd bet they were based on ESPN's refusal to talk about it), then the investigatory manadates were very likely followed.

[Andy]

In the US, victims information is held in private while the accused get their name and personal info aired all over the TV and internet. If the accused end up being innocent, the damage is already done. Richard Jewel is a prime example

Kobe will never be thought of the same again. Bad enough he was an adulterer, but a lot of people just assume he raped the woman based on nothing more than an accusation. The Duke "rapes" are another prime example. These men had their entire character ruined forever because one woman embellished an accusation.

[treebird]

In the US, victims information is held in private while the accused get their name and personal info aired all over the TV and internet. If the accused end up being innocent, the damage is already done. Richard Jewel is a prime example

Kobe will never be thought of the same again. Bad enough he was an adulterer, but a lot of people just assume he raped the woman based on nothing more than an accusation. The Duke "rapes" are another prime example. These men had their entire character ruined forever because one woman embellished an accusation.

 

it's a bit of a leap to say they didn't do anything just because they weren't found guilty. also, the duke guys will be out of this as soon as they graduate as long as they dont feel the need to bold the fact that they were on the team on their resume.

Edited July 27, 2006 by treebird

[Andy]

In the US, victims information is held in private while the accused get their name and personal info aired all over the TV and internet. If the accused end up being innocent, the damage is already done. Richard Jewel is a prime example

Kobe will never be thought of the same again. Bad enough he was an adulterer, but a lot of people just assume he raped the woman based on nothing more than an accusation. The Duke "rapes" are another prime example. These men had their entire character ruined forever because one woman embellished an accusation.

 

it's a bit of a leap to say they didn't do anything just because they weren't found guilty. also, the duke guys will be out of this as soon as they graduate as long as they dont feel the need to bold the fact that they we're on the team on their resume.

Well obviously, I'm sure they did some inappropriate things, but nothing I imagine that was deserving of jail time.

[Abe Frohman]

Does this mean Sweet Harold will be replacing that goon on the ESPN Mobile commercials?