Leavitt files Lawsuit

[Who'sYourData?]

Anything is possible if it actually goes to trial, but that would absolutely shock me.  The only way it goes to trial is if it is totally about the money for Leavitt.  You can bet that if it goes to trial USF's attorneys will trot out player after player that has bad stories to tell about Leavitt.  They will attempt to show a pattern of behavior that they "uncovered" during the investigation.  If this goes to trial, it gets ugly on both sides.  Neither wants that.

Future earnings really don't apply in this case, since this was a hard and fast contract for a specific termination period.  That is much different than a regular employee that has an open-ended contract.  The most Leavitt can get, short of punitive damages, would be the termination pay specified in his contract. 

I still don't how booster pressure plays into anything.  You are a manager, you get pressure all the time from all kinds of people.  You are still responsible for the decisions you make, regardless who sends you an email urging you to do something. 

The rushed part of the report was the last part, the part about Erskin.  The report went on at a pretty consistent pace and level of detail, then there was a couple of paragraphs stuck in the end about Erskin.  That tells me they were planning to give Leavitt a stern reprimand, then had to fire him quickly due to fear of retaliation.  Employment law is very strong on retaliation, so I think that is where USF hangs it's hat. 

Not that it matters, since there is a 95% chance this is resolved before trial and the settlement will include gag orders all around.  We'll never really know the whole story.

[cmhatter]

Anything is possible if it actually goes to trial, but that would absolutely shock me.  The only way it goes to trial is if it is totally about the money for Leavitt.  You can bet that if it goes to trial USF's attorneys will trot out player after player that has bad stories to tell about Leavitt.  They will attempt to show a pattern of behavior that they "uncovered" during the investigation.  If this goes to trial, it gets ugly on both sides.  Neither wants that.

Future earnings really don't apply in this case, since this was a hard and fast contract for a specific termination period.  That is much different than a regular employee that has an open-ended contract.  The most Leavitt can get, short of punitive damages, would be the termination pay specified in his contract. 

I still don't how booster pressure plays into anything.  You are a manager, you get pressure all the time from all kinds of people.  You are still responsible for the decisions you make, regardless who sends you an email urging you to do something. 

The rushed part of the report was the last part, the part about Erskin.  The report went on at a pretty consistent pace and level of detail, then there was a couple of paragraphs stuck in the end about Erskin.  That tells me they were planning to give Leavitt a stern reprimand, then had to fire him quickly due to fear of retaliation.  Employment law is very strong on retaliation, so I think that is where USF hangs it's hat. 

Not that it matters, since there is a 95% chance this is resolved before trial and the settlement will include gag orders all around.  We'll never really know the whole story.

you really think that there is even the slightest possibility that this isn't about money...?

at this point that is ALL it is about...

[macphisto]

Anything is possible if it actually goes to trial, but that would absolutely shock me.  The only way it goes to trial is if it is totally about the money for Leavitt.  You can bet that if it goes to trial USF's attorneys will trot out player after player that has bad stories to tell about Leavitt.  They will attempt to show a pattern of behavior that they "uncovered" during the investigation.  If this goes to trial, it gets ugly on both sides.  Neither wants that.

I can't say that I'm sure what Leavitt wants. 

Future earnings really don't apply in this case, since this was a hard and fast contract for a specific termination period.  That is much different than a regular employee that has an open-ended contract.  The most Leavitt can get, short of punitive damages, would be the termination pay specified in his contract. 

Not necessarily.  If a jury finds that USF willfully and wrongfully impugned Leavitt and damaged his reputation then future earnings would come into play as part of damages.  Good contract attorneys will build a case for this.

I still don't how booster pressure plays into anything.  You are a manager, you get pressure all the time from all kinds of people.  You are still responsible for the decisions you make, regardless who sends you an email urging you to do something. 

You are responsible for your decisions, but outside influences play a role.  That's my point about the boosters.  If I feel pressure from a big customer it will influence my decision as I don't want to lose the customer or see his purchasing diminish.  If anything, I want to be in a position where that customer wants to buy more from us.  The reason you look into any emails from boosters is to show ulterior motives.  If Genshaft and Woolard received hard pressure from big boosters it would open up the door for an ulterior motive that the report against Leavitt could have been used to further. 

Utimately Genshaft is responsible, but she doesn't exist in a bubble.  If you show that she was getting pressure to dismiss Leavitt coupled with USF denying due process then USF has a problem.

The rushed part of the report was the last part, the part about Erskin.  The report went on at a pretty consistent pace and level of detail, then there was a couple of paragraphs stuck in the end about Erskin.  That tells me they were planning to give Leavitt a stern reprimand, then had to fire him quickly due to fear of retaliation.  Employment law is very strong on retaliation, so I think that is where USF hangs it's hat. 

It is strong on retaliation only after the act has occurred.  It would be much easier to prove pressure on Genshaft from the outside than it would be for USF to show that Leavitt would retaliate.  That argument is weak anyways.  Point to the coaching convention in Orlando that was coming up and Leavitt's attorneys will win the jury over USF's real motivation.  And let's be serious, that was their motivation.  Had this happened a month earlier, before the bowl game and everything else then Leavitt would have gotten his due process because they would have had time.  There was less than a month to go before national signing day.  There was a coaching convention where it would be inexpensive to scout prospects and easy because so many coaches were gathered in one place just down the road. 

That's why USF did this fast.  Any jury will buy that and that's not a valid reason to deny due process in a contract.  I do think USF had to do it, but they also will have to pay the penalty for doing it. 

Not that it matters, since there is a 95% chance this is resolved before trial and the settlement will include gag orders all around.  We'll never really know the whole story.

Probably true unless Leavitt is pigheaded - and I wouldn't put it past him.  As I said for USF's side, if they don't offer a strong settlement then their lawyers should be canned.  It may not be cheap, but a trial is not what the school needs or wants.  And I do think a bad judgment in a trial could spell the end for Genshaft because she'd be blamed for it.  But USF would have to give her due process if they canned her for cause.

[macphisto]

you really think that there is even the slightest possibility that this isn't about money...?

at this point that is ALL it is about...

I'm not so sure about that.  I think it is MOSTLY about money, but I think Leavitt also wants some kind of vindication though that vindication would come by making USF pay.  So you could say it was all about the money unless he will ask for a formal apology as part of the suit.  Even so, the money is definitely the driver.

[cmhatter]

you really think that there is even the slightest possibility that this isn't about money...?

at this point that is ALL it is about...

I'm not so sure about that.  I think it is MOSTLY about money, but I think Leavitt also wants some kind of vindication though that vindication would come by making USF pay.  So you could say it was all about the money unless he will ask for a formal apology as part of the suit.  Even so, the money is definitely the driver.

in one of your posts above you broke down leavitt's angle pretty well.

how do you think USF will attack the situation?

[fhemmer209]

Macphisto, I enjoy reading your posts. I think you are spot on with your analysis.

[macphisto]

I'm not so sure about that.  I think it is MOSTLY about money, but I think Leavitt also wants some kind of vindication though that vindication would come by making USF pay.  So you could say it was all about the money unless he will ask for a formal apology as part of the suit.  Even so, the money is definitely the driver.

in one of your posts above you broke down leavitt's angle pretty well.

how do you think USF will attack the situation?

[cmhatter]

where would you hear that their family was attention whores prior to this event lol

[SANJAY]

Mac, that's a pretty good write up on leavitt's arguments.

The problem on the usf side is that they can't portray leavitt as having done this type of thing before since then they get caught having to answer why usf never took action before. 

I think usf's better position is to argue about what happened during the investigation and any actions leavitt took (the alleged parking lot meeting being an example).  The problem is that none of that is in the report specifically outside the Erskin locker incident.  USF better have some pretty good transcripts from their interviews. 

[cmhatter]

Mac, that's a pretty good write up on leavitt's arguments.

The problem on the usf side is that they can't portray leavitt as having done this type of thing before since then they get caught having to answer why usf never took action before. 

I think usf's better position is to argue about what happened during the investigation and any actions leavitt took (the alleged parking lot meeting being an example).  The problem is that none of that is in the report specifically outside the Erskin locker incident.  USF better have some pretty good transcripts from their interviews. 

could the security tapes be subpoena'd? I'm sure they take video of that place.