Leavitt files Lawsuit

[USF_Grouper]

USF hired an reputable and independent agency.  Based on their findings, and their findings alone, USF not only had suffient cause but also an institutional duty to fire Leavitt.  If he has issues with the conclusion of said investigaton or the process that was used to conduct it then I think he has named the wrong party in his lawsuit.

If he has issues with not being given his "pre-termination" heart to heart, well I think he should just grow a pair.

[macphisto]

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

Two workers I have that went to Wharton and currently attend USF said something when he came back from The Citadel.  Frankly it is not out of the ordinary, what I've heard.  Parents that think their kid deserves more attention, yadayadayada, and are known to make stinks and stage stuff at the school for attention.  I saw it when I was in high school with a couple of our athletes.  The most memorable one was a dual sport player after he got benched as a starter for basketball.  His parents actually interrupted a game and got the coach canned at the end of the year.

Anyways, the two guys that work for me are not fans.  Could be that they're jealous in same way and that's possible.  I'm far from best buds with either of them, though they've been good employees.

[cmhatter]

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

Two workers I have that went to Wharton and currently attend USF said something when he came back from The Citadel.  Frankly it is not out of the ordinary, what I've heard.  Parents that think their kid deserves more attention, yadayadayada, and are known to make stinks and stage stuff at the school for attention.  I saw it when I was in high school with a couple of our athletes.  The most memorable one was a dual sport player after he got benched as a starter for basketball.  His parents actually interrupted a game and got the coach canned at the end of the year.

Anyways, the two guys that work for me are not fans.  Could be that they're jealous in same way and that's possible.  I'm far from best buds with either of them, though they've been good employees.

i see... joel was basically a super star in HS and holds much of Wharton's rushing records... Don't think he could have received more attention there... When he played his family sat at the top of the stadium and never really heard more than a peep out of them... There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that a parent can interrupt coach mitchell while he is coaching and certainly would never have any bearing in his decision making.

not saying you did not hear what you said but i just find it funny that i see comments about joel and/or his family being 'attention whores' after this incident.

when he came from the citadel, leavitt let him on as a preferred walk-on and the most pub he ever got was his very first day at practice with him being mentioned as a walk-on from Wharton.

before all of this, if I said joel miller, 95% of this board would respond with:

who?

[macphisto]

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. 

The problem with the alleged parking lot meeting is that Joel Miller is the guy who claims it and he's changed his story numerous times on the incident in question.  It'd be easy to tear apart his testimony on that and it'd basically be "he said - he said".  Unless USF's attorneys can establish Miller's credibility on the subject it would be problematic.  

As for tape of the alleged meeting, it was at a church.  Now, I haven't been to that church, but generally churches don't have security cameras in the parking lots.  This one could, but I don't know.

That parking lot meeting seemingly has no paper trail.  Miller could produce the summary of his testimony that he typed up, but that could be subject to scrutiny as well.  They could dig into the file containing the document if it was saved and find out more about when it had been saved, but save dates after the incident or name changes, etc would hurt any argument and a summary of testimony does not prove a meeting.

And as to the outside expert that USF hired that USF Grouper brought up.  USF has used Thomas Gonzalez before.  I'm also familiar with him because he also works in employment law.  He's worked with USF much in the past and often is brought in to vindicate the administration, so he might not be as independent as you think.  And the report was him working in conjunction with other USF staffers.  This will also be brought up if there is a trial of any kind.  

Gonzalez has a history of being USF's strong arm.  He's their go to guy when they want to go after an employee, so don't put too much trust in him.  I'll admit, his involvement has always made me a bit suspicious of a premeditated outcome to the report because I'm also familiar with his work with USF employees.  And there's a history that Leavitt's lawyers can also show to a jury.  Why did USF bring in their attack dog for the investigation?  Why not go with someone unfamiliar with both parties?

That's why I continue to say that USF does not have the best of cases here.  Especially if any data gathered for the report is missing.  Even a page of an interview that is gone could be damning for USF.

As I stress, this is a civil case and Leavitt's lawyers are THE BEST at what they do.  Gonzalez is a good attack dog but has been sloppy in the past and that report seemed rushed to me.  I think recruiting and the coaching convention set a deadline and he had to hurry.  

But the report is incomplete because it doesn't include complete transcripts of all interviews.  It also did not attempt to do due diligence in researching the interviewees.  I can guarantee that it will get ripped to shreds in court unless other documents are provided, motives investigated, etc.  

A thorough investigation would have taken a couple of months.  Whether premeditated or not, there is no way USF wanted to wait that long for a conclusion.  Their backs were against the wall whether they hoped that Leavitt was vindicated or not.  Whether a slap happened or not, the report was slapped together.

And because USF participated in the investigation and acted upon the results, they are liable.  Gonzalez could be sued by Leavitt if there is anything proven to be libelous, but that won't happen.  The termination of an employee falls entirely upon the administration and USF itself.  If they get a judgment against them in this then THEY MIGHT go after Gonzalez if they can show he didn't adhere to standards in his own contract for doing the work.  

[macphisto]

i see... joel was basically a super star in HS and holds much of Wharton's rushing records... Don't think he could have received more attention there... When he played his family sat at the top of the stadium and never really heard more than a peep out of them... There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that a parent can interrupt coach mitchell while he is coaching and certainly would never have any bearing in his decision making.

not saying you did not hear what you said but i just find it funny that i see comments about joel and/or his family being 'attention whores' after this incident.

when he came from the citadel, leavitt let him on as a preferred walk-on and the most pub he ever got was his very first day at practice with him being mentioned as a walk-on from Wharton.

before all of this, if I said joel miller, 95% of this board would respond with:

who?

As I said, it could be complete envy on the part of these guys.  Neither of them played football or any other sport as far as I can tell.  But they talked about him coming back home and were not kind.  I didn't think of it until after this all blew up and people began to spout the whole "attention whore" spiel.  Needless to say, those guys are still not kind to Joel Miller. 

If he's not an attention whore then that couldn't be used by an attorney.  If they can find people that testify to incidents with him then it might be used.  Leavitt's attorneys would already tear him to bits for changing his story on a witness stand.  But they'd do that to all students testifying to the incident.  That's a key to winning a lawsuit or a criminal case - you have to discredit the witness.  Miller himself is already discredited because of previous contradictory statements.  I wouldn't be surprised if he was never called by either side if this went to trial because of that.  USF would be unwise to use him because he can get taken down by his own prior quotes.  And testimony of those that say Miller told them about this would be discredited as hearsay. 

[Triple B]

If he's not an attention whore then that couldn't be used by an attorney.  If they can find people that testify to incidents with him then it might be used.  Leavitt's attorneys would already tear him to bits for changing his story on a witness stand.  But they'd do that to all students testifying to the incident.  That's a key to winning a lawsuit or a criminal case - you have to discredit the witness.  Miller himself is already discredited because of previous contradictory statements.

And along that same vein, I'm sure the circumstances surrounding him leaving the Citadel would also come into play when trying to flesh out Miller's true character ... I'm sure there are more than a few involved in this, on both sides, that hope it never gets to court.

[USF_Grouper]

If he's not an attention ***** then that couldn't be used by an attorney.  If they can find people that testify to incidents with him then it might be used.  Leavitt's attorneys would already tear him to bits for changing his story on a witness stand.  But they'd do that to all students testifying to the incident.  That's a key to winning a lawsuit or a criminal case - you have to discredit the witness.  Miller himself is already discredited because of previous contradictory statements.  I wouldn't be surprised if he was never called by either side if this went to trial because of that.  USF would be unwise to use him because he can get taken down by his own prior quotes.  And testimony of those that say Miller told them about this would be discredited as hearsay. 

I am not sure why USF would even consider calling Miller.  Didn't he tell investigators pretty much the same thing Leavitt did?  I think the reprot made its conclusion despite Miller's statements.  Obviously, given his new turn statements I doubt Leavitt lawyers would call him, but I can think of no reason USF would consider calling him.

[Who'sYourData?]

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. 

Thanks for the great commentary, you obviously know your stuff.  I have to completely disagree here, though.  If it was so important to find a new coach quickly, and going to the coaching convention to find a coach was so important, why did USF wait so long to terminate?  The investigation went on for weeks.  Surely they had enough after a few days if they were planning to terminate.  The whole thing about kids being on winter break was bogus.  All it would take is a phone call.  They had plenty of time to get Leavitt his ten day pre-termination hearing, if they hadn't waited so long.  Then the firing comes two days after the Erskin incident?  There is clearly a much stronger link to the Erskin incident than there is to firing him before the convention.  If that was the goal, it would have happened a lot sooner.

[macphisto]

Thanks for the great commentary, you obviously know your stuff.  I have to completely disagree here, though.  If it was so important to find a new coach quickly, and going to the coaching convention to find a coach was so important, why did USF wait so long to terminate?  The investigation went on for weeks.  Surely they had enough after a few days if they were planning to terminate.  The whole thing about kids being on winter break was bogus.  All it would take is a phone call.  They had plenty of time to get Leavitt his ten day pre-termination hearing, if they hadn't waited so long.  Then the firing comes two days after the Erskin incident?  There is clearly a much stronger link to the Erskin incident than there is to firing him before the convention.  If that was the goal, it would have happened a lot sooner.

A few days is not enough for the appearance of a thorough investigation.  All kinds of alarm bells would go off with phone interviews.  How could the investigator confirm that he was actually talking to the student and not someone else posing as the student?  They actually did the investigation very quickly when it comes to these kinds of things.

Whether it be the coaching convention of the window opening for talking to potential recruits again, there was clearly a time limit.  And you ultimately need to talk to everyone you can.  As I've said before, how can you be sure that the students didn't use the month plus to work on a fabricated story together?  You need a lot of verification.  And ultimately it was the alleged lying that really led to the dismissal, but there is a lot of contradiction from different witnesses as well.  So who is lying?  It's difficult to detect the truth when a group of people tell different stories and the most consistent group had the potential to work together to get their story straight for over a month. 

So time is necessary to at least give the illusion of thoroughness.  Not all investigations are thorough.  But I'd guess there was a time constraint placed on it from the beginning and that's a bad solution.

As I've said, I think USF handled the whole thing poorly.  They never should have gotten their go to attack dog attorney to do it.  They should have gone with a firm staffed by ex-law enforcement detectives that are used to doing research and finding evidence.  Instead they go with the guy they've gone to in the past to find reasons to fire employees.  That does not look good.  But it would have looked even worse if he had come back in five days with a report.