From what I read, Belichick thought he was texting Brian Daboll but mistakenly texted Brian Flores.BB saying he heard that Flores was the guy in NY doesn't help his case. That insinuates they were high on him which works against the racism angle.
From what I read, Belichick thought he was texting Brian Daboll but mistakenly texted Brian Flores.BB saying he heard that Flores was the guy in NY doesn't help his case. That insinuates they were high on him which works against the racism angle.
Ok I get it. Should have realized that.From what I read, Belichick thought he was texting Brian Daboll but mistakenly texted Brian Flores.
No, you don't. The Rooney rule is not legally enforceable. If you could show a team deliberately disregarded it, that might be deemed circumstantial evidence of a discriminatory intent, but the plaintiff would still have to prove that the hiring decision was not made for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.I disagree. I think it settles - but if not, its a question of damages - not winning or losing.
the league put the Rooney rule in place for a reason - and if you have a smoking gun that it wasn't followed, that you were just used as a token - I think you have good grounds for a discrimination case.
Yeah that's what makes this so flimsy unless there's more to be released. If I'm the Giants I say "Oh yeah I was talking to Bill one evening and made the comment that we really liked Daboll and he must have took it as us already making a final decision. But truth of the matter was that we really liked Flores and we were not going to make a decision before we gave him an opportunity to present his ideas on leading our organization into the future. In the end, it was a tough decision but we were blown away by Daboll's vision on where to take this organization and our team."Problem for him then is that Belicheat is not in a spot to speak for the Giants.
I would burn my jerseys and find a new team if my owner did that shit.So the question is will the pay to lose allegations force an ownership change in Miami?
No, you don't. The Rooney rule is not legally enforceable. If you could show a team deliberately disregarded it, that might be deemed circumstantial evidence of a discriminatory intent, but the plaintiff would still have to prove that the hiring decision was not made for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.
None of these issues, however, justify (1) suing the NFL, rather than the team alleged to have discriminated, or (2) the attempt to make this a class action.
I ask you to think about that before you glibly dismiss his allegations.
Yeah that's what makes this so flimsy unless there's more to be released. If I'm the Giants I say "Oh yeah I was talking to Bill one evening and made the comment that we really liked Daboll and he must have took it as us already making a final decision. But truth of the matter was that we really liked Flores and we were not going to make a decision before we gave him an opportunity to present his ideas on leading our organization into the future. In the end, it was a tough decision but we were blown away by Daboll's vision on where to take this organization and our team."
Done.
I appreciate the breakdown.No, you don't. The Rooney rule is not legally enforceable. If you could show a team deliberately disregarded it, that might be deemed circumstantial evidence of a discriminatory intent, but the plaintiff would still have to prove that the hiring decision was not made for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.
None of these issues, however, justify (1) suing the NFL, rather than the team alleged to have discriminated, or (2) the attempt to make this a class action.
I do practice employment law. I have for 30 years. I've represented employers and employees.I don't practice employment law - I'll admit - but I just read through this complaint. If it survives a motion to dismiss (and I think it will) - then you and I both know the NFL will settle this to avoid the discovery process. Everything is in play, Kaep, Gruden, Concussion settlements, the hiring and firing of dozens and dozens of positions.
Look at the firm that filed this - these lawyers are real.
I'm telling you - this looks like a problem for the league.
I'm using the term "extortion" in its general sense - an attempt to compel someone to pay you money by threatening them (as opposed to seeking a legal judgment). I believe that this is a primary purpose of this action, along with making a political statement.I appreciate the breakdown.
Where I’d quibble is calling it extortion.
Much like Stl’s relocation suit forcing a reckoning… showing the world what the league does, rather than what it claims.. with a policy like this that the league uses as armor against claims of racism.. seems like a worthy and defensible suit from an ethical perspective.
If that allegation is true, it could very well result in the league taking action against the Dolphins' ownership.So the question is will the pay to lose allegations force an ownership change in Miami?
Political to what end? What is the end game for Flores here? Or for the law firm?I do practice employment law. I have for 30 years. I've represented employers and employees.
This may survive a motion to dismiss (though it will likely have to be amended first, given how the claims were framed and some of the superfluous commentary that a judge may strike) and it may ultimately settle. Lots of claims that have little or no actual legal merit settle due to the defendant's desire to avoid the costs (real and intangible) associated with mounting a defense.
However, make no mistake... this is not a serious attempt to obtain a legal remedy for an aggrieved individual (Flores). This is a political stunt.
Yes, yes, I'm being unreasonable by asking you not to just immediately conclude that a guy who is literally putting his promising career on the line isn't just lying for attention.
Why would he risk blowing up his career to make a political statement?I'm using the term "extortion" in its general sense - an attempt to compel someone to pay you money by threatening them (as opposed to seeking a legal judgment). I believe that this is a primary purpose of this action, along with making a political statement.