Michigan State: Mel Tucker fired

Status
Not open for further replies.
#126      
I'm no lawyer, i'm sure the ones on this board have contributed more informed opinions than me....but if he signed a contract with the language saying they can fire him for anything that brings "public disrespect, conempt, or ridicule"...at the university's judgment, then that opens up a whole box of worms:

1. Why sign that vague and unbalanced language in the first place???? Where did his agents/lawyers drop the ball? i'm guessing it's standard language for high profile employees in many industries. It's just the risk you take for getting paid the s***ton of money. You take the good with the bad. It may seem unfair, but if it is, you're free to not sign it. But he did.

As a personal example, i hired a builder to build a house for my family. We were going through contract review last year, and they had language that basically said "the customer cannot say anything negative about the builder, publicly (e.g. online reviews, etc) or privately, regardless of whether it's true or not". On the flip side, the builder could say whatever they wanted, positive or negative, as long as it was true. I had issue with that language. They didn't want to change it. I told them i wouldn't sign it and was ready to walk away. They caved.

2. Now that it's signed, you've put yourself in the spotlight. You've opened yourself to this very type of scrutiny. it's not unfair anymore because you signed off on the rules. You've put yourself at a higher standard than a normal employee would.

3. Now there's probably some legal limit as to how high of a standard your employer can put you through, and that's probably the game being played right now. But the fact of the matter is, Mel just gave the university enough ammo to legitimately make the claim, and now it'll be the back and forth that'll decide where it lands.

Finally, someone commented that she wasn't a university employee - she was a contractor being paid by the university. That's not that different than an employee directly. I've seen that limited delineation first hand in my professional life (not to me directly, to someone else i worked with).
So called "morality clauses" are fairly standard in many lines of work, and most large companies simply won't employ you if you won't sign, as for them it's a requirement for employment.

That said, an employee does have some amount of legal recourse here, because as you stated, the terminology does tend to be rather vague, and from my understanding, for a specific portion/section/line of a contract to be legally binding, it needs to be both clearly defined and enforceable. In fact, that's why most employment contracts also have a line somewhere in there saying, "if any terms within this contract are deemed legally unenforceable or invalid, it does not render the rest of the otherwise legally binding contract null and void."

So morality clauses are indeed challengable in the court of law (as are competitor clauses that state you can't work for any company deemed a competitor, but that's another subject), and if one were to lawyer up, in general, if you didn't do something particularly grievous, you'll have a case as this tends to be difficult to prove(as typically the employer has to prove your actions caused purposeful damage to their image that created tangible financial harm). As such, most of these cases will be settled out of court so long as the fired employee can afford the legal means to do so.
 
#127      
Its certainly possible he did nothing illegal, immoral or unethical in regard to this contractual obligations to the university
But in an era of 24/7 cable news, the internet or social media that does not seem to make much difference.
The media often creates "public disrespect, contempt, or ridicule" for individuals regardlessl of the truth or falsity of a story.
The nature of media, and the abiguity in morality clauses, leaves absolutely no room bad jugement.
 
#128      
So called "morality clauses" are fairly standard in many lines of work, and most large companies simply won't employ you if you won't sign, as for them it's a requirement for employment.

That said, an employee does have some amount of legal recourse here, because as you stated, the terminology does tend to be rather vague, and from my understanding, for a specific portion/section/line of a contract to be legally binding, it needs to be both clearly defined and enforceable. In fact, that's why most employment contracts also have a line somewhere in there saying, "if any terms within this contract are deemed legally unenforceable or invalid, it does not render the rest of the otherwise legally binding contract null and void."

So morality clauses are indeed challengable in the court of law (as are competitor clauses that state you can't work for any company deemed a competitor, but that's another subject), and if one were to lawyer up, in general, if you didn't do something particularly grievous, you'll have a case as this tends to be difficult to prove(as typically the employer has to prove your actions caused purposeful damage to their image that created tangible financial harm). As such, most of these cases will be settled out of court so long as the fired employee can afford the legal means to do so.

seems like both sides probably know what's in the contract and are well aware of the implications and limitations. If it gets to that point (which it seems like it is here), it's just gonna be a battle to see where it lands, but put the language in there so ensure there is some sort of battle. Morality, ethics, right/wrong etc etc that we can debate here until the Illini win a national championship is not particularly relevant.
 
#129      
seems like both sides probably know what's in the contract and are well aware of the implications and limitations. If it gets to that point (which it seems like it is here), it's just gonna be a battle to see where it lands, but put the language in there so ensure there is some sort of battle. Morality, ethics, right/wrong etc etc that we can debate here until the Illini win a national championship is not particularly relevant.
Absolutely agree. The legal argument vs. the moral/ethical argument are two very different things in cases such as these. I also think it's why when cases such as this enter the public domain, there tends to be a high abundance of arguing simply due to people not understanding what the other person is arguing (or in their case even what they themselves are arguing).

I think we as people like living in a world where right and wrong directly correlate to not guilty and guilty and that not guilty means innocent. But it's just not the case. It's why you can say that Tucker almost certainly did something immoral and unethical by his own admission, while it also being true that he could probably find legal grounds to challenge his firing for cause.
 
#130      
I’m not a lawyer but sexual harassment standards get drilled into your head if you’re management. It’s almost irrelevant if the relationship was consensual or not at this point. She provided a service to the University and as a Vender has the same protections as if she reported directly to Tucker. Which makes sense as he was decision maker regarding her continuing to providing services to MSU. It becomes he said/she said. Which is why many big organizations require a’pre-relationship’ statement from both parties signed and submitted to organization before commencement of such relationships. He had to know this. Not being aware of it in his position is pure stupidity.
 
#131      
I’m not a lawyer but sexual harassment standards get drilled into your head if you’re management. It’s almost irrelevant if the relationship was consensual or not at this point. She provided a service to the University and as a Vender has the same protections as if she reported directly to Tucker. Which makes sense as he was decision maker regarding her continuing to providing services to MSU. It becomes he said/she said. Which is why many big organizations require a’pre-relationship’ statement from both parties signed and submitted to organization before commencement of such relationships. He had to know this. Not being aware of it in his position is pure stupidity.
So very well said and a great reminder. All managers are relentlessly taught that there’s no such thing as a consensual relationship between a leader and those in their organizations, including contractors. That’s a very red zone that only a fool dares to enter. It’s ironic that he did it with a contractor hired to teach this stuff.
 
#132      
I like how no one mentions that she was on a phone sex call for 36 min with this guy and claims she “panicked” and couldn’t hang up. It sounds like a load of crap, especially since she texted him happy Father’s Day two months later. She just wanted revenge on him when he said she couldn’t come back to share her stories, she obviously liked him up until that point.
 
#133      
I like how no one mentions that she was on a phone sex call for 36 min with this guy and claims she “panicked” and couldn’t hang up. It sounds like a load of crap, especially since she texted him happy Father’s Day two months later. She just wanted revenge on him when he said she couldn’t come back to share her stories, she obviously liked him up until that point.
Her responses seem irrelevant. As @AchillesPaign reminds us above, even a fully consensual relationship with someone in your organization puts you at risk as soon as moods sour.

At least that’s the standard in the private sector. HR nearly forced me to fire a guy for a sexual harassment complaint from a contract employee. He was told this was strike one and you may not get three. He pondered it and retired rather than risk his pension.
 
#134      
Her responses seem irrelevant. As @AchillesPaign reminds us above, even a fully consensual relationship with someone in your organization puts you at risk as soon as moods sour.

At least that’s the standard in the private sector. HR nearly forced me to fire a guy for a sexual harassment complaint from a contract employee. He was told this was strike one and you may not get three. He pondered it and retired rather than risk his pension.
Someone who was paid for 1 day of service in the first 1,095 days of your employment is not someone in your organization. She doesn't work for MSU. She isn't a part of the Athletic Department. She is not a vendor that provides ongoing 3rd party support, she came in to speak once. No different than if they brought in Tony Robbins once to give them a motivational speech. No one would consider Tony Robbins a part of the MSU organization. This being the sole reason for impropriety just doesn't hold water. Especially when the event happened months after that 1 day.
 
#135      
Someone who was paid for 1 day of service in the first 1,095 days of your employment is not someone in your organization. She doesn't work for MSU. She isn't a part of the Athletic Department. She is not a vendor that provides ongoing 3rd party support, she came in to speak once. No different than if they brought in Tony Robbins once to give them a motivational speech. No one would consider Tony Robbins a part of the MSU organization. This being the sole reason for impropriety just doesn't hold water. Especially when the event happened months after that 1 day.

She was, apparently, scheduled (or at least in discussions) to come back and speak again.

But, i'll say it again, we can debate this back and forth all day long. In the end, it doesn't matter. all that matters is what's in the contract. And the contract seems to have language that at least gives them some ammo to fire him with cause. But it also seems like the language is vague enough to give Tucker ammo to fire back. i doubt it'll be either 0 or 70something million that's paid out. something in between. and what that number ultimately is based on a lot mroe than morality, ethics, etc etc.
 
Last edited:
#136      
Someone who was paid for 1 day of service in the first 1,095 days of your employment is not someone in your organization. She doesn't work for MSU. She isn't a part of the Athletic Department. She is not a vendor that provides ongoing 3rd party support, she came in to speak once. No different than if they brought in Tony Robbins once to give them a motivational speech. No one would consider Tony Robbins a part of the MSU organization. This being the sole reason for impropriety just doesn't hold water. Especially when the event happened months after that 1 day.
The university determined that she was a vendor, perhaps because she was engaged for two subsequent visits that Tucker apparently cancelled after "the call" (following from the USA Today article):


They later commissioned Brett Sokolow, board chairman and co-founder of the Association of Title IX Administrators, to write an “expert witness” report asserting that policing employees’ “off duty” activities would set a dangerous legal precedent.

[...]

Michigan State was not persuaded. The alleged conduct would be covered by school policy, it concluded, because it took place in the context of Tracy’s work as a vendor for the school and affected their ongoing business relationship.

I don't know what the Title IX guidelines comprise, but it seems that, probably because of the two subsequent engagements, she was determined to have an "ongoing business relationship" with MSU.

As others have noted, if one is in a position of managerial control he has to be very careful about his conduct. Another factor no one has mentioned: this all took place in Spring 2022, immediately after Tucker's meteoric rise, [EDIT] 11-2 season, and an unheard-of (for a relatively unproven coach) $95mm contract. It's not a stretch to assume that, if he was alienated at all in his marriage at the time, he certainly might have felt a heightened sense of power, entitlement, and insulation from consequences.
 
Last edited:
#137      
I like how no one mentions that she was on a phone sex call for 36 min with this guy and claims she “panicked” and couldn’t hang up. It sounds like a load of crap, especially since she texted him happy Father’s Day two months later. She just wanted revenge on him when he said she couldn’t come back to share her stories, she obviously liked him up until that point.

As someone who works in mental health and with a lot of people who have survived sexual assault I want to clarify something. It is an INCREDIBLY common reaction for people dealing with sexual assault or sexual violence to freeze, its even more common for people who have previously been the victim of sexual assault. Its generally described by a lot of survivors as their mind goes completely blank while its happening and they can't move or speak during that time. For someone who has previously been raped it wouldn't be surprising to be faced with another situation that brings back reminders for them to have the same type of reaction again.

Now doesn't mean that she couldn't be lying or using the situation to her advantage but its not out of the realm of possibility that what happened on the phone call was not consensual.
 
#138      
The standard at my Fortune 50 employer was to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety”, a very common requirement. Note the BP CEO wasn’t fired for complaints, but for “improper relationships”.
Tucker was way out of line with respect to today’s norms. He set himself up regardless of any “he said / she said” issues. He isn’t being treated my more harshly than other leaders in similar situations.
 
Last edited:
#139      
The university determined that she was a vendor, perhaps because she was engaged for two subsequent visits that Tucker apparently cancelled after "the call" (following from the USA Today article):
Retaliation, not a contract issue but a big a legal problem on its own.
 
Last edited:
#140      
The university determined that she was a vendor, perhaps because she was engaged for two subsequent visits that Tucker apparently cancelled after "the call" (following from the USA Today article):


They later commissioned Brett Sokolow, board chairman and co-founder of the Association of Title IX Administrators, to write an “expert witness” report asserting that policing employees’ “off duty” activities would set a dangerous legal precedent.

[...]

Michigan State was not persuaded. The alleged conduct would be covered by school policy, it concluded, because it took place in the context of Tracy’s work as a vendor for the school and affected their ongoing business relationship.

I don't know what the Title IX guidelines comprise, but it seems that, probably because of the two subsequent engagements, she was determined to have an "ongoing business relationship" with MSU.

As others have noted, if one is in a position of managerial control he has to be very careful about his conduct. Another factor no one has mentioned: this all took place in Spring 2022, immediately after Tucker's meteoric rise, [EDIT] 11-2 season, and an unheard-of (for a relatively unproven coach) $95mm contract. It's not a stretch to assume that, if he was alienated at all in his marriage at the time, he certainly might have felt a heightened sense of power, entitlement, and insulation from consequences.

Is that an illusional definition and/or comparison of a condom ?

asking for an illusionary friend ............
 
#141      
As someone who works in mental health and with a lot of people who have survived sexual assault I want to clarify something. It is an INCREDIBLY common reaction for people dealing with sexual assault or sexual violence to freeze, its even more common for people who have previously been the victim of sexual assault. Its generally described by a lot of survivors as their mind goes completely blank while its happening and they can't move or speak during that time. For someone who has previously been raped it wouldn't be surprising to be faced with another situation that brings back reminders for them to have the same type of reaction again.

Now doesn't mean that she couldn't be lying or using the situation to her advantage but its not out of the realm of possibility that what happened on the phone call was not consensual.
But yet she didn’t report it immediately after it happened, if she was so traumatized why not report it right away. Instead she sends a happy Father’s Day text 2 months later and then only reports it once he tells her he doesn’t want her coming back as a “vendor”…
 
#142      
But yet she didn’t report it immediately after it happened, if she was so traumatized why not report it right away. Instead she sends a happy Father’s Day text 2 months later and then only reports it once he tells her he doesn’t want her coming back as a “vendor”…
It's never just that simple. Why do battered spouses continue to live with their abusers? In any relationship where there is a power dynamic where one party is a boss or in charge of their livelihood, it complicates everything.

Maybe she didn't report it initially because she thought it might ruin her career or his. Once the carrot was pulled away and she wasn't going to be working for them any longer, maybe that made her feel more comfortable reporting.

I don't know what happened, and it's easy and most logical to just say "hang up the phone." There is always more to it than that. With her being a rape victim, there's a whole litany of other things going on in her head due to past trauma.

The point is, Mel shouldn't have put himself in this situation in the first place for us to dissect on message boards. It's on him even if this was initially consensual.
 
#143      
The point is, Mel shouldn't have put himself in this situation in the first place for us to dissect on message boards. It's on him even if this was initially consensual.
Whether it was consensual or not is only an aggravating factor, along with retaliation if he cancelled her gigs after her complaint. Retaliation really cooks his goose along with the university. Note that BP’s CEO wasn’t forced to resign due to any complaint, only because of the relationship itself.
 
#144      
Whether it was consensual or not is only an aggravating factor, along with retaliation if he cancelled her gigs after her complaint. Retaliation really cooks his goose along with the university. Note that BP’s CEO wasn’t forced to resign due to any complaint, only because of the relationship itself.
And, given the context the MSU is only 5 yrs out from the biggest sexual abuse case in sports history I would assume they have a different standard of what behavior is potentially damaging to the institution.
 
#145      
Whether it was consensual or not is only an aggravating factor, along with retaliation if he cancelled her gigs after her complaint. Retaliation really cooks his goose along with the university. Note that BP’s CEO wasn’t forced to resign due to any complaint, only because of the relationship itself.

It's been shown again and again and again and again...people in high profile positions are held to a higher standard in situations like these than use mere commoners (with certain exceptions that i won't get into for risking a flame war). You can debate whether that's fair or not, but it's definitely the reality of the situation, and you have nobody to blame but yourself if you're in Tucker's situation and are genuinely surprised by this outcome.

When you're the public face of an institution, whether it's a company, sports franchise (or sport in general), football team (and arguably a whole university as Tucker is arguably the most public figure at MSU), NASCAR team, etc etc etc etc etc. mistakes (even if unintentional or relatively less egregious) can have much bigger consequences. On the flip side, being in that situation typically gives you a lot more financial security and overall power, so it's not like you don't get anything for the increased risk.

A decade ago, the head of my department (my boss's boss at the time) was arrested for DUI. Mug shot, arrest record on the internet for everyone to see. But nothing happened to him at work. He worked for another 5 years before retiring on his own terms. But my department is not client-facing. We're not the public face of the firm. If it was the CEO of the company, i can assure you the outcome would've been different. BUT, the CEO also got paid 5x more than this dept head did.

It's kind of the cliché "with great power comes great responsibility"
 
Last edited:
#146      
But yet she didn’t report it immediately after it happened, if she was so traumatized why not report it right away. Instead she sends a happy Father’s Day text 2 months later and then only reports it once he tells her he doesn’t want her coming back as a “vendor”…
Very true.

I think @blackdog s main point is that it can all get very complicated. Lots of grey area.

Is she using the situation to her advantage and is lying about being sexually assaulted via the call? Maybe…but that would go against her very own job, and set victims back when it comes to reporting or being believed. Imagine the backlash if a known advocate for victims, who is a rape victim herself, used the very system meant to protect victims in a ploy to disparage an innocent (per the law) person. HUGE NO NO. So it wouldn’t make sense for her to do this.

On the other hand, she trains people and has been trained on how to cope with sexual assault. To include, ways to try and avoid it, but also how to recognize it, report it, and cope with it. For her to simply allow the phone call to continue even though she was actively being sexually assaulted via that call wouldn’t line up with the very thing she teaches/preaches. Not to mention the Father’s Day text later on. With her training she would know not to reengage with the person, especially if her sexual security as a woman had been infringed upon AGAIN. It doesn’t really add up.

In the end, I think it’s a mix of several things of varying degrees. Those degrees will dictate the settlement out of court. In no particular order:

- Jilted lover wants more from a married man
- Some semblance of Tuck taking the sex call overboard
- Contractor feels like she is being turned down for future work based on the relationship
- Get this in the public light so we can fire Tuck and not pay him what he’s owed on the dumbest contract I’ve ever seen in college coaching history

Food for thought.
 
Last edited:
#147      
I like how no one mentions that she was on a phone sex call for 36 min with this guy and claims she “panicked” and couldn’t hang up. It sounds like a load of crap, especially since she texted him happy Father’s Day two months later. She just wanted revenge on him when he said she couldn’t come back to share her stories, she obviously liked him up until that point.

If true, more than meets the eye here
begining to look like a truth is stranger than fiction saga
What will the title of the movie be????
 
#150      
If true, more than meets the eye here
begining to look like a truth is stranger than fiction saga
What will the title of the movie be????

Calling Miss You GIF by Graduation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back