1.4 million to Jane (I assume Tracey will now get a check instead of a trial)

[EstronHawkKing]

I wonder if Meyers would or will ever show her face in Iowa City ever again? If I saw her, it would be hard for me to bite my tongue.

 

[OkstHawk]

Thanks for your 2 cents pansy

Kenny don't feed the troll!

 

[OkstHawk]

I'm more than relaxed. I'm not the one spazzing over a guilty verdict. Move on and let's talk about possible outcomes and their impact on Iowa athletics. Didn't realize that this board was the Iowa legal message board.

 

[CP87]

so that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is out the door?

As a civil trial, the requirement is that there is a "preponderance of evidence" that indicates one party caused harm to the other (meaning, a better than 50/50 chance), not the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that is required for a criminal charge to be proven. You could still argue whether or not the plaintiff's side provided a preponderance of evidence to support their case, but the jury thought they did. I doubt if the jury was made up of 8 crusading liberals either, I am sure it was a somewhat representative cross-section.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

Barta is now officially on the clock!!

 

[hawkdrummer1]

As a civil trial, the requirement is that there is a "preponderance of evidence" that indicates one party caused harm to the other (meaning, a better than 50/50 chance), not the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that is required for a criminal charge to be proven. You could still argue whether or not the plaintiff's side provided a preponderance of evidence to support their case, but the jury thought they did. I doubt if the jury was made up of 8 crusading liberals either, I am sure it was a somewhat representative cross-section.

Very well. Still...I'd suggest there wasn't a "preponderance of evidence", unless you're talking about the fact that she had a real attitude problem and did a poor job.

 

[tksirius]

 

[SteveGarvey1]

I have yet to hear of any evidence provided to show discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender. Someone help me out.

Seems like at least part of the logic is, Barta payed her successor $75K more a year and so thus it had to have been gender or sexual orientation discrimination. No witness ever came forth and said Barta ever made any derogatory comments about women or gay people and there has been no document, email or text that showed any animus towards those two groups, yet the verdict came out the way it did.

It's pretty obvious Barta didn't like her, but just maybe it was because she wasn't such a nice person, was insubordinate, and under-performed on her job. That's not the same as being discriminatory though.

 

[SteveGarvey1]

No it's smart when you've been wrongfully terminated.

Yes, it's wickedly smart to be that greedy.

 

[Stanzi]

Thanks for your 2 cents pansy

I'm happy to discuss this ordeal if you have anything of substance to add. So far all I've seen from you is childish insults. If you have an actual opinion on the trial I'm all ears and open to discussion.

 

[ohhawk]

Reminded of "be careful of what you wish for". What might be gained in some respects can be lost in others. Just hope the pendulum of change doesn't swing too far in reaction to this episode.

 

[Joshbrown]

I'm more than relaxed. I'm not the one spazzing over a guilty verdict. Move on and let's talk about possible outcomes and their impact on Iowa athletics. Didn't realize that this board was the Iowa legal message board.

That hurts. You know I have a spastic medical condition. I'm in a protected class. I'm calling Newkirk.

 

[Joshbrown]

As a civil trial, the requirement is that there is a "preponderance of evidence" that indicates one party caused harm to the other (meaning, a better than 50/50 chance), not the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that is required for a criminal charge to be proven. You could still argue whether or not the plaintiff's side provided a preponderance of evidence to support their case, but the jury thought they did. I doubt if the jury was made up of 8 crusading liberals either, I am sure it was a somewhat representative cross-section.

I agree the jury probably wasn't made up of social justice warriors. But . . . America as a society tends to root for the underdog. Probably because that's how American came into existence in the first place. And when people root for the underdog, that usually means juries are subconsciously rooting for the little guy when going up against the big guy.

Jane played the "lil ole me. Oppressed as a woman AND as a lesbian in a male dominated culture."

Lawyers have made being a victim a more lucrative life choice than being a stoic hero. There's a reason the Bar Associations at every level support one party far more than the other.

 

[Joshbrown]

She wasn't wrongfully terminated.

I'm glad you edited that. You've engaged in a lot of ad hominem over the years and need to dial that back.

 

[Stanzi]

I'm glad you edited that. You've engaged in a lot of ad hominem over the years and need to dial that back.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Not sure where ad hominem comes into play. But regardless you're welcome for editing my typo!

 

[OkstHawk]

Yes, it's wickedly smart to be that greedy.

If some good ole boy discriminated against me and cost me my career, damn right I'd take them for all they were worth.

 

[OkstHawk]

I'm happy to discuss this ordeal if you have anything of substance to add. So far all I've seen from you is childish insults. If you have an actual opinion on the trial I'm all ears and open to discussion.

Lol, okay pot.

 

[Joshbrown]

As Norm Crosby put it "When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."

Speaking of not smart. The Altoona Cyclonette on the jury may have given Iowa enough to over-turn this verdict on appeal.

I'm assuming Iowa can appeal the verdict. Any lawyers wanna weigh in on this??

 

[SteveGarvey1]

If some good ole boy discriminated against me and cost me my career, damn right I'd take them for all they were worth.

Yes and if that were actually true you might be right. This whole case was based on assumptions and the assumption that Barta was a good ole boy is unfounded. He made mistakes evidently but there's no evidence to support your contention that he should be viewed with that characterization.

 

[Adam]

Good thing Iowa's classy enough not to listen to dumb advice.

Middle aged men covering themselves head to toe in Under Armour douche costumes are equivalent to the Addidas track suit-wearing yuppies of the 90's.

You might as well wear a sign that says, "I can't afford my wife and my son's name is Brody."

How long has it been since you have been to a Scheels or Dicks? Under Armour has a full line of traditional clothing. Polo's, T-shirts, Hoodies, and pants. If cotton is the only "appropriate" attire in your eyes, no worries Under Armour has you covered literally and metaphorically. The real benefit comes from what the athletes want to wear. Under Armour is an attractive brand to the youth. They are a young company and still trying to gain a foothold in the collegiant merchandising market. That can be leveraged for a very lucrative deal on Iowa's behalf.