proudhawkfan21
Well-Known Member
It is my opinion. Thanks for sharing your opinion about my opinion.
8 Players Sue for $20 Million
- Thread starter Motigerhawk
- Start date
thedukeofearl
Well-Known Member
delacruztaylor
Member
College is WAY too expensive, and Universities need to come to realization that how things were done 50 years ago don't work today. But any ideas to let the government run anything and think it'll be any better is just not intelligent. That's the world we live in, it's always about $$$$, logic seems to get thrown out the window.
Last edited:
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
The government already pretty much runs the higher ed racket anyway. I think what needs to happen is the creation of a centralized credentialing apparatus. College has just turned into a credential, so they might as well utilize the available technology to make it affordable instead of throwing billions of dollars of student loans at the situation. Keep the elite schools open and the research universities open for research. Then you don't have to worry about the kid who gets swindled for 6 figures of loans by Central Arkansas School for the Blind.
Fryowa
Administrator
Scottie Pippen went to Central Arkansas back when it was still an NAIA school.
Robowe
Well-Known Member
Fryowa
Administrator
seepig
Well-Known Member
You must know him personally to hurl that accusation. Or you're just a careless fool who uses labels because you're too lazy. In any event actually money isn't high on Maslow's hierarchy of needs either.
Scott Leclair
Well-Known Member
So the 100 million dollars Iowa athletics will lose and had to cut programs was on Barta?! You think maybe that global pandemic called Covid is the only reason athletic programs were cut? University’s all over the country have been cutting athletic programs due to money lost from Covid. Some well before Iowa cut theirs. Heck,Stanford cut 15 or 16 programs well before Iowa did. Are you asking every school and business in the country why they are not “trying to maneuver,get creative and empower fundraising” to keep the millions of folks who have lost their jobs employed. To allow the hundreds of schools cutting sports programs to keep them. All this loss of employment,business and sports is due to Covid-19 and nothing or no persons fault.
Scott Leclair
Well-Known Member
so are you saying if someone isn’t sympathetic or agree with something or someone they are a racist?
Hell of a movie
Robowe
Well-Known Member
Parts of lawsuit against Iowa allowed to proceed
Former Iowa players allege they were demeaned with racial slurs and forced to abandon Black hairstyles, fashion and culture to fit the "Iowa Way" promoted by head coach Kirk Ferentz.
www.espn.com
spliff45
Well-Known Member
I apologize for the TL;DR but someone on another board made what I think is a pretty good summary of what happened in court yesterday.
Reminder:
Named Plaintiffs: Akrum Wadley, Jonathan Parker, Aaron Mends, Marcel Joly, Maurice Fleming, Reggie Spearman, Kevonte Martin-Manley, Darian Cooper, Laron Taylor, Brandon Simon, Javon Foy, Andre Harris and Terrance Harris.
Named Defendants: University of Iowa, Board of Regents, Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz, Gary Barta, Chris Doyle, Raymond Braithwaite
Count I - Racially Hostile Environment. This count was only alleged on behalf of Aaron Mends, Javon Foy and Brandon Simon. The only named defendants are the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents.
The Defendants contended that a two year statute of limitations ("SOL") applied to the Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiffs Mends, Simon and Foy contended that a four year statute of limitations applied to their claims. Judge Rose concluded that a four year statute of limitations applies to the claims. Foy, Mends and Simon's claims would have been time barred if a 2 year SOL applied but not if a 4 year SOL applied.
Defendants also contended that the allegations in the Complaint did not give allege a sufficiently factual basis for a claim to proceed on a theory of racially hostile environment. Judge Rose disagreed (in face, the language she used suggests that she vehemently disagreed).
Thus, Count I survives the Motion to Dismiss and Aaron Mends, Javon Foy and Brandon Simon's claim that they were subjected to a racially hostile environment will move forward.
Count II - Retaliation. This count was alleged only on behalf of Aaron Mends and he claimed that he was retaliated against for complaining about disparate treatment of black players versus white players. The only named defendants were the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents.
Judge Rose concluded that there were not sufficient facts alleged to support a claim for retaliation.
Count II was dismissed.
Count III - Systemic Pattern and Practice of Discrimination. This count was alleged only on behalf of Mends, Foy and Simon. The only named defendants were the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents.
Judge Rose concluded that there were not sufficient facts alleged to support a claim for Systemic Pattern and Practice of Discrimination.
Count III was dismissed.
Count IV - Deprivations of Rights under Section 1981. This count included not only claims by Mends, Foy and Simon but also Akrum Wadley, Jonathan Parker, Marcel Joly and Darian Cooper. Defendants named were Gary Barta, Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle. In their last pleading before the Court entered this Order, Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss Gary Barta. Thus, the question before the Court was whether Count IV stated a cause of action against Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle.
Same SOL analysis employed by the Court for this count.
Judge Rose found that there were sufficient facts pled to allow a cause of action to go forward for Mends, Foy, Simon, Wadley, Parker, Joly and Cooper against ONLY Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle. Judge Rose found insufficient allegations of fact to allow Count IV to stand against Kirk Ferentz.
Count IV dismissed as to Kirk Ferentz. Count IV survives for Mends, Foy, Simon, Wadley, Parker, Joly and Cooper against Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle.
Count V - Conspiracy to Deprive Persons of Equal Protection. This count was alleged on behalf of all named players against Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz, Chris Doyle, Raymond Braithwaite and Gary Barta.
In its last filing before the Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss this Count.
Thus, Count V was dismissed.
Count VI - Conspiracy to Deprive Persons of Equal Protection under Section 1985. This count was alleged on behalf of all named players against Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle only.
In its last filing before the Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss this Count.
Thus, Count VI was dismissed.
Count VII - Civil Rights Violation Failure to Train and Supervise. This count was alleged on behalf of all named players against Kirk Ferentz and Gary Barta.
Judge Rose found that there was not a sufficient factual basis alleged to support the claim for a civil rights violation based upon a failure to train and supervise Brian Ferentz and/or Chris Doyle.
Thus, Count VII was dismissed.
Count VIII - Breach of Contract. This claim was brought on behalf of all of the players against the University of Iowa, the Board of Regents, Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz, Gary Barta and Chris Doyle.
Judge Rose found that the factual allegations did not support a claim for the existence of any enforceable contract.
Thus, Count VIII was dismissed.
End result? The case will now go forward on:
Count I: Foy, Mends and Simon against the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents on a Racially Hostile Environment theory.
Count IV: Foy, Mends, Simon, Wadley, Parker, Cooper and Joly against Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle on a Section 1981 Deprivation of Rights theory.
Maurice Fleming, Reggie Spearman, Kevonte Martin-Manley, Laron Taylor, Andre Harris and Terrance Harris no longer have existing claims.
Kirk Ferentz, Gary Barta and Raymond Braithwaite are no longer defendants.
The May 11th Scheduling Conference remains in place and I'd anticipate that the Court will enter a scheduling order and will set the case for trial (likely sometime in mid to late 2022).
Given that both Count I and Count IV are advancing based, in part, on the Court's ruling that those claims are governed by a four year and not a two year SOL, I suppose that it is possible for the remaining defendants to seek an interlocutory appeal to the 8th Circuit. I've done some appellate work but don't consider myself to be an appellate "guru." Thus, I'd have to do some digging as to whether that may be a viable option.
Reminder:
Named Plaintiffs: Akrum Wadley, Jonathan Parker, Aaron Mends, Marcel Joly, Maurice Fleming, Reggie Spearman, Kevonte Martin-Manley, Darian Cooper, Laron Taylor, Brandon Simon, Javon Foy, Andre Harris and Terrance Harris.
Named Defendants: University of Iowa, Board of Regents, Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz, Gary Barta, Chris Doyle, Raymond Braithwaite
Count I - Racially Hostile Environment. This count was only alleged on behalf of Aaron Mends, Javon Foy and Brandon Simon. The only named defendants are the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents.
The Defendants contended that a two year statute of limitations ("SOL") applied to the Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiffs Mends, Simon and Foy contended that a four year statute of limitations applied to their claims. Judge Rose concluded that a four year statute of limitations applies to the claims. Foy, Mends and Simon's claims would have been time barred if a 2 year SOL applied but not if a 4 year SOL applied.
Defendants also contended that the allegations in the Complaint did not give allege a sufficiently factual basis for a claim to proceed on a theory of racially hostile environment. Judge Rose disagreed (in face, the language she used suggests that she vehemently disagreed).
Thus, Count I survives the Motion to Dismiss and Aaron Mends, Javon Foy and Brandon Simon's claim that they were subjected to a racially hostile environment will move forward.
Count II - Retaliation. This count was alleged only on behalf of Aaron Mends and he claimed that he was retaliated against for complaining about disparate treatment of black players versus white players. The only named defendants were the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents.
Judge Rose concluded that there were not sufficient facts alleged to support a claim for retaliation.
Count II was dismissed.
Count III - Systemic Pattern and Practice of Discrimination. This count was alleged only on behalf of Mends, Foy and Simon. The only named defendants were the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents.
Judge Rose concluded that there were not sufficient facts alleged to support a claim for Systemic Pattern and Practice of Discrimination.
Count III was dismissed.
Count IV - Deprivations of Rights under Section 1981. This count included not only claims by Mends, Foy and Simon but also Akrum Wadley, Jonathan Parker, Marcel Joly and Darian Cooper. Defendants named were Gary Barta, Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle. In their last pleading before the Court entered this Order, Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss Gary Barta. Thus, the question before the Court was whether Count IV stated a cause of action against Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle.
Same SOL analysis employed by the Court for this count.
Judge Rose found that there were sufficient facts pled to allow a cause of action to go forward for Mends, Foy, Simon, Wadley, Parker, Joly and Cooper against ONLY Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle. Judge Rose found insufficient allegations of fact to allow Count IV to stand against Kirk Ferentz.
Count IV dismissed as to Kirk Ferentz. Count IV survives for Mends, Foy, Simon, Wadley, Parker, Joly and Cooper against Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle.
Count V - Conspiracy to Deprive Persons of Equal Protection. This count was alleged on behalf of all named players against Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz, Chris Doyle, Raymond Braithwaite and Gary Barta.
In its last filing before the Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss this Count.
Thus, Count V was dismissed.
Count VI - Conspiracy to Deprive Persons of Equal Protection under Section 1985. This count was alleged on behalf of all named players against Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle only.
In its last filing before the Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss this Count.
Thus, Count VI was dismissed.
Count VII - Civil Rights Violation Failure to Train and Supervise. This count was alleged on behalf of all named players against Kirk Ferentz and Gary Barta.
Judge Rose found that there was not a sufficient factual basis alleged to support the claim for a civil rights violation based upon a failure to train and supervise Brian Ferentz and/or Chris Doyle.
Thus, Count VII was dismissed.
Count VIII - Breach of Contract. This claim was brought on behalf of all of the players against the University of Iowa, the Board of Regents, Kirk Ferentz, Brian Ferentz, Gary Barta and Chris Doyle.
Judge Rose found that the factual allegations did not support a claim for the existence of any enforceable contract.
Thus, Count VIII was dismissed.
End result? The case will now go forward on:
Count I: Foy, Mends and Simon against the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents on a Racially Hostile Environment theory.
Count IV: Foy, Mends, Simon, Wadley, Parker, Cooper and Joly against Brian Ferentz and Chris Doyle on a Section 1981 Deprivation of Rights theory.
Maurice Fleming, Reggie Spearman, Kevonte Martin-Manley, Laron Taylor, Andre Harris and Terrance Harris no longer have existing claims.
Kirk Ferentz, Gary Barta and Raymond Braithwaite are no longer defendants.
The May 11th Scheduling Conference remains in place and I'd anticipate that the Court will enter a scheduling order and will set the case for trial (likely sometime in mid to late 2022).
Given that both Count I and Count IV are advancing based, in part, on the Court's ruling that those claims are governed by a four year and not a two year SOL, I suppose that it is possible for the remaining defendants to seek an interlocutory appeal to the 8th Circuit. I've done some appellate work but don't consider myself to be an appellate "guru." Thus, I'd have to do some digging as to whether that may be a viable option.
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
This was a great contribution! Thank you.
