Appeal

[DMLadyhawk]

I have read with interest the comments posted in this thread. It is obvious that as Iowa fans we are having emotional reactions to the verdicts in this lawsuit against the University. There are well thought out opinions as to the correctness of the verdicts and for the most part very civil . Just wanted to add a couple things.

In order to prevail on appeal, which in this state is an appeal to Iowa's Supreme Court, there must be at least one appealable issue. Example could be that evidence was admitted or excluded in error that could have changed the verdict(s); jury instructions were improper; judge made rulings contrary to the law. The case is not tried over again. They only look at the specific issues you present. Usually appeals are sent down to the Court of Appeals which is a panel of 3. The university might have to post a bond. Lots of things can then happen. An issue can be sent back down to the District Court for correction.

We will know shortly because I think they only have 30 days after the verdict. Hope you find this helpful.

 

[tksirius]

$1.4 million is nothing.

It will cost $1million to move the baseball outfield fences in to where Heller wanted them so that he can recruit some power hitters.

But Meyer screwed it up because she didn't allow Heller to sit at the planning table.

Give her the $1.4m and then deduct $1.0m for her screw up.

But, that's just petty stuff according to Jane, her lawyers, & the jury forewoman.

 

[Adam]

I have read with interest the comments posted in this thread. It is obvious that as Iowa fans we are having emotional reactions to the verdicts in this lawsuit against the University. There are well thought out opinions as to the correctness of the verdicts and for the most part very civil . Just wanted to add a couple things.

In order to prevail on appeal, which in this state is an appeal to Iowa's Supreme Court, there must be at least one appealable issue. Example could be that evidence was admitted or excluded in error that could have changed the verdict(s); jury instructions were improper; judge made rulings contrary to the law. The case is not tried over again. They only look at the specific issues you present. Usually appeals are sent down to the Court of Appeals which is a panel of 3. The university might have to post a bond. Lots of things can then happen. An issue can be sent back down to the District Court for correction.

We will know shortly because I think they only have 30 days after the verdict. Hope you find this helpful.

Thank you for the info. You sound knowledgeable of the topic.

 

[David79]

Why can't anyone point out any evidence that at least points to Jane Meyer being specifically discriminated by the U based on gender and/or sexual orientation? If this evidence was presented during trial, it hasn't been disclosed or has been hidden from the public apparently, because I have yet to see or hear of it.

They specifically said she was being reassigned because of her relationship. The Plaintiff's attorneys used this repeatedly to show that it was because it was a lesbian relationship and it was retaliation because of reporting discrimination. They had communication from Barta and others saying reassign her because of relationship. Now, what they really meant is that because TG had sued, Meyer could not longer work effectively in the department bc of the conflict and bias but it is easy to twist that to gay relationship and retaliation for reporting discrimination because the suit was about discrimination and she had been giving memos to Barta about alleged discrimination.

 

[David79]

I think we could have won the equal pay count on its own. Nothing is truly equal unless 2 people perform the exact same job duties with the exact same production. I think there was substantial enough leeway on that count of the suit. I understand your placed importance on the exact details of her firing. However I still am unwavering in my opinion that documentation of insubordination would have changed the entire dynamic of the trial.

Actually the equal pay count was one that the jury said they didn't need anytime to decide because all thought it was clearly a violation. The problem there came because Meyer had continually asked for a raise and had notes about what others in her position across the big ten made and would bring this up to Barta because she felt she was being paid less. She was given some assignments/projects that weren't part of her job and asked for more money if she was going to take on more. Then Barta hires Taylor and pays him 70,000 more or whatever it was. Now, a court might see it differently but I can see why the jury decided that.

The problem was she was a good employee for the most part. Even when she was reassigned she received exemplary reviews for her handling of flood projects. Now she did mess some things up in her job duties. But the problem is they didn't fire her then. They didn't let her go after she messed up the baseball field, or after the architect drawings etc. So even if it is documented. Which it is documented that Barta told her he she needed to work on the way she communicated with people. But even if everything was documented they didn't fire her then. So her attorney;s say. Why not fire her after the baseball project? Why not fire her after this? or that? Why did they only choose to fire her after they learned of her lesbian relationship and after she reported matters of discrimination? The jury bought into what she said. Even the description of the complaints comes directly from Jane's notes about Barta teller her what it was that she had done wrong in her job.

 

[Adam]

Actually the equal pay count was one that the jury said they didn't need anytime to decide because all thought it was clearly a violation. The problem there came because Meyer had continually asked for a raise and had notes about what others in her position across the big ten made and would bring this up to Barta because she felt she was being paid less. She was given some assignments/projects that weren't part of her job and asked for more money if she was going to take on more. Then Barta hires Taylor and pays him 70,000 more or whatever it was. Now, a court might see it differently but I can see why the jury decided that.

The problem was she was a good employee for the most part. Even when she was reassigned she received exemplary reviews for her handling of flood projects. Now she did mess some things up in her job duties. But the problem is they didn't fire her then. They didn't let her go after she messed up the baseball field, or after the architect drawings etc. So even if it is documented. Which it is documented that Barta told her he she needed to work on the way she communicated with people. But even if everything was documented they didn't fire her then. So her attorney;s say. Why not fire her after the baseball project? Why not fire her after this? or that? Why did they only choose to fire her after they learned of her lesbian relationship and after she reported matters of discrimination? The jury bought into what she said. Even the description of the complaints comes directly from Jane's notes about Barta teller her what it was that she had done wrong in her job.

I'm only saying that the equal pay and discrimination are kind of symbiotic. If you aren't discriminating against someone then the unequal pay would be for a valid reason you see. I don't believe we would have lost the equal pay count had the jury not believed the discrimination was the underlying reason for it.

 

[Hawknigh]

Actually the equal pay count was one that the jury said they didn't need anytime to decide because all thought it was clearly a violation. The problem there came because Meyer had continually asked for a raise and had notes about what others in her position across the big ten made and would bring this up to Barta because she felt she was being paid less. She was given some assignments/projects that weren't part of her job and asked for more money if she was going to take on more. Then Barta hires Taylor and pays him 70,000 more or whatever it was. Now, a court might see it differently but I can see why the jury decided that.

The problem was she was a good employee for the most part. Even when she was reassigned she received exemplary reviews for her handling of flood projects. Now she did mess some things up in her job duties. But the problem is they didn't fire her then. They didn't let her go after she messed up the baseball field, or after the architect drawings etc. So even if it is documented. Which it is documented that Barta told her he she needed to work on the way she communicated with people. But even if everything was documented they didn't fire her then. So her attorney;s say. Why not fire her after the baseball project? Why not fire her after this? or that? Why did they only choose to fire her after they learned of her lesbian relationship and after she reported matters of discrimination? The jury bought into what she said. Even the description of the complaints comes directly from Jane's notes about Barta teller her what it was that she had done wrong in her job.

Where did you learn about Meyer asking for raises? It makes sense, but I don't recall it in any of the media reports. Is there a public record of the court testimony? It is so hard to have a truly substantial conversation when the information has been so filtered by the media.

 

[David79]

Where did you learn about Meyer asking for raises? It makes sense, but I don't recall it in any of the media reports. Is there a public record of the court testimony? It is so hard to have a truly substantial conversation when the information has been so filtered by the media.

It is part of some briefs submitted by the plaintiffs and some exhibits.

 

[David79]

I'm only saying that the equal pay and discrimination are kind of symbiotic. If you aren't discriminating against someone then the unequal pay would be for a valid reason you see. I don't believe we would have lost the equal pay count had the jury not believed the discrimination was the underlying reason for it.

Well, The counts don't rely on each other per say. They could have had things that won them that count but lost them others and vice versa. Barta and the defense didn't come up with any legitimate reason why Taylor was paid more. Now let's say they did provide one. Well that count could have been found in their favor but prior acts could still have resulted in a finding of retaliation and discrimination. It didn't help that after Taylor was hired Meyer asked Barta why he was getting paid that much in that position when she didn't. No reason was given that I can tell. I guess you can see this is another instance where Barta failed to have a back bone. I think some people like Meyer become so difficult to work with that you just stop 'feeding the troll' to use a phrase. From some of the other exhibits you can tell that she is confrontational and combative. She feels everything is a slight and will argue anything. So I think probably Barta and others may have started out trying to talk to her, explain things to her but that didn't work so they just stopped. That was further evidenced by the fact that some coaches just stopped going to her and went around her for things.

I think the Plaintiff's were also smart to bring in an expert about females in the workplace and in athletics and how they are treated differently. So that any claim that Meyer was loud or abrasive could be put off as well, Men are allowed to act like that in the workplace but when women do they are perceived as a 'bitch' or controlling, shrill etc. The fact is, there is a lot of truth in that so whether there is truth in this case or not, it could be implanted in the jurors minds early on that hey, any complaint about Meyer is just a sexist complaint and outdated.

 

[Hawknigh]

It is part of some briefs submitted by the plaintiffs and some exhibits.

Do you have a link to these documents? I haven't been able to find them.