Appeal

[Adam]

It just might also be that there is no winning this because the University is guilty of it. It's kind of funny how idea doesn't seem to dawn on a lot of people here.

Right? Look, I don't see GB as a malicious fellow, but it is painfully obvious that he did not particularly like Meyer. It appeantly effected his ability to manage her properly. It's not hard at all to understand why 8 jurors would believe that the way Meyer was handled was based on discrimination. I have no reason to disbelieve numerous accounts of Meyer's social and professional shortcomings, but the bottom line is Barta did not follow the burden of the law. That makes us guilty. Intention doesn't matter at all.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

Why prolong the agony? God, if someone posts pictures of these two one more time I'm gonna puke. Not that they are ugly or lesbian...it just reminds me of the incompetence of the Athletic Dept and our HR group. In this day and age if you don't understand iron clad documentation and counseling with problem employees, you deserve the consequences. Let it go...pay and let this die a quick death.

 

[Thawki]

Right? Look, I don't see GB as a malicious fellow, but it is painfully obvious that he did not particularly like Meyer. It appeantly effected his ability to manage her properly. It's not hard at all to understand why 8 jurors would believe that the way Meyer was handled was based on discrimination. I have no reason to disbelieve numerous accounts of Meyer's social and professional shortcomings, but the bottom line is Barta did not follow the burden of the law. That makes us guilty. Intention doesn't matter at all.

You and I agree. You said Iowa is guilty, regardless of intent.

 

[homes]

Unless the juror directly lied, then her bias is irrelevant. If she did it MIGHT be grounds for an appeal.

Side note, we are talking about 1 juror out of a unanimous verdict by 8 individuals. While it sucks she was on the panel in the first place, I have a hard time believing she was some force dictating the outcome.

Who knows now? First, it would need to be determined if her participation on this jury was in some way improper. If not, then it's moot, except to the partisans who will never let that go. If so, I don't think it is as easy as saying the vote would have still been enough to find the UI liable. Once there's poison in the well, the entire well is bad, and it's virtually impossible to know after the fact the influence of that juror on deliberations. The UI has the right to appeal, whether they should is a different question.

 

[tksirius]

Right? Look, I don't see GB as a malicious fellow, but it is painfully obvious that he did not particularly like Meyer. It appeantly effected his ability to manage her properly. It's not hard at all to understand why 8 jurors would believe that the way Meyer was handled was based on discrimination. I have no reason to disbelieve numerous accounts of Meyer's social and professional shortcomings, but the bottom line is Barta did not follow the burden of the law. That makes us guilty. Intention doesn't matter at all.

What evidence showed that Jane was discriminated against based on gender and/or sexual orientation? If she was a white straight male, what evidence in this case would show discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation?

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Unless the juror directly lied, then her bias is irrelevant. If she did it MIGHT be grounds for an appeal.

Side note, we are talking about 1 juror out of a unanimous verdict by 8 individuals. While it sucks she was on the panel in the first place, I have a hard time believing she was some force dictating the outcome.

-------------------
She wasn't just a jury member, she was the foreman. A foreman is agreed upon by all jurors, but often volunteers for the role. There was talk that she openly told friends she was going to get a verdict for Meyer against the U of I. If this is true and if she then volunteered to be foreperson... there could be basis for appeal. That's a lot of "IFs", but if Iowa's counsel could demonstrate it... it's viable.

Hearing the evidence we have, it's hard to imagine Meyer winning this case unless some on the jury were agenda-driven...be it by rival allegiance, feminist "we'll get even with 'em"-ism or some combination of the two. Proving it is the tough part.

 

[Adam]

Who knows now? First, it would need to be determined if her participation on this jury was in some way improper. If not, then it's moot, except to the partisans who will never let that go. If so, I don't think it is as easy as saying the vote would have still been enough to find the UI liable. Once there's poison in the well, the entire well is bad, and it's virtually impossible to know after the fact the influence of that juror on deliberations. The UI has the right to appeal, whether they should is a different question.

You always have the right to an appeal.

 

[Adam]

-------------------

Hearing the evidence we have, it's hard to imagine Meyer winning this case unless some on the jury were agenda-driven...be it by rival allegiance, feminist "we'll get even with 'em"-ism or some combination of the two. Proving it is the tough part.

Sorry, we do not see eye to eye on this at all. What we have is character witnesses. The problem is that witness statements are not concrete enough to be evidence on their own. Meyer on the other hand has numerous annual performance reviews that actually provide concrete evidence that counters our character assertions.

 

[SteveGarvey1]

If you don't have the documentation, it's going to lead to frustration.

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

 

[SpiderRico]

-------------------
She wasn't just a jury member, she was the foreman. A foreman is agreed upon by all jurors, but often volunteers for the role. There was talk that she openly told friends she was going to get a verdict for Meyer against the U of I. If this is true and if she then volunteered to be foreperson... there could be basis for appeal. That's a lot of "IFs", but if Iowa's counsel could demonstrate it... it's viable.

Hearing the evidence we have, it's hard to imagine Meyer winning this case unless some on the jury were agenda-driven...be it by rival allegiance, feminist "we'll get even with 'em"-ism or some combination of the two. Proving it is the tough part.

This is absolutely correct. It's unfortunate, but a majority of people don't want to be on a jury...it's an inconvenience. So if you have a strong personality as foreperson and people just want to get done and out of there, they'll go along.

Of the evidence I've seen, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Meyer was insubordinate and incompetent and Barta had no leadership qualities or basic understanding of how to handle a difficult employee...not to mention how to properly document the relationship.

In addition, the foreperson did an interview with the Gazette where she labeled the coaches testimony as "petty". That right there shows me that she (the foreperson) had no understanding whatsoever of what Jane's role as associate AD was or the tremendous damage that her incompetence could cause. The practice facility is a nearly $60M facility that needed to be funded with 100% outside funds. Her f'ups could have caused the University and the state millions of dollars should the fundraising have come up short. The fence not being properly designed can and will most likely cost the baseball team wins....not to mention it will cost over $1M to fix the problem, if it ever does. The lady foreperson had no clue at all how damaging Meyer's incompetence was in relation to those issues....

 

[SpiderRico]

Sorry, we do not see eye to eye on this at all. What we have is character witnesses. The problem is that witness statements are not concrete enough to be evidence on their own. Meyer on the other hand has numerous annual performance reviews that actually provide concrete evidence that counters our character assertions.

It doesn't matter if she had a thousand different performance reviews that were positive....this is an at-will state and she could be fired for any reason, other than for discriminatory reasons and there was absolutely ZERO evidence...either heresay, or written, or implied, that showed that Gary Barta, the Regents, or the University (all parties in the lawsuit) were discriminatory in their actions towards Meyer.

 

[Adam]

What evidence showed that Jane was discriminated against based on gender and/or sexual orientation? If she was a white straight male, what evidence in this case would show discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation?

Your question is a paradox in itself. Lol I applaud your penchant for twisting perspective to confuse. You should consider a political career. That is a good skill to have.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Sorry, we do not see eye to eye on this at all. What we have is character witnesses. The problem is that witness statements are not concrete enough to be evidence on their own. Meyer on the other hand has numerous annual performance reviews that actually provide concrete evidence that counters our character assertions.

So we can agree that it all comes back to Barta...f***ing up his job. Anybody with a even whiff of management experience knows you document, document, document...when you're having problems with a difficult employee.

He didn't, so the only relevant documents that did exist (her performance reviews) cost the University the case. Had the character witnesses testimony been consistent with documentation...game over for Meyer.

 

[SteveGarvey1]

So we can agree that it all comes back to Barta...f***ing up his job. Anybody with a even whiff of management experience knows you document, document, document...when you're having problems with a difficult employee.

He didn't, so the only relevant documents that did exist (her performance reviews) cost the University the case. Had the character witnesses testimony been consistent with documentation...game over for Meyer.

Fraid so this ^

 

[Adam]

So we can agree that it all comes back to Barta...f***ing up his job. Anybody with a even whiff of management experience knows you document, document, document...when you're having problems with a difficult employee.

He didn't, so the only relevant documents that did exist (her performance reviews) cost the University the case. Had the character witnesses testimony been consistent with documentation...game over for Meyer.

Yes! Exactly my view on all points stated. We win a slam dunk case if 2013's review had stated the unprofessional behavior that resulted from the firing of Meyer's partner. It did not. So here we are. Barta's fault or not he will be the fall guy for this situation.

I have what I feel is credible hearsay to suggest that Barta may have been instructed on how to handle the Meyer situation. So I can't even say definitively that he himself is the blunderer. I can logically conclude though that it will end his career as AD for Iowa.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Yes! Exactly my view on all points stated. We win a slam dunk case if 2013's review had stated the unprofessional behavior that resulted from the firing of Meyer's partner. It did not. So here we are. Barta's fault or not he will be the fall guy for this situation.

I have what I feel is credible hearsay to suggest that Barta may have been instructed on how to handle the Meyer situation. So I can't even say definitively that he himself is the blunderer. I can logically conclude though that it will end his career as AD for Iowa.

Makes sense. I can see where he was likely directed by University counsel, the President's office or someone and didn't have final say in how things went down. If that's the case, he may very well end up the fall guy.

BTW, it's refreshing to have a civil exchange of ideas...rather than the kind that begin "You're an idiot". Thanks, Adam!

EDIT: Not sure sure Barta is going to simply be the fall guy... seems like there are plenty of other problems in his house.

 

[Adam]

Makes sense. I can see where he was likely directed by University counsel, the President's office or someone and didn't have final say in how things went down. If that's the case, he may very well end up the fall guy.

BTW, it's refreshing to have a civil exchange of ideas...rather than the kind that begin "You're an idiot". Thanks, Adam!

Lol you are welcome and back at cha. I am not contemptuous enough to criticize others for their perspective of a situation as inflammatory as this matter. I simply like to state my opinions as intelligently as possible, but I am also open to listening to the thoughts/opinions/perspective of others. I have had my mind changed a time or 2.

 

[Ozhawk]

Unless the juror directly lied, then her bias is irrelevant. If she did it MIGHT be grounds for an appeal.

Side note, we are talking about 1 juror out of a unanimous verdict by 8 individuals. While it sucks she was on the panel in the first place, I have a hard time believing she was some force dictating the outcome.

If was the foreman (foreperson) of the Jury. And I'm not claiming that the person lied, however it has been reported that the jurors selected were not sports fans. If you look at the forepersons facebook page it is quite clear she is a huge sports fan.

 

[David79]

There may definitely be grounds for appeal. I imagine it will be hard for them to win the equal pay one but some of the others they may have a shot. It will depend upon the standard of review for those counts. Whether it is de novo etc. some of the decisions by the judge to let certain evidence in could be de novo. The questions of fact the jury decided are probably fine if they were supported by substantial evidence. The question will be is there substantial evidence that supported the juries decision to find UofI liable for sexual orientation and gender discrimination. That will be difficult one.

 

[Adam]

This is absolutely correct. It's unfortunate, but a majority of people don't want to be on a jury...it's an inconvenience. So if you have a strong personality as foreperson and people just want to get done and out of there, they'll go along.

Of the evidence I've seen, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Meyer was insubordinate and incompetent and Barta had no leadership qualities or basic understanding of how to handle a difficult employee...not to mention how to properly document the relationship.

In addition, the foreperson did an interview with the Gazette where she labeled the coaches testimony as "petty". That right there shows me that she (the foreperson) had no understanding whatsoever of what Jane's role as associate AD was or the tremendous damage that her incompetence could cause. The practice facility is a nearly $60M facility that needed to be funded with 100% outside funds. Her f'ups could have caused the University and the state millions of dollars should the fundraising have come up short. The fence not being properly designed can and will most likely cost the baseball team wins....not to mention it will cost over $1M to fix the problem, if it ever does. The lady foreperson had no clue at all how damaging Meyer's incompetence was in relation to those issues....

I am not an advocate of Jane Meyer. I also think (without facts) that it might be borderline malpractice by Carroll if he somehow was unaware of the forepersons potential fandom of ISU football. It could be as simple as she was the lesser of several evils.

I am sad about the entire situation. I do hold Iowa and Barta responsible for at the least the ineptitude displayed. I wish that Iowa could have smacked these lawsuits down in court and been victorious. That seemed like a long shot pretty early on to me.

My personal summation of this whole deal is that Jane was a poor employee. Especially after the firing of her partner. Barta was a poor manager. Especially relating to employee conflict. I believe this was a case of "what it looks like". Unfortunately for Iowa what it looks like is discrimination. Even though I do personally believe that it was something else all together. That hard truth is we just didn't have any power behind our punch. She had a paper trail and Iowa had tissues for wiping away our tears. The verdict was made and so now the discrimination is fact. Even though it is difficult, accepting something as fact doesn't mean you have to accept it as truth. Facts are often known, but the truth is rarely ever known. I will not argue with what any individual fan believes to be true or untrue, but I do grow weary of the futile effort of trying to deny the facts. Trust me I am in the same boat. What I have accepted as fact does not jive with what I believe the truth is, but I am powerless to change the facts.