The witness list is a who's who at Iowa.
http://daily-iowan.com/2017/04/17/metro-brief-meyer-lawsuit-goes-to-trial/
http://daily-iowan.com/2017/04/17/metro-brief-meyer-lawsuit-goes-to-trial/
It reads to me like Meyer was potentially giving the women's field hockey team special treatment because she was dating the head coach. So I'm not really sure how she can claim unfair treatment when she was doing it herself. I'm not sure how the U of I didn't deem it a conflict of interest in the first place. Thats on them.
I'm actually surprised this hasn't been settled out of court. Iowa could easily write a check to Meyer for a couple million and she could simply retire, and Iowa would avoid the public embarrassment of all the dirty laundry being aired in public.
To me this all goes down to Barta being a poor decision maker. Even if it was justified firing the coach for being abusive, how does he not think that is going to cause problems with Meyer who is the highest ranking female in his dept? Did he really not envision that a lawsuit would be coming his way? So now he has wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorney fees, will have to sit through the bad publicity of a trial accusing Iowa of gender-discrimination, etc., when he could have just written a check from day one to make this all go away.
I again just think Barta is lucky that someone (boosters, Ferentz, Iowa Regents) are protecting him because he seems to make a lot of bad decisions.
Meyers has a long history of having problems within the Athletic department. She was living with and a partner of a coach who reported to her. She then told the coach of complaints from athletes, which the coach turned around and punished for their complaints. This is not the first time Meyers has done things easily out of policy. Meyers attorney's have pushed for a settlement and UI refuse to even negotiate at this point.
I'm glad the University is taking this stand. I'll be really surprised if they didn't dot the i's and cross the t's on this one. They should have seen it coming from a mile away.
That's what gets me. You'd sure as heck think so as it was all going down have had that foresight. These people that are in these chairs can't be stupid/naïve enough to think if you tip over this domino that the next wouldn't fall... There is no way that getting her gig back is on the list of demands... How flipping awkward would that be? Going back to work where everyone your reporting to you sued...Yeah nobody on either side would be crazy about that.
As far as the field hockey coach getting fired is good coaches get fired all the time... Nebraska fired Pelini for winning 9 games every year... I'm sure there are better examples than that out there that was just off the top of my head. Schools so long as they pay whatever buyouts are agreed to on your contract can let you go pretty much for any made up reason they want.
Talk about making bad decisions, this post is a good example. Forming an opinion with out knowing the facts and letting your bias rule in favor of the facts.I'm actually surprised this hasn't been settled out of court. Iowa could easily write a check to Meyer for a couple million and she could simply retire, and Iowa would avoid the public embarrassment of all the dirty laundry being aired in public.
To me this all goes down to Barta being a poor decision maker. Even if it was justified firing the coach for being abusive, how does he not think that is going to cause problems with Meyer who is the highest ranking female in his dept? Did he really not envision that a lawsuit would be coming his way? So now he has wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorney fees, will have to sit through the bad publicity of a trial accusing Iowa of gender-discrimination, etc., when he could have just written a check from day one to make this all go away.
I again just think Barta is lucky that someone (boosters, Ferentz, Iowa Regents) are protecting him because he seems to make a lot of bad decisions.
That's the roundabout way of looking at it I had as well... If you wonder why organizations frown on in office romances here's just another messy example why....It is not about sexual orientation. It is about a supervisor being in a relationship with a direct report, getting complaints of abuse about that report, then running and telling the report of the complaints about abuse.. Then the report takes revenge on the athletes who complained about her abuse. This is not acceptable on any level. Meyers attorney is trying to make it about sexual orientation which it is not.
That's the roundabout way of looking at it I had as well... If you wonder why organizations frown on in office romances here's just another messy example why....
My employer goes beyond that and implicitly bans any workplace romance, regardless of supervisor/subordinate relationships. We're a small/midsize private company with about 400 employees and it's made 100% clear when you start that there's no dating going to happen with your coworkers unless you want to get canned. We've inevitably had people get attracted to others and complain, and in a couple cases (that I know of) threaten to sue. Most either try to sneak it, then get outed and fired, or one party quits.Supervisor and subordinate- Almost every business of any size does not allow that for good reason. The assumption is the U of Iowa was aware of it.