University of Iowa Cuts Ties With Chris Doyle.

[WinOneThisCentury]

Listen...$1.1 million is a lot of money. I thought he might get more based on how long he's been there. When you consider the amounts some head coaches get (think Mike Riley) for complete and utter failure...this is a drop in the bucket.

 

[okeefe4prez]

The 7 day waiver revocation period is true, but it's implied. Doesn't have to be in there, because just by virtue of it not being waive-able it doesn't need to be spelled out. There are lots of contractual things like that.

I disagree with that interpretation.

The statute expressly says:

"(1) An individual may not waive any right or claim under this chapter unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary. Except as provided in paragraph (2), a waiver may not be considered knowing and voluntary unless at a minimum--
...
(G) the agreement provides that for a period of at least 7 days following the execution of such agreement, the individual may revoke the agreement, and the agreement shall not become effective or enforceable until the revocation period has expired;"

 

[kameltoez102]

Total horseshit.

He gets to walk away with a suitcase full of cash and never has to answer for a single thing.

Question for lawyers on the board...

Does the agreement as written give Doyle immunity from or insulate him against the big-ass class action lawsuit coming Iowa's way? Or is that even possible?

Can he be made a defendant on his own or does that not hold water because his actions were done in the course of his work for the U? I would think not because if I say crashed a bus because of negligence I could still be sued individually (I think).

Lawyer replies only. I know we've all seen Matlock, but I want to hear it from a horse's mouth

I am also wondering if there is a suit if any statute of limitations have taken affect. I was reading that depending on your individual states laws if a complaint is not filed in 300 days of the event then it is outside the limitations. I am not a lawyer either so I am sure there are other things that they can go after. It will be interesting if there is found to be any complaints previously that got swept under the rug or nothing came of it.

My guess if there is a case it will get settled out of court just for the financial part of it. If it is a long drawn out process which it has a chance to be it is going to get expensive for both sides as well as exposing an dity laundry on both sides as well.

 

[SteveGarvey1]

That's what you call a black and golden parachute.

 

[karras]

a lot of people got banned from Hawk websites after rhabdo ... he and kf were defended ad nauseum ... he shoulda been fired 10 years ago instead of given a made-up award

 

[okeefe4prez]

Total horseshit.

He gets to walk away with a suitcase full of cash and never has to answer for a single thing.

Question for lawyers on the board...

Does the agreement as written give Doyle immunity from or insulate him against the big-ass class action lawsuit coming Iowa's way? Or is that even possible?

Can he be made a defendant on his own or does that not hold water because his actions were done in the course of his work for the U? I would think not because if I say crashed a bus because of negligence I could still be sued individually (I think).

Lawyer replies only. I know we've all seen Matlock, but I want to hear it from a horse's mouth

The agreement does not have a release in favor of Doyle, it is only Doyle releasing the University. I've worked on a bunch of these involving C-level execs and a potential problem with the release from Doyle's perspective is that it releases a bunch of stuff like "obligations, promises and agreements" and doesn't have a carveout for contractual or common law claims for indemnity, contribution, insurance and the like. Now, whenever I have done one of these representing the guy who is leaving, I make damned sure that the release expressly does not release the employer from indemnity obligations, contribution obligations and coverage under D&O insurance policies. Once you have terminated things like obligations, promises and agreements, if you get sued personally, there is a damned good argument that the employer ain't on the hook if you get personally sued. Maybe Iowa law has a case or statute that already covers this issue, but I'd be scared shitless if my client was out there without a firm and express contractual right to indemnity or to participate in insurance coverage, but maybe the University of Iowa doesn't have that anyway, in which case he's no worse off with that broad release.

Doyle might not have a lot of exposure, though. There are statutes of limitations and a lot of the complainants are going to be outside that window. The folks who are in it are going to have a helluva time proving damages to an Iowa jury. But just defense costs could be pretty damned high if he gets personally sued.

If he's smart, he will move to Florida ASAP and buy a really pricey home. Maybe put a bunch of cash into annuities and whole life policies. Add in some trusts. Take the OJ path to asset preservation.

 

[Robowe]

 

[Fryowa]

I disagree with that interpretation.

The statute expressly says:

"(1) An individual may not waive any right or claim under this chapter unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary. Except as provided in paragraph (2), a waiver may not be considered knowing and voluntary unless at a minimum--
...
(G) the agreement provides that for a period of at least 7 days following the execution of such agreement, the individual may revoke the agreement, and the agreement shall not become effective or enforceable until the revocation period has expired;"

That omission does not render an agreement invalid. If anything (and that's shaky because the document is primarily a separation agreement, not primarily a waiver of rights), it would invalidate only the portion pertaining to waiving ADEA claims. The law has long provided that errors in omission do not render entire agreements or contracts invalid.

There was a case I had to read in college where some whack job found a legitimate omission in Microsoft's EULA for Windows--that he said invalidated the entire EULA--and therefore he (the claimant) said he was legally allowed to copy and sell pirated copies of windows. There are tons of other cases out there.

If you're suggesting that CD would use the omission as a loophole to sue, he'd have to prove that not being told by the U that he had 7 days to renege on the waiver was more harmful to him than the severance package he got. Good luck.

 

[okeefe4prez]

That omission does not render an agreement invalid. If anything (and that's shaky because the document is primarily a separation agreement, not primarily a waiver of rights), it would invalidate only the portion pertaining to waiving ADEA claims. The law has long provided that errors in omission do not render entire agreements or contracts invalid.

There was a case I had to read in college where some whack job found a legitimate omission in Microsoft's EULA for Windows--that he said invalidated the entire EULA--and therefore he (the claimant) said he was legally allowed to copy and sell pirated copies of windows. There are tons of other cases out there.

If you're suggesting that CD would use the omission as a loophole to sue, he'd have to prove that not being told by the U that he had 7 days to renege on the waiver was more harmful to him than the severance package he got. Good luck.

That's why I specifically said it isn't "fully valid." Look, I'm just saying that these stewards of the public funds need to be a lot more careful. This isn't splitting atoms.

 

[revkev73]

Ok, the wolves have been thrown a bone. Will the "Doyle Bone" satisfy their hunger or will it only increase the size of the surrounding pack and their hunger for instant $$$?

Or the accusers could be completely innocent victims. But that is as unlikely as a completely innocent Doyle, Brian and Kirk.

Or so it seems...

 

[tweeterhawk]

Where are other former players?

 

[Robowe]

 

[BigD]

Total horseshit.

He gets to walk away with a suitcase full of cash and never has to answer for a single thing.

Question for lawyers on the board...

Does the agreement as written give Doyle immunity from or insulate him against the big-ass class action lawsuit coming Iowa's way? Or is that even possible?

Can he be made a defendant on his own or does that not hold water because his actions were done in the course of his work for the U? I would think not because if I say crashed a bus because of negligence I could still be sued individually (I think).

Lawyer replies only. I know we've all seen Matlock, but I want to hear it from a horse's mouth

Don’t you mean a horse’s ass?

 

[jparmley3]

Its a Dem.
Facts are not needed to push narratives, man.

 

[Robowe]

Its a Dem.
Facts are not needed to push narratives, man.

Here was her response ...

 

[Hawkfnntn]

The irony of a local politician not knowing where and how the money flows...

 

[okeefe4prez]

Here was her response ...

I personally like the "You didn't build that" argument. Remember, without our tireless Heroes in Washington DC and Des Moines, you people would all be nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Motigerhawk]

What a joke. Doyle is the scape goat and gets a sweet heart deal. Yet dozens of players careers were damaged.

This is the same shit with a different name. If this is the only head that rolls, Iowa is what they are, a racist institution with nothing but their appearance that matters.

I am disgusted by this buy out. And doubt anything else will happen. Shoot, our AD survived a sexism suit in the metoo era.

 

[kameltoez102]

What a joke. Doyle is the scale goat and gets a sweet heart deal. Yet dozens of players careers were damaged.

This is the same shit with a different name. If this is the only head that rolls, Iowa is what they are, a racist institution with nothing but their appearance that matters.

I am disgusted by this buy out. And doubt anything else will happen. Shoot, our AD survived a sexism suit in the metoo era.

Don't think he is really the scape goat since he got fired and in all actuality it has probably ended his career. You're naive to think that this wouldn't have happened. There are coaches who have done worse and gotten paid much more in their separation deals. In this line of work and in many others where contracts occur this is what happens. Do I like it, not really but it is the nature of things. Just be glad its over and the Team and University can move on. This may not be over either when all is said and done

 

[kicker22]

I'm so on the fence about this. On one hand, as I've expressed in numerous other threads, Coach Doyle crossed a line whether considered racist or just totally inappropriate, in terms of ethical behavior and I'm not opposed to his departure. With that said, it sounded from the press conference that Doyle was on a year to year contract that ends on 7/1/20, if I'm not mistaken, so a very generous parting gift given to him by the University. Which makes me wonder what skeletons are out there that they don't want brought to the surface.