Urban Meyer put on paid leave

IvanDiabloHorn said:
This is ridiculous.

Employers are not responsible for employees actions away from work.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where your point is going.

How many of these statements do you agree with...
A) Just because an employee rapes a person, doesn't make the employer guilty
B) If an employer knows an employee raped someone, they are within their rights to do nothing.
C) An employer should NOT have a process in place such that, if an employee knows that another employee raped someone, they know where/how to report.
D) Employers should NOT care if their employees rape people. They should only care about their work performance and work behavior.

Surely not all?
 
A. Correct. An employer is not guilty of individual actions by an employee away from work. An employer should terminate an employee only after being found guilty of a crime that does not involve the workplace. Sometimes, depending on the crime (DWI for one) the employee may not be terminated. A crime committed away from the workplace by an employee has nothing to do with the employer.
B. As stated above, unless found guilty of a criminal act, the employer has no business in the employee’s life. The statement that an “employer knows an employee raped a person” can only happen after the employee as been convicted.
C. Correct. The employer should not be involved in the individual actions of employees away from work. None of the employer’s business, unless the employee is convicted.
D. Wrong. Employers should care if an employee is convicted of rape or major crimes away from the workplace. Once convicted of rape, murder, theft (major crimes) the employee should be terminated. Prior to the conviction, the employee is innocent until proven guilty and should not have his livelihood infringed.

Employees and employers enter into an arrangement of services/labor by the employee in exchange for benefits/compensation by the employer. That should be the extent of the relationship.
What is the next expectation for businesses to be involved in employees lives?
Lawn care? Vehicle registration? Employees children’s grades and attendance records?
Government seems to love to force businesses into unfunded mandates.
Take child support. Why in the hell are businesses forced to collect and remit child support without compensation.Businesses should have no part in enforcing civil matters. The courts dumped their child enforcement on employers.
The crawl of non compensation government mandates and expectations for employers to be somehow responsible for individual employee actions away from work is inane.
 
Drug testing is a work related safety issue. Especially in the trucking industry or businesses that have employees work with machine tools or heavy machinery.
Employers have the expectation that employees in every capacity are not impaired on the job.
 
IvanDiabloHorn said:
Drug testing is a work related safety issue. Especially in the trucking industry or businesses that have employees work with machine tools or heavy machinery.
Employers have the expectation that employees in every capacity are not impaired on the job.
Click to expand...
Lol, an answer for everything. ;)
I propose that an employee accused, arrested for or charged with rape, assault, robbery, murder etc., even though not convicted, are a possible safety hazard to the work place.
 
IvanDiabloHorn said:
Drug testing is a work related safety issue. Especially in the trucking industry or businesses that have employees work with machine tools or heavy machinery.
Employers have the expectation that employees in every capacity are not impaired on the job.
Click to expand...

Employers should not be involved with employees actions away from work. When an employee fails a drug/alcohol test at work, well,,,the employee is impaired at work. Not away from work
 
MD, I have always struggled with the scenario you describe and the resulting termination of an employee. I will tell you why. Some companies make accommodations for low alcohol percentage (<03) and the employee is not terminated. In fact some trucking companies will not allow the employee with the hangover to drive or operate machinery, but will allow the employees to work on the freight dock. But pot is automatic termination. I can only guess one was a legal drug and the other was an illegal drug. In both instances, however, the test failure occurs at work by company policy the employee agreed to on employment.
 
I say that because IMHO, the cover up has been underway for some time.
Click to expand...

"In 2009, when a graduate assistant under Meyer at Florida, Smith was arrested and charged with felony assault following an altercation with his then-pregnant wife. His wife declined to file charges. The two have since divorced."
Click to expand...

1. It cannot be a cover up, because there are literally police reports. If something is in the public record, it is not being covered up! I guess it is possible Urban Meyer was secretly scheming to pressure this woman to stay in an abusive marriage... but damn that seems unlikely. There is nothing to back that up but the claims of Courtney Smith, who has no direct knowledge of such a scheme and is speculating herself (not lying, but speculating). The only other evidence is that she alleges two people close to Meyer pressured her, but the same two people were close (and one was related) to Zach Smith. They were also friends with one another. It is more likely than not they acted independently of Meyer. It is possible they told Meyer after the fact that "they were having marriage problems, but there was no abuse." With her refusing to press charges, there would be no reason for Meyer to suspect anything was wrong or he was being told a lie. Also, how many bosses in America are that involved in an employee's marriage?

2. The bold quote proves my point even more. She was completely in a position to pursue justice with all the help she needed and she decided not to do so. That is her husband's employer's fault? If she is not going to pursue justice when in a position to do so, why the hell should anyone else, much less her husband's boss? Much more less, why the hell should anyone else be punished for rationally responding to her decision not to do so? If the employee claims it was a misunderstanding/overblown and the employee's wife drops the charges, no, there is no reason to fire him or not rehire him.

Why is it that rock stars get away with anything and everything while we (or I) judge all the rest so harshly?
Click to expand...

Famous or not, rich or poor, white or black, etc, etc, justice is supposed to be blind. As stated, I do not even like Urban Meyer or Ohio State, but that does not mean they should not get a fair shake.

I do not like Nick Saban either, but damn, if someone wants to sabotage Alabama football, just accuse the man or any of his employees of anything. Say the janitor that cleans Saban's office likes to molest baby seals. I feel like if even a picture of Saban next to a seal in a zoo exists, the media and america are going to jump on board declaring him guilty of enabling Jethro Ray Ray McAdams, the Alabama baby seal molester.

If only we had gotten our annual hornfans "bob stoops clubs baby seals" thread to the media in 1999...... BIG FAIL THERE HORNFANS! Could have nipped the Stoops problem in the bud right then!

It will be determined in the context of Title IV, and the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...

The court of public opinion for crimes, etc. is historically a butt system. It operates on feelings and baseless opinions that care nothing for factual support. Title IX trying to put college administrators and football coaches in charge of investigating sexual assault is another butt system.

I propose that an employee accused, arrested for or charged with rape, assault, robbery, murder etc., even though not convicted, are a possible safety hazard to the work place.
Click to expand...

When you read "To Kill a Mockingbird", were you rooting against Atticus Finch and Tom Robinson? "Guilty upon accusation" and "justice" outside the legal system were the hallmarks of the Ku Klux Klan. I guess we want that system back if it does not discriminate on race? I surely do not.

@moondog_LFZ, if you were falsely accused of something, would you really want to be immediately fired from work? Would the false accusation make you a safety hazard?
 
Last edited:
Htown77 said:
would you really want to be immediately fired from work? Would the false accusation make you a safety hazard?
Click to expand...

Of course not.
But if I were accused of a violent crime could I understand that my employer might want me out of the office until things are settled?
It might seem unfair but I think I could.
I think it more unfair that my employer tests me for drugs when I just sit at a computer all day.
Shouldn't my 1 thru 32 year sobriety chips be enough for them?
I haven't even been accused of anything.

Again, there are many reasons an abuse victim won't make the correct decisions to protect themselves. I think we should err on the side of their safety and the safety of children involved.
There are very few false accusations when compared to real ones.

Zeke Elliot was suspended basically on he said, she said.
Same goes for Jamis Winston.

And by the way, there are people sitting in prison convicted of crimes they didn't commit.
The letter of the law isn't necessarily the measuring stick.
 
Last edited:
But if I were accused of a violent crime could I understand that my employer might want me out of the office until things are settled?
Click to expand...

I am perfectly okay with suspensions until things are sorted out. Never said I was against that.

There are very few false accusations when compared to real ones.
Click to expand...

Every case must be looked at individually.

And by the way, there are people sitting in prison convicted of crimes they didn't commit
Click to expand...

There will be a lot more if we abandon “innocent until prove guilty.”
 
There are very few false accusations when compared to real ones.
Click to expand...

I should also note, this has been the logic behind not giving african americans a fair shot in the justice system for hundreds of years in this country.
 
Lot's of good stuff Htown. I was re-reading the Title IX language. It is problematic to me (not necessarily that he has some role in investigating his own employee) with this language and it may support your many points:

1) "It is recognized that this sub-section... encompasses findings or determinations of violations during employment of coach..."

So... finding or determinations. I supposed Courtney's texts do not fall in that category.

But there is still some smoke. If I have the timeline square in my mind, the University remained silent for a week after he lied at the recent media days. Then Urban says he reported it to them three years ago (followed policy) and admitted he was lying at media days. Why did the University remain silent for the week? Also, back then did he report a "finding or a determination" or did he just "know" (people do know things without a police report or a conviction) it was true? And was the university hoping the lie would make it all go away or is someone still lying?

I do think the employer/employee relationship is a bit different here than at my job though I am very close to my boss and he knows all about my marital issues (divorced; ex has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Texas to have me declared her husband for life based upon religious grounds. Yes, you read that correctly. The appellate court denied her appeal. My boss is very aware about how it has made me feel and has encouraged me to hang in there). It seems the universities are under enormous pressure from the Feds and because of Penn State and Baylor. They have to go the extra mile.
 
Last edited:
But there is still some smoke. If I have the timeline square in my mind, the University remained silent for a week after he lied at the recent media days. Then Urban says he reported it to them three years ago (followed policy) and admitted he was lying at media days. Why did the University remain silent for so long? Did he report a finding or a determination or did he just know it was true? And was the university hoping the lie would make it all go away or is someone still lying?
Click to expand...

I have to agree that due to his press conference lie, the university now has to investigate. Even if Urban is clean, his bad response has now merited an investigation. I hope the investigation is fair and not biased one way or the other. We will have to await the results and further evidence.

Also, Urban has a duty to fully cooperate with the university and any governmental authorities. If he pulls a Jim Tressel, he has to be fired immediately.
 
One other thing. If the language literally means a finding or a determination is the controlling legal authority (thanks for teaching me that one Mr. Gore!) then why are they scrambling, lying, bumbling, stumbling if there was no finding or determination back in 2015? It tells me that Urban definitely knew what was going on and they/he are struggling not to appear legalistic even though Courtney was at great risk. They don't have their story straight. It's very messy.
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
One other thing. If the language is a finding or a determination is the controlling legal authority (thanks for teaching me that one Mr. Gore!) then why are they scrambling, lying, bumbling, stumbling if there was no finding or determination back in 2015? It tells me that Urban definitely knew what was going on and they/he are struggling not to appear legalistic even though Courtney was at great risk. They don't have their story straight. It's very messy.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
IvanDiabloHorn said:
This is ridiculous.

Employers are not responsible for employees actions away from work. I understand if an employee is charged, indicted and convicted, putting the company in a bad light with the public, then he could be terminated. Until he is found guiltily, he is presumed innocent. There is no reason for employers to be involved in the personal lives of their employees. We have a justice system, if a crime is committed use it.
Criminal Title 9, University, and employee justice systems are a load of baloney.
Individuals are responsible for their actions.
Click to expand...
So UM had no cause to fire smith over a restraining order last month?
 
Here’s the $40,000,000 question:

Given the EXACT same situation at Texas involving our HC, would you want Herman to be retained or terminated?

Texas, more so than OSU, would be acutely concerned about the perception of the program, and thus the University. So here, in my judgment, termination would likely be a foregone conclusion, EVEN IF some exonerating details were uncovered later. That’s because the PR battle has already been lost.

I would not want our program tainted and I do not see how that can be avoided in this case. The OSU program is already tainted, as is Urban Meyer’s reputation. Fair? Perhaps not. But the landscape today is what it is, whether or not we like or agree with it.
 
dukesteer said:
Here’s the $40,000,000 question:

Given the EXACT same situation at Texas involving our HC, would you want Herman to be retained or terminated?

Texas, more so than OSU, would be acutely concerned about the perception of the program, and thus the University. So here, in my judgment, termination would likely be a foregone conclusion, EVEN IF some exonerating details were uncovered later. That’s because the PR battle has already been lost.

I would not want our program tainted and I do not see how that can be avoided in this case. The OSU program is already tainted, as is Urban Meyer’s reputation. Fair? Perhaps not. But the landscape today is what it is, whether or not we like or agree with it.
Click to expand...
It would mean at least 4 more years of UGH for the University but I believe it would be the right thing to do. Unfortunately there is way too much fire and the idea that UM was involved in this rehab (and his wife) since 2009 and didn't know and was turning a blind eye is very bad. Ultimately I think he is done because he has essentially put the target on tOSU when he said it was reported..... C Smith said no one from the University called her Ever! Someone will get it in the neck and the program and university will suffer no matter what.
 
That’s because the PR battle has already been lost.
Click to expand...

You win the PR battle in the long run by not giving in IF you have not done anything wrong. If people have not done anything wrong, they should stand up and fight back.
 
Htown77 said:
You win the PR battle in the long run by not giving in IF you have not done anything wrong. If people have not done anything wrong, they should stand up and fight back.
Click to expand...

That's a tough one in this cynical world. I think many people (me included) are very cynical about the win at any cost mentality in football. The situation at Ohio State is very nuanced. In the end, if it turns out that Meyer reported properly per the contract and then later lied about his knowledge then he should probably retain his job but suffer some sort of consequence. I think he is suffering that as we speak. But the lying (it's not the crime; it's the cover-up) is his real problem. He lied about something that he did properly? That's very curious to me. I think the investigation and administrative leave is not so much punishment but the administration ensuring that Meyer hasn't lied about anything else. We all know the fans up there would take him back without question. Will it hurt recruiting? Maybe. Some parents won't like it. But in this day and age, we are operating with a raw nerve in the #metoo environment and schools don't want to end up being savaged similar to Baylor. This isn't even close to that based upon what I've read; but do we know the entire story? Women aren't being terrorized on campus. It was a coaches wife. Horrible and deserving of full punishment. But that's not Ohio State and that's not Urban Meyer UNLESS for instance they can somehow prove he covered for Smith in the past and only cracked when Smith violated the protective order. But then again he claims he reported it. But did he report it and then go to bat for Smith? We may never know.

If you compare Art Briles to Meyer then it's a no brainer. Meyer keeps his job. The fact that Baylor fans still defend Briles is very telling of the mind-set out there.
 
Last edited:
IvanDiabloHorn said:
A. Correct. An employer is not guilty of individual actions by an employee away from work. An employer should terminate an employee only after being found guilty of a crime that does not involve the workplace. Sometimes, depending on the crime (DWI for one) the employee may not be terminated. A crime committed away from the workplace by an employee has nothing to do with the employer.
B. As stated above, unless found guilty of a criminal act, the employer has no business in the employee’s life. The statement that an “employer knows an employee raped a person” can only happen after the employee as been convicted.
C. Correct. The employer should not be involved in the individual actions of employees away from work. None of the employer’s business, unless the employee is convicted.
D. Wrong. Employers should care if an employee is convicted of rape or major crimes away from the workplace. Once convicted of rape, murder, theft (major crimes) the employee should be terminated. Prior to the conviction, the employee is innocent until proven guilty and should not have his livelihood infringed.

Employees and employers enter into an arrangement of services/labor by the employee in exchange for benefits/compensation by the employer. That should be the extent of the relationship.
What is the next expectation for businesses to be involved in employees lives?
Lawn care? Vehicle registration? Employees children’s grades and attendance records?
Government seems to love to force businesses into unfunded mandates.
Take child support. Why in the hell are businesses forced to collect and remit child support without compensation.Businesses should have no part in enforcing civil matters. The courts dumped their child enforcement on employers.
The crawl of non compensation government mandates and expectations for employers to be somehow responsible for individual employee actions away from work is inane.
Click to expand...

So, because OJ was not convicted, the public evidence should be ignored?. Getting off on technicalities doesn't mean an employer wants to keep an employee.
Ex 1- Hypothetically, you think O.J.'s employer should have stayed clear of the whole Nicole/Ron situation and welcomed the "innocent" man back with open arms, in spite of all of the public evidence?
Ex 2 - What if the aforementioned rape was witnessed by a co-worker/boss, but the employee got off.

The concept of the Duty to Report tends to occur in industries where an employees can hold significant power differentials over other people (Schools that have students. Healthcare with patients). Organizations, over time, have been found to cover up/minimize potential wrong doing because of its effect on the organization regardless of the rightness/wrongness of the situation. So stabdards were established where employees are required to report "potential behaviors" and the org is required to go through a process that prevents it from minimizing or covering up "potential wrong doing."

What I can acknowledge is the argument that, if the potential wrongdoing was with a non-organizational person (employee's spouse in this situation), it should not have the same required process (Duty to Report).
 
So, because OJ was not convicted, the public evidence should be ignored?. Getting off on technicalities doesn't mean an employer wants to keep an employee.
Ex 1- Hypothetically, you think O.J.'s employer should have stayed clear of the whole Nicole/Ron situation and welcomed the "innocent" man back with open arms, in spite of all of the public evidence?
Ex 2 - What if the aforementioned rape was witnessed by a co-worker/boss, but theemployee got off.
Click to expand...

That is a very bad example. OJ was taken to court and evidence was presented and evaluated in a court. Here, due to the alleged victim’s refusal to press charges and put forth her evidence and allegations before the scrutiny of a court, it is much more difficult to determine their veracity and determine if Zach Smith is guilty.

I will repeat myself: if an employee is accused of a crime completely unrelated to work and away from work and the adult accuser, despite being in a postion to file charges, refuses to do so and the accused denies it, there are not any grounds to fire the accused.

Zach Smith has not gotten away with anything on a technicality. His accuser has refused to pursue justice or put her accusations before the scrutiny of a court where Zach Smith would have a chance to defend himself. This is not remotely like OJ. This is not innocent until proven guilty. This is innocent because the accuser refuses to try and prove guilt! Yes, an employer acts appropriately not firing when the accuser refuses not to try and prove guilt. If their accuser refuses to try and prove it, there is zero reason for Ohio State or Urban Meyer to swoop in and administer klan style, accusation alone based punishment.

I am not saying Zach Smith is innocent. I do not know. However, it really is not appropriate to try to treat him as guilty when his accuser refuses to prove his guilt in the appropriate manner. She has refused to put her allegations in a venue where they could be better analyzed by both ohio state and the public and where Zach Smith would be able to fairly defend himself.
 
Last edited:
I’m still 50/50 if he stays or goes, but I’m pretty confident a good lawyer will take Ohio State to the cleaners if they fire him with the evidence that is public now.
 
LonghornCatholic said:
I’m still 50/50 if he stays or goes, but I’m pretty confident a good lawyer will take Ohio State to the cleaners if they fire him with the evidence that is public now.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking he'll stay unless they uncover something we haven't heard yet. But based upon their echo chamber I'd say given the current facts he stays; keep winning and avoid the huge contract fight.
 
Dj82YdmUUAIK3_l.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top