I think most have this wrong, Buzz got off easy and he knows it

[MUBurrow]

Occam vs. MUSCOOP: Round 10000000000

[MerrittsMustache]

No, because he has proven to be successful.

John Calipari has been far more successful than Buzz. Do you trust him? What about Jerry Tarkanian? Or Bruce Pearl? Or Tim Floyd?

[ATWizJr]

John Calipari has been far more successful than Buzz. Do you trust him? What about Jerry Tarkanian? Or Bruce Pearl? Or Tim Floyd?

You  are going to lump Buzz in with Calipari et al?  Really?  Have we had wins or titles vacated?  Buzz's  our guy.  The others are not.  Big difference.  Yeah, I trust our guy.

[Pakuni]

You  are going to lump Buzz in with Calipari et al?  Really?  Have we had wins or titles vacated?  Buzz's  our guy.  The others are not.  Big difference.  Yeah, I trust our guy.

Then you should trust him when it comes to Monarch's firing instead of pleading for "the other side," suggesting he was somehow wronged and hoping he sues.

[ATWizJr]

Then you should trust him when it comes to Monarch's firing instead of pleading for "the other side," suggesting he was somehow wronged and hoping he sues.

As stated several times already, I'll wait for the other side to make a case, if it does.

[MerrittsMustache]

You  are going to lump Buzz in with Calipari et al?  Really?  Have we had wins or titles vacated?  Buzz's  our guy.  The others are not.  Big difference.  Yeah, I trust our guy.

You stated that your reason for trusting Buzz was "he has proven to be successful." The coaches I mentioned are/were also successful but they're not "our guy" so you don't trust them. 

LW is the AD at Marquette. Doesn't that also make him "our guy?"

[ATWizJr]

You stated that your reason for trusting Buzz was "he has proven to be successful." The coaches I mentioned are/were also successful but they're not "our guy" so you don't trust them. 

LW is the AD at Marquette. Doesn't that also make him "our guy?"

In the case of competing "our guys" I'm in Buzz's corner.

[ATWizJr]

There may not have been any settlement.  Again, by electing to be fired, Monarch can draw unemployment benefits in a few weeks (months, whatever it is).  If he resigns (i.e. voluntarily quits), he won't get his Obama money.

not sure about this, but I thought someone posted that employees fired for cause may not be eligible for unemployment benefits.

[muarmy81]

not sure about this, but I thought someone posted that employees fired for cause may not be eligible for unemployment benefits.

Correct...termed for cause technically doesn't make you eligible for unemployment benefits.  If you resign you technically aren't qualified either but you can still file for unemployment in either case and see if your previous company will contest your claim.  If they don't you may end up getting beneftis any way...

[GGGG]

I have been involved in a number of cases like this, and I would be highly, highly surprised if there wasn't a negotiated settlement that didn't include a hold harmless and confidentiality agreement.

[ATWizJr]

I have been involved in a number of cases like this, and I would be highly, highly surprised if there wasn't a negotiated settlement that didn't include a hold harmless and confidentiality agreement.

wouldn't it be more likely that all those goodies would have been part of a negotiated resignation than a firing?

[Benny B]

not sure about this, but I thought someone posted that employees fired for cause may not be eligible for unemployment benefits.

Unless the laws have changed significantly over the past 10 years, I believe the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate cause, and it is (was) not exactly an easy threshold.  My company had an employee who was fired for smoking pot on company property while on break back in 2002... the moron filed for unemployment and won, something to do with the hiring manage not going far enough to explain that he was still subject to company policies while on break.

Granted, lying seems like a perfectly good reason to fire someone, but is it just cause for termination in the eyes of he law?

[The Process]

Unless the laws have changed significantly over the past 10 years, I believe the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate cause, and it is (was) not exactly an easy threshold.  My company had an employee who was fired for smoking pot on company property while on break back in 2002... the moron filed for unemployment and won, something to do with the hiring manage not going far enough to explain that he was still subject to company policies while on break.

Granted, lying seems like a perfectly good reason to fire someone, but is it just cause for termination in the eyes of he law?

Demonstrating cause is also harder with at-will employment.  When you're dealing with someone like Monarch, there's very likely a contract in there, which likely specifies things that are fire-able offenses.  The situation with the pothead and this are more apples-to-oranges in comparison.

[real chili 83]

Unemployment is not on Monarch's radar.  There is likely a severance package, with a condition that Monarch does not disparage the university.  My guess is that his attorney would have been shooting for a years worth of income.  In the big picture, it is small potatoes. 

To be denied unemployment, the standard is "gross misconduct".  Depending on who you draw for an unemployment referee, it is usually a difficult standard to meet for employers. 

It is very common for employers to terminate an employee with solid, defensible reasons, and still have to pay unemployment. 

[bobnoxious]

Not sure if he got off easy or not but he was at raw with the kids tonight and seemed to be in good spirits when i talked to him

[Litehouse]

Unemployment is not on Monarch's radar.  There is likely a severance package, with a condition that Monarch does not disparage the university.  My guess is that his attorney would have been shooting for a years worth of income.  In the big picture, it is small potatoes.

Then wouldn't he have resigned instead of been fired? They said he had a choice.  Maybe the resignation would required the settlement, but he didn't like some of the terms and wouldn't sign it, so he opted to get fired.

[GGGG]

wouldn't it be more likely that all those goodies would have been part of a negotiated resignation than a firing?

Not necessarily.  Those are simply words on a press release.  I mean, you aren't going to say "this guy committed violations and we paid him off."

[muarmy81]

Then wouldn't he have resigned instead of been fired? They said he had a choice.  Maybe the resignation would required the settlement, but he didn't like some of the terms and wouldn't sign it, so he opted to get fire.

Yes, typically if you "resign" you are given some consideration and provided with a severance package.

Thinking that most guys in these types of positions get "something" when they are terminated is probably not correct in this day and age.  Take a look at Bobby Petrino.  He was fired for essentially "poor behavior" and since his contract stated that he could be termed for basically making the university look bad he was...and ultimately forfeited about $20 million that was remaining on his contract.  I'm guessing there was some language in Monarch's contract alluding to something along the lines of conduct unbecoming that the University could use, at their discretion, for instances like these.

[bilsu]

We do not know the magnitude or reality or frequency of any purported lie.  And yes, I do work in a relaxed atmosphere, being self employed and the only boss and only employee.  Can't beat it. 

However, if you get caught lying to a customer that customer is likely to fire you (go elsewhere) and may also tell other customers you cannot be trusted. Everytime you lose a customer you have been fired.

[ATWizJr]

However, if you get caught lying to a customer that customer is likely to fire you (go elsewhere) and may also tell other customers you cannot be trusted. Everytime you lose a customer you have been fired.

Yeah, every time you lose a customer you have been fired.  but in a competitive sales business this happens all the time.  It's the nature of the business and does not imply that one has lied to a customer.  Customers come and go. Big overreach.

[bilsu]

Yeah, every time you lose a customer you have been fired.  but in a competitive sales business this happens all the time.  It's the nature of the business and does not imply that one has lied to a customer.  Customers come and go. Big overreach.

You could lose a customer, because the competitor that took him away lied about what they can do for him. That is the competitive nature of recruiting. You need to outdo your competitor. However, my post was more in relation to the fact that the self-employed person sounded like he had no worries, since he had no boss. the fact is, if you are self-emploued, you have plenty of worries.

[Knight Commission]

I hope we get to hear the other side of the story, not just the one that MU has spun to cover their overreaction. 

Please admit that you were wrong. LW did the right thing.