His contractual behavioral clause has nothing to do with being innocent/guilty on the criminal charges.
edit: Larry Eustachy agrees.
Last edited:
Former Texas HC, now assaulter, fired
- Thread starter amishclone
- Start date
edit: Larry Eustachy agrees.
Or she did not want to testify against him. Its about ability to prove accusations. The last thing Beard will want is this to go to any court including civil i would think.
We don’t. We just know he’s innocent. Innocent until proven guilty. So what was he fired for? We don’t know that he did anything wrong at all, correct?
Holtman has at least next year to rebound, this will be the first time he's missed the tourney in 6 years.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to his contractual ‘for cause’ termination.
Texas is an at-will state. As long as UT didn't fire him for an illegal reason... race, religion, age, disability, pregnancy, or as retaliation for him lodging a complaint of some kind or being a whistleblower... they can fire him for any other reason or for no reason at all. At least that's how I understand it.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,174
- 29,485
- 113
That's not how his contract was worded. The initial charge is all that was required to terminate him. He can try to sue, but he will lose. What do you think Texas was doing that whole time between his initial suspension and the termination? The Longhorn legal team made 100% sure they were on solid footing before they pulled the trigger on firing him. And the possibility of the charges being dropped was absolutely one of the scenarios they considered before deciding to can him.
"There's also the issue of sovereign immunity for state institutions in Texas, which is pretty powerful. It was most famously used against Mike Leach by Texas Tech. The opinions issued in that case make it hard to see how Beard would win when Leach didn't".
They can be complainants but it’s much more difficult to convince a jury without a cooperative victim.
And CyCrazy going full hatred of Clonedude.... I love it!
I don't give a s**t about Beard or Texas.... but I'd MUCH rather see UT suffer from this somehow.... so that's the only reason I'm pushing for Beard to be able to sue Texas? I don't know the law at all.
Thus far, Texas has only benefited from firing Beard IMO.... they are playing better without him.
They specifically said they did not fire him for the charges etc or whether he was guilty or innocent, and neither of those matters on the decision to fire him.
It was about image, about optics, and about being involved in something deemed unbecoming to the image of the University.
Larry Eustachy didnt do anything illegal either, But he sure looked bad, and was fired for it.
My understanding is they fired him for reputational harm essentially. Which is valid.
