His contractual behavioral clause has nothing to do with being innocent/guilty on the criminal charges.Does this give him a legit case for wrongful termination against Texas?
edit: Larry Eustachy agrees.
Last edited:
His contractual behavioral clause has nothing to do with being innocent/guilty on the criminal charges.Does this give him a legit case for wrongful termination against Texas?
He should sue UT for everything they got.
Why did they fire him for a false accusation against him?
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.He should sue UT for everything they got.
Why did they fire him for a false accusation against him?
False accusation? How do we know that?
Holtman has at least next year to rebound, this will be the first time he's missed the tourney in 6 years.Ohio State...
Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to his contractual ‘for cause’ termination.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?
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?
We don't know that either.
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.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?
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.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?
They can be complainants but it’s much more difficult to convince a jury without a cooperative victim.I’m pretty sure the responding officers can act as complainants in DV cases in Texas when the evidence is strong enough. Something seems fishy here.
CLonedude going full Clonedude. I love it.
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.By the laws of this land he is innocent.
My understanding is they fired him for reputational harm essentially. Which is valid.Does this give him a legit case for wrongful termination against Texas?
Are you purposely this big of a moron?He should sue UT for everything they got.
Why did they fire him for a false accusation against him?
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.