Leavitt files Lawsuit

[usf97]

This took a little longer than I expected to happen.  My prediction is USF will be out 2 to 3 million, and retract some of their language regarding Leavitt's dismissal.  After all, this whole thing--regardless of if it actually happened or not--was a smoke screen to get rid of Leavitt, and it really WAS grossly mishandled by USF.

And you know this how?  My source is probably better than yours and they did not WANT to fire him.  I will PM you if you want to know the position of that person.  But I've learned the hard way not to say too much on this Board.

Also, for those concerned about the money, insurance will cover this.

The hard way huh? What did they do to you.....just take a finger or did they go after your kids?

;D

[commbull]

Also, for those concerned about the money, insurance will cover this.

If that's true, then surely USF would just settle and get on with it. I doubt this, and would love to know authoritatively.

[smazza]

Also, for those concerned about the money, insurance will cover this.

If that's true, then surely USF would just settle and get on with it. I doubt this, and would love to know authoritatively.

this must be some new insurance that covers breach of contract

[Triple B]

Jim, let it go.

If you do, in a few years you'll be remembered as the guy who put USF on the map. No one will care why you were replaced.

If you don't, you'll be remembered as the guy with sour grapes. People will forget all the good you did for the school.

This isn't about sour grapes, it's about the Benjamins and shouldn't change the way people feel about him, one way or the other. Anybody in his position, feeling the way he does, would do the same thing.

[cmhatter]

Jim, let it go.

If you do, in a few years you'll be remembered as the guy who put USF on the map. No one will care why you were replaced.

If you don't, you'll be remembered as the guy with sour grapes. People will forget all the good you did for the school.

This isn't about sour grapes, it's about the Benjamins and shouldn't change the way people feel about him, one or the other. Anybody in his position, feeling the way he does, would do the same thing.

yep... especially if the rumblings about him being broke are true... 90% of people would sue USF even if they knew they were guilty of the action that got them terminated

[USF_Grouper]

This took a little longer than I expected to happen.  My prediction is USF will be out 2 to 3 million, and retract some of their language regarding Leavitt's dismissal.  After all, this whole thing--regardless of if it actually happened or not--was a smoke screen to get rid of Leavitt, and it really WAS grossly mishandled by USF.

I keep hearing USF mismanaged a lot, as if Leavitt supporters saying it enough makes it true.  I don't get what part of it was mismanaged.  USF hired a respected, independent firm to perform the investigation and based on their conclusions firing was clearly warranted.  It would appear, based on actions Leavitt took during the investigaton, firing was likely justified regardless of the actual conclusions.  I am not sure what USF could have done differently.

The assertion that it was a smoke screen to get rid of USF also seems craazy to me.  Despite what many of us fans may think, Football is not the main thing on Judy Genshaft's mind.  I thinks she would gladly cancel football in exchange for 25% increase in research funding and membership in AAU.  She has high aspiratons for herself beyond USF and no way she would risk taining her career over something as petty as replacing a head football coach.  Not to mention at the time he was fired, it wasn't at all clear a "better" candidate was available.  It was well after many other schools had fired and replaced their coaches.

I agree with you on the settlement, but I am not sure USF mismanaged the situaton and I am fairly certain this wasn't a big smoke screen to replace a coach.

[macphisto]

I keep hearing USF mismanaged a lot, as if Leavitt supporters saying it enough makes it true.  I don't get what part of it was mismanaged.  USF hired a respected, independent firm to perform the investigation and based on their conclusions firing was clearly warranted.  It would appear, based on actions Leavitt took during the investigaton, firing was likely justified regardless of the actual conclusions.  I am not sure what USF could have done differently.

The assertion that it was a smoke screen to get rid of USF also seems craazy to me.  Despite what many of us fans may think, Football is not the main thing on Judy Genshaft's mind.  I thinks she would gladly cancel football in exchange for 25% increase in research funding and membership in AAU.  She has high aspiratons for herself beyond USF and no way she would risk taining her career over something as petty as replacing a head football coach.  Not to mention at the time he was fired, it wasn't at all clear a "better" candidate was available.  It was well after many other schools had fired and replaced their coaches.

I agree with you on the settlement, but I am not sure USF mismanaged the situaton and I am fairly certain this wasn't a big smoke screen to replace a coach.

The big thing that USF bungled was the pre-termination meeting that Leavitt's contract called for.  USF did not follow the process that they laid out in their own contract.  Ultimately the argument can be made that it's not about what Leavitt did or did not do.  USF prepared the termination notice without giving Leavitt the chance to respond that his contract stipulated and they did it because they were concerned about losing recruits and probably knew that the coaching convention in Orlando was the best place to start looking.  Those would not be valid reasons to violate the terms of the contract.

I know Florin-Roebig.  They are excellent employment contract attorneys and they will focus on USF not giving Leavitt the due process afforded him by his contract.  Even if USF finds gross misconduct they were supposed to give him notice, allow him time to review the allegations, and respond.  But this likely would have dragged things out for a week or more while word leaks out, USF loses recruits, etc.  USF's attorneys have probably informed the school that something will have to be paid out because of this.

What Leavitt did becomes unimportant.  If USF had followed the procedure that they themselves set up then there would be far less liability on their part.  But they turned their back on their own rules and that's a problem for the administration. 

I personally think we ended up in pretty good shape and I understand why they wanted it done quickly.  I'm not convinced they were interested in keeping Leavitt.  I think pressure was mounting from the boosters and this gave them an out - one that was legitimate.  The problem ultimately lays with McMurphy for sitting on the story for so long - and that may have been intentional.  He may have been trying to put USF into that position - I don't know.  But that put them in a pinch with signing day around the corner. 

I think they ultimately needed to violate their procedures to get Skip Holtz.  I doubt he comes here if we start looking a few weeks later because of the timing.  But USF will have to pay the piper for making the move without due process. 

I seriously doubt insurance will pay for the administration not following procedure.  Insurance will balk, but they'll find a couple of million bucks somewhere.  I think USF will settle down the line as Leavitt's attorneys make it clear that they will show malfeasance on the part of the USF admin.  It likely will be an installment payment. 

[Who'sYourData?]

I keep hearing USF mismanaged a lot, as if Leavitt supporters saying it enough makes it true.  I don't get what part of it was mismanaged.  USF hired a respected, independent firm to perform the investigation and based on their conclusions firing was clearly warranted.  It would appear, based on actions Leavitt took during the investigaton, firing was likely justified regardless of the actual conclusions.  I am not sure what USF could have done differently.

The assertion that it was a smoke screen to get rid of USF also seems craazy to me.  Despite what many of us fans may think, Football is not the main thing on Judy Genshaft's mind.  I thinks she would gladly cancel football in exchange for 25% increase in research funding and membership in AAU.  She has high aspiratons for herself beyond USF and no way she would risk taining her career over something as petty as replacing a head football coach.  Not to mention at the time he was fired, it wasn't at all clear a "better" candidate was available.  It was well after many other schools had fired and replaced their coaches.

I agree with you on the settlement, but I am not sure USF mismanaged the situaton and I am fairly certain this wasn't a big smoke screen to replace a coach.

The big thing that USF bungled was the pre-termination meeting that Leavitt's contract called for.  USF did not follow the process that they laid out in their own contract.  Ultimately the argument can be made that it's not about what Leavitt did or did not do.  USF prepared the termination notice without giving Leavitt the chance to respond that his contract stipulated and they did it because they were concerned about losing recruits and probably knew that the coaching convention in Orlando was the best place to start looking.  Those would not be valid reasons to violate the terms of the contract.

I know Florin-Roebig.  They are excellent employment contract attorneys and they will focus on USF not giving Leavitt the due process afforded him by his contract.  Even if USF finds gross misconduct they were supposed to give him notice, allow him time to review the allegations, and respond.  But this likely would have dragged things out for a week or more while word leaks out, USF loses recruits, etc.  USF's attorneys have probably informed the school that something will have to be paid out because of this.

What Leavitt did becomes unimportant.  If USF had followed the procedure that they themselves set up then there would be far less liability on their part.  But they turned their back on their own rules and that's a problem for the administration. 

I personally think we ended up in pretty good shape and I understand why they wanted it done quickly.  I'm not convinced they were interested in keeping Leavitt.  I think pressure was mounting from the boosters and this gave them an out - one that was legitimate.  The problem ultimately lays with McMurphy for sitting on the story for so long - and that may have been intentional.  He may have been trying to put USF into that position - I don't know.  But that put them in a pinch with signing day around the corner. 

I think they ultimately needed to violate their procedures to get Skip Holtz.  I doubt he comes here if we start looking a few weeks later because of the timing.  But USF will have to pay the piper for making the move without due process. 

I seriously doubt insurance will pay for the administration not following procedure.  Insurance will balk, but they'll find a couple of million bucks somewhere.  I think USF will settle down the line as Leavitt's attorneys make it clear that they will show malfeasance on the part of the USF admin.  It likely will be an installment payment.   

I don't get this at all.  Civil court is about damages, that's it.  What difference does it make if they gave Leavitt a pre-termination hearing?  Would he have been able to present any information pre-termination that he could not present post-termination?  Of course not.  So the end result is that Leavitt would have been employed for one extra week.  Congrats, his total damages would be about $15,000 for not following process.

If anything, waiting as long as they did and then firing him immediately supports USF's case.  If they planned on firing him, they would have done so sooner.  It was obviously the trashing of Erskin's locker that caused Leavitt to be considered an "immediate threat" and fired immediately without said hearing.

[cmhatter]

This took a little longer than I expected to happen.  My prediction is USF will be out 2 to 3 million, and retract some of their language regarding Leavitt's dismissal.  After all, this whole thing--regardless of if it actually happened or not--was a smoke screen to get rid of Leavitt, and it really WAS grossly mishandled by USF.

I keep hearing USF mismanaged a lot, as if Leavitt supporters saying it enough makes it true.  I don't get what part of it was mismanaged.  USF hired a respected, independent firm to perform the investigation and based on their conclusions firing was clearly warranted.  It would appear, based on actions Leavitt took during the investigaton, firing was likely justified regardless of the actual conclusions.  I am not sure what USF could have done differently.

The assertion that it was a smoke screen to get rid of USF also seems craazy to me.  Despite what many of us fans may think, Football is not the main thing on Judy Genshaft's mind.  I thinks she would gladly cancel football in exchange for 25% increase in research funding and membership in AAU.  She has high aspiratons for herself beyond USF and no way she would risk taining her career over something as petty as replacing a head football coach.  Not to mention at the time he was fired, it wasn't at all clear a "better" candidate was available.  It was well after many other schools had fired and replaced their coaches.

I agree with you on the settlement, but I am not sure USF mismanaged the situaton and I am fairly certain this wasn't a big smoke screen to replace a coach.

only thing that was mishandled was the pre-termination meeting... thats about it

[LunchTimeBully]

USF did what I would've expected to someone who hit a student-athlete. You shouldn't have to wait 10 days to fire them.